House Science Committee on Space Station: Unhappy But No Cancellation

On June 24, the House Science Committee held another hearing on the International Space Station. This hearing, like others before it, found committee members unhappy about the current situation, yet determined to continue ahead. While still concerned about Russia’s shortfall, attention is moving to how the federal government will finance a predicted deficit.

The backdrop for this hearing was the recently completed Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force report. Jay Chabrow, task force chair, opened by saying, “There may be differences of opinion relative to specific amounts for individual risks and the annual funding profile but overall, NASA’s response appears, for the most part, to accept the Task Force’s findings.” Among these findings were that the schedule should be extended at least two additional years, with additional annual funding of $130-$250 million over the next five years. Chabrow concluded his testimony stating, “even though they [NASA] accept our findings, they are still not getting the required funding, but once again, are being asked to look inside, causing them to be overly optimistic on their forecasts and depleting already threatened reserves.”

Committee chair James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) highlighted this concern in his opening statement: “The President would not approve extra resources to make up for Russia’s problems and did not propose a restructuring of the program. Instead, OMB proposed taking more money out of the Shuttle program and the science accounts within Human Spaceflight. Those wells have been drained dangerously low already.” Added Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA): “We cannot afford to drift through another budgetary cycle without coming to grips with the realities of the Space Station program’s situation.”

Brown was referring to what NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin proposes: that NASA use the rest of this year to assess its options, and reflect any schedule or cost changes in the FY 2000 budget. That will be sent to Congress next February.

Goldin was, as his custom, frank in his remarks to the committee. He does not want to budge from the schedule now for fear that it will open the door to additional changes, although he admits in both his prepared testimony and a June 15 letter to the committee that “countermeasures may be required by the United States to reduce the impact of further Russian funding shortfalls.”

There was probably no one in the committee room last week who feels the space station will be built on the original schedule at the projected cost. While one or two members still call for the station’s cancellation, that does not seem to be an option that the committee, NASA, or the rest of the Clinton Administration favors. Any optimism about Russia has vanished, Goldin saying “I no longer make speculations on what the Russians will do... we will watch what they do, and not what they say.” Instead of asking if the U.S. should continue the station’s construction, the questions now center on how to pay for it. Look for criticism of station management to continue, but station construction will proceed as well. Goldin said it best: “This is a tough program, it is ugly, it is difficult.”