Clinton Administration Puts Forward a New Space Launch Policy

America’s space launch fleet is aging, and the nation needs a policy to ensure the future of space transportation. At a September 20 hearing of the House space subcommittee, Presidential Science Advisor Jack Gibbons testified on the Clinton Administration’s plans for future launch systems. The policy, due out in final form in early November, was roundly praised by Democrats and Republicans alike for its measured approach in difficult budgetary times, its delineation of responsibilities among the principle agencies, and its intent to involve the commercial space sector.

According to Gibbons, a national space transportation capability is critical to many of the Administration’s science and technology goals. The policy separates the issue into two parts, with NASA and DOD each assigned a lead role for one part. DOD would be designated the lead agency for the modernization and evolution of the current expendable launch vehicle (ELV) fleet. NASA would develop and demonstrate the technology for a next generation of reusable launch systems. Gibbons said the plan faces fiscal realities by setting milestones for the next-generation effort, and decisions to continue forward will be made only as costs and risks are assessed. In recognition that a new space transportation system must be responsive to commercial users, the Departments of Commerce and Transportation would be tasked with stimulating private-sector interest and encouraging government-industry partnerships.

Subcommittee chair Ralph Hall (D-Texas) commended “the wisdom reflected within key elements of the policy,” but he questioned whether the Administration was truly committed to implementing it, or simply laying out how responsibilities would be divided if the policy was pursued. Ranking Minority Member James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) called it “more process than policy.”

Dick Zimmer (R-New Jersey) queried whether the Administration was working on an overall space policy that would prioritize plans such as future Moon and Mars missions. Gibbons said that the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which incorporates the National Space Council, was developing strategic planning drafts for major science and technology issues. But he warned Zimmer that fiscal constraints made Moon and Mars missions “pretty far down on the list of priorities.” NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin added that “the most important thing NASA can do is figure out how to get reliable, low-cost systems.” He said this was NASA’s highest priority new start, but that a commitment to build it would not be made until the end of the decade. Tim Roemer (D-Indiana) questioned how such a high priority new start could fit into the expected flat NASA budget profile. “Given a level budget,” Goldin stated, “there is only one way: prioritize.... If we have to eliminate, cancel tasks, we’re going to, because this is crucial.”

Harold Volkmer (D-Missouri) pointed out that until a new reusable vehicle was developed, the nation would have to continue using the shuttle. While an investment program currently exists to upgrade the shuttle, Goldin agreed that by the year 2000, “if we don’t invest in a new vehicle, we’re going to have to put more money into shuttle upgrades to carry us into the next century.”