Frist Holds Space Station Oversight Hearing
As the two Russians and one American aboard the MIR space station struggle with repairs to the damaged craft (see FYI #81 ), here on Earth NASA continues to struggle with concerns over cost and schedule for construction of the International Space Station (ISS.)
On June 18, the Senate Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee, chaired by Bill Frist (R-TN), heard testimony concerning Russia’s ability to fulfill it commitments to the ISS, overruns by the U.S.'s prime contractor, and NASA’s handling of program costs and reserves. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin said he expected the Russians to meet the most recent delivery date for their service module. However, he noted that NASA is also committing funds to a contingency plan, should the Russian module encounter further delays. So far, NASA has provided $200 million to the Naval Research Lab (NRL) to explore development of an interim control module. Goldin admitted that the schedule for first element launch has slipped from November 1997 to June 1998, increasing program costs. He outlined the key decision milestones NASA has put in place to gauge Russia’s progress before expending further U.S. funds on contingencies.
Frist questioned whether such dependence on the Russians was in violation of FY 1994 appropriations report language stating that Russia would play an enhancing, but not enabling, role. Goldin reiterated his frequent claim that inclusion of the Russians as partners provided substantial gains to the program, both in hardware and in experience, and said the U.S. would have to add back a significant amount of money if the Russians withdrew. Goldin estimated that of the $2 billion NASA originally calculated it would save due to Russian participation, there was still a net gain of about $1.5 billion.
Asked whether space station funding was hurting other agency programs, such as space science, Goldin declared that “NASA hasn’t had a stronger space science program than today in a decade or two!” Frist commented that “the science community seems to be split on the space station.” Goldin cited unique microgravity research to be performed on the station, and former ISS Senior Scientist Lawrence DeLucas stated that he believed “in a year on the station, the science done will exceed that done on the shuttle, Skylab, and in the whole history of NASA.”
Frist then inquired about reported cost overruns by NASA’s ISS prime contractor, Boeing. Goldin confirmed that in recent months costs have been running 20 percent higher than expected - resulting in an overrun at present of almost $300 million - but said Boeing was addressing the problem. He added that program reserves were “very tight;" of $3 billion in reserves, the space agency had $2.1 billion left.
Thomas Schulz of GAO testified (based on findings that will be published later this summer) that risks to the station’s cost and schedule “have in fact increased” since the previous GAO report last year. He suggested that if costs continue to grow, Congress should review the program. Both Schulz and Marcia Smith of the Congressional Research Service noted that NASA has borrowed money from other accounts in order to appear to stay within self-imposed caps of $2.1 billion per year and $17.4 billion for total assembly costs. In particular, they reported that NASA has shifted hundreds of millions of dollars to space station construction from an account intended for science experiments on the station, with the intent to repay some of that amount in future years.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), chairman of the full Commerce Committee, asked Goldin point-blank whether he disagreed with any of the GAO testimony. Goldin said no. McCain suggested putting cost caps into bill language, so they would have the force of law. Although Goldin reluctantly agreed that NASA would cooperate, Schulz questioned the value of such caps as a cost-control mechanism if the space agency was able to reprogram funds from other accounts. Smith agreed that discussion of caps diverts attention from the real question: “If we’re going to go ahead and build it, what’s the purpose of putting caps on?” She added that if Congress continued to support the station, “it may be more productive to focus on how to fund additional cost growth rather than whether NASA stays within the previous caps.”
Frist ended the hearing by remarking that he and all the witnesses had the same goal -- building the ISS as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible while preserving the science. He indicated that he plans to draft a reauthorization bill for NASA, but it may come too late to provide guidance for appropriators. The House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, which includes NASA in its jurisdiction, has already marked up its funding bill (see FYI #80 ), and its Senate counterpart intends to follow suit on July 15.
