Space Station Will Not Be “Canned”

Yesterday, President Clinton announced his decision on the fate of the space station, and the winner was: Option A. The President stated, “There is no doubt that we are facing difficult budget decisions. However, we can not retreat from our obligation to invest in our future. . . I believe strongly that NASA and the space station program represent important investments in that future, and that these investments will yield benefits in medical research, aerospace and other critical technologies. As well, the space station is a model of peaceful international cooperation.” Clinton said that over the next 90 days, NASA, Congress, the Administration, and the International Partners would work to refine and optimize the design of the station.

Of the three redesign options presented to the President by NASA, Option A is the middle-of-the-road choice. While still based on the original Freedom design, Option A was more drastically reduced and simplified than Option B, which was basically the original Freedom with a few modifications. Sources indicate that the design Clinton favors will also incorporate some features of Option B. The loser is Option C, also known as the “big can,” a single core module that would have reduced the need for the international modules. The other possibility which Clinton rejected was jokingly known as “Option D-- none of the above,” or cancellation of the station.

Option A is a modular concept that uses a shortened version of the Freedom truss design with solar panels and modules attached. The plans call for combining one node and lab into a common core module, and simplifying the power, thermal and data management systems. It is not clear whether the chosen configuration uses the piece of military hardware known as Bus-1 for propulsion and navigation, or relies on Freedom systems. However, Clinton also wants to add features from Option B: a larger US lab module than originally intended for Option A, and truss joints (called alpha joints) that will allow rotation of the solar panels to ensure a stable power supply. In addition to simplifying the station itself, much of the proposed cost savings and efficiencies come from slimming down NASA’s management structure for the station, and reducing both the civil and contractor workforces by 30 percent.

The Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station, which evaluated the three options for Clinton, assessed Option A as less capable, but also less risky than Option B. The committee’s report states that “Option A is a desirable simplification of both Space Station Freedom and Option B. Option A is considered by the Committee to be the preferred modular buildup approach.” Option A requires 13 assembly flights to achieve Permanent Human Capability (PHC), and 224 hours of extravehicular activity (EVA), compared to Option B’s 20 assembly flights and 311 hours of EVA. Another recommendation by the committee, which has not yet been decided on, is to launch the station to an orbit of 51.6 degrees rather than the intended 28.8 degrees, to provide “access by as many spacefaring nations as possible,” including Russia.

Within a few hours of Clinton’s announcement, the House Appropriations VA/HUD subcommittee (which is responsible for funding NASA) was hearing from presidential science advisor Jack Gibbons, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin, and chairman of the redesign advisory committee, Charles Vest, regarding the president’s decision. According to subcommittee chairman Louis Stokes (D-Ohio), the chosen option is projected to cost $12.8 billion over the five-year period from fiscal year 1994 through 1998, and $16.5 billion from fiscal 1994 through PHC. Gibbons estimated that the redesign would save “between $4 billion and $7 billion during the next five years, when compared to the real cost of funding the current Space Station Freedom program. These savings increase to more than $18 billion over the two-decade life of the program.”

While stating that he supported the President’s proposal, Stokes raised concerns about funding it: The NASA redesign team had estimated the chosen option to cost at least $2.26 billion in the coming fiscal year, while the appropriations bill passed by his subcommittee includes only $1.85 billion for station funding. Stokes argued that the additional funds ought to come from the NASA budget, and said the station “might cause other NASA programs to be curtailed or cancelled.” Goldin responded that “there are things we can do, especially in the area of management,” to save costs in other areas.

Stokes also pointed out that the Office of Management and Budget intends to freeze the request for space station funding at $2.1 billion annually for the next five years. This, he said, would delay the International Human-Tended and PHC phases by at least two years beyond the planned PHC date of late 2000 projected by the redesign team.

According to reports, other influential Members of Congress, including Senate VA/HUD chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) and House science committee chairman George Brown (D-California), have said they will support the new station design. The House plans to vote next week on both the NASA authorization and appropriations bills (the authorization bill approves NASA funding; the appropriations bill provides it). With Members desperately seeking ways to reduce the deficit, the votes are expected to be very close.