Space Station Concerns Raised at NASA Science Hearing

A February 25 hearing examining NASA’s science programs was permeated by an undercurrent of concern about cost overruns to the International Space Station (ISS) program. In the past two years, NASA has transferred almost a half-billion dollars to station development from accounts for life and microgravity science to be performed on the space station, as well as shifting funds from other areas. Now, the Administration is asking for authority to transfer $173 million to the station from other NASA programs through a supplemental FY 1998 appropriation.

Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), chair of the House Science Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, announced that the hearing was intended to review the status, accomplishments, and requests for NASA’s space, Earth, life, and microgravity science programs. He hoped, he said, that scientists would better understand the El Nino weather phenomenon “before my congressional district washes away.”

Testimony on space science was presented by Associate Administrator for Space Science Wes Huntress, who, after serving in that position for over five years, plans to leave NASA soon. Reflecting on the bleak outlook for space science projected in the FY 1995 budget request, Huntress reported with pride that the agency “turned around a dismal situation” to achieve tremendous accomplishments in recent years. Past-year successes include data from the Mars Pathfinder, Mars Surveyor, Galileo, the Hubble Space Telescope, SOHO, and other spacecraft. The current year will see more launches, including the next Mars mission, five Explorer missions, and the first of the New Millennium series. Huntress also briefly discussed the Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan, released in November, which is organized around three themes: Origins, Evolution, and Destiny. (The report is available on the Internet at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oss/strategy/1997/ ) He commented that his office is still working to realign its technology development programs with the strategic plan, and while he thought the FY 1999 request of $2.1 billion is “adequate,” he admitted “we are probably not spending as much as we ought to be” in long-term advanced technologies.

“The EOS era begins later this year,” declared Ghassam Asrar, the new Associate Administrator for Earth Science (formerly known as Mission to Planet Earth.) Asrar said that while 1998 will see the launches of EOS satellites AM-1 and Landsat-7, future EOS missions are still undergoing redefinition to “fully embrace” NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin’s philosophy of “faster, better, cheaper.” Funding for Earth science in the FY 1999 request would stay relatively flat at $1.4 billion (an increase of 0.3 percent over FY 1998.) Asrar said his office plans to “exhaust all possibilities of getting data through commercial [means] and partnerships before developing unique instruments.” As Rohrabacher has urged repeatedly, the Earth science office plans to broaden its use of commercial spacecraft, support the commercial remote sensing industry, partner with private industry, and, Asrar said, “make [commercial] data-buying our normal way of doing business.” Rohrabacher praised the office for making progress in “remembering the goal is collecting data, not building satellites,” but he scolded it for accruing $697 million in uncosted carryovers (unspent funds from past years.) Asrar said various delays in evaluating proposals and spending the money had led to the reserves, but pledged that NASA is working on the problem.

The FY 1999 request for the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications is $242 million, said Associate Administrator Arnauld Nicogossian. He admitted that funds had been transferred from space station-dedicated research programs within his office to station development, but reported that “the long-term health of ISS utilization has not been affected.” He added that additional shuttle research flights have been scheduled for 1998 and 2000 to ensure the science community has continued access to the shuttle for research until science can be performed on the station.

The new Associate Administrator for Human Space Flight, Joe Rothenberg, said he was just beginning to look at how to guide the space station program from development of infrastructure to a “user-driven enabler” of science and exploration.

While praising the “faster, better, cheaper” philosophy, space station opponent Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN) called the station a “slower, bloated, not-even-mediocre” program that was eating into other NASA programs. He also questioned a continued decline in Mission Operation and Data Analysis (MO&DA) funds. Huntress explained that new technologies have enabled cost reductions to mission operations, while NASA “has been very careful at protecting” Data Analysis.

Texas Democrat Ralph Hall, a long-time station supporter, said he was beginning to agree with Roemer’s criticisms. He called the transfers from the station’s life and microgravity science funding to its development “a sorry situation.” Rothenberg and Nicogossian tried to explain that NASA had determined that the money would be better spent at this time in taking advantage of cost savings on development, instead of putting it toward research that the program was not yet ready for. Rothenberg testified that in the last two years, approximately $462 million has been transferred from life and microgravity science to station development; NASA plans to return at least $350 million to the science program in the years 2001-2002. “We have to complete development of the station and get it on orbit to have any research facilities,” he stated. Hall countered, “Is there going to be anything left” to do research with? When challenged by Roemer about further growth in the cost of the space station, Rothenberg said the program had enough flexibility to absorb a schedule slip of a few months, but he was not prepared for major setbacks.