Two House Science Committee Hearings on NASA Issues

At an October 7 hearing on the International Space Station (ISS), House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) vented his frustration at the Administration’s one-step-at-a-time strategy to deal with the Russian Space Agency’s (RSA) inability to fulfill its commitments. Complaining that NASA had ignored years of congressional warnings to rectify its dependence on Russia, Sensenbrenner criticized a recent NASA proposal to help RSA with its obligations by sending $60 million to Russia (see FYI #145 ). He declared, “we need to take the Russian government out of the critical path now.” However, expert witnesses agreed that the most sensible and cost-effective way to proceed is to help the Russians produce the needed components in the near-term, and begin actions to wean NASA from dependency on Russia for the longer term.

NASA Administrator Dan Goldin described the contingency steps his agency has taken in recent years to reduce its dependence on Russia. He stressed that NASA has done all it could within the resources available to it, and said the proposal to transfer $60 million in NASA funds to the RSA was the “best way” to get the station built in the shortest time and least cost to the taxpayer.

Jay Chabrow, chair of an independent cost assessment task force on the Space Station (see FYI #75 ), reiterated the task force’s finding that Russian non-performance was still the major threat to the project, but he added that “without near-term Russian participation,” the cost to assemble the ISS would grow even larger. He said NASA’s current plan to transfer funds to help Russia fulfill its near-term commitments was “significantly cheaper than doing it without the Russians.” U.S. reliance on Russian components and capabilities “almost dictates continued Russian involvement in the near-term,” until NASA develops those capabilities for itself, Chabrow added.

Judyth Twigg of Virginia Commonwealth University and aerospace consultant James Oberg raised concerns about the Russians’ ability - due to a brain drain and decaying infrastructure - to fulfill their commitments even if they received the needed funding. Chabrow argued, however, that when they had sufficient cash, the Russians performed within cost, and “as well as or better than firms here” in the U.S. Oberg also warned that continued problems in Russia would prevent the project from “getting its ducks in a row” before beginning the assembly flights. He called launching the first element without having these problems resolved “the longest Hail Mary pass in history.”

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) characterized NASA’s situation as “between a rock and a hard place.” He noted that Congress could “pull the plug, or...recognize the need to write a bigger check and go forward,” or delete and defer station capabilities. “How much is too much?” he asked. “When do you say you can’t afford it any longer?”

Goldin defended NASA’s requests over the years to move additional money to the station project, saying NASA had succeeded in cutting $40 billion from its projected 5-year agency budget plan. “We’re now saying we need an additional billion or two to get this program done,” he said. “If we cannot fund it properly,” he declared, “then maybe we ought to cancel it.” Pressed on how much additional money he might need, Goldin estimated $1.2 billion. One-half, he said, would buy specific goods and services from Russia in the near-term, while the other half would enable NASA to develop more independent capability to operate the station in the long term.

Ranking Member George Brown (D-CA) acknowledged that “problems have to be expected when pioneering a large-scale international project,” but admonished NASA to learn from its problems. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) added that “unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that [NASA is] learning.” He criticized the agency for not pursuing alternative arrangements directly with Russian contractors rather than the government. Goldin responded that NASA would have contracted with private entities if possible, but only RSA had the authority to negotiate cosmonaut hours and storage space on the station.

“Would it be more costly to throw the Russians aside and do it ourselves, or less?” asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX). “It would be a big mistake to throw the Russians aside,” Chabrow answered. “All they need is cash flow.” Oberg agreed that, for now, buying goods and services from Russia “may be the best option” even if NASA has to come up with additional funds to pay for it. Goldin reiterated that the U.S. was receiving value from Russia for the transfer of cash, in cosmonaut time performing U.S. research during station assembly, and storage volume on the Russian elements.

Sensenbrenner closed the hearing by stating, “I hope we don’t have to see Goldin back here on this subject.”

A somewhat different tone was set at a space subcommittee hearing a week earlier. The October 1 event was intended to recognize NASA’s accomplishments on its 40th anniversary, and to look toward its future. “This is not a day for reflecting on [NASA’s] shortcomings,” said Gordon. NASA was roundly praised by committee members and witnesses for its past achievements, and in particular for its efforts to keep international space exploration a peaceful pursuit. Eilene Galloway, honorary director of the International Institute for Space Law, gave NASA “an A-plus” for its first 40 years.

Describing his vision for the agency, Goldin said while the last 40 years have been dominated by exploration of the solar system, the next 40 would bring investigation of interstellar space, as well as colonization of the Moon, mining of comets and asteroids, and astronauts on Mars. “One of the most important requirements to enable these visions,” and one of his top priorities, he said, is improved space transportation.

Better, cheaper access to space and space launch capability was a goal cited by many of the witnesses. Most also agreed that many of NASA’s problems in recent years have come about because the agency was intended to do exploration and cutting-edge R&D, but has found itself performing mundane operational tasks. NASA has been given the wrong jobs, “then condemned...when it was unable to do the wrong jobs,” said Rick Tumlinson, president of the Space Frontier Foundation. Pete Conrad, chairman of Universal Space Lines, concurred: “NASA needs to concentrate on [exploration] in the next 40 years, and look hard at getting out of operations.” Both advocated the nurturing of a commercial space industry to take over many of the operational tasks.

When the discussion drifted to the space station and NASA’s plan to transfer money to Russia, Goldin defended the ISS program by saying, “we’re not going to get beyond Earth orbit unless we can put together big things in orbit.”