Space Station Dominates NASA Appropriations Hearings
Testifying before VA/HUD appropriators in the Senate on March 18 and in the House on March 23, NASA head Dan Goldin called his agency’s FY 2000 budget request “lean,” and its agenda “ambitious but achievable.” Goldin remarked that although the $13.6 billion request is 0.6 percent below FY 1999 funding, budget increases are in sight: “For the first time in many years, the projected outyears budget is higher than the [FY 2000] budget request.” He cited the enormous successes and bold plans of NASA’s Space Science enterprise and pointed out that by 2001, the space science budget is projected to be greater than the Space Station. Calling the request the first budget of the new millennium, Goldin described some of his future plans: establishing a virtual presence across the solar system and an interplanetary internet; designing spacecraft in a virtual environment; reducing the cost of access to space, and eliminating the distinction between air and space transportation.
Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Chair Christopher Bond (R-MO) warned Goldin that the budget caps would make this “another tough year.” While the Senate hearing was brief and to-the-point, the House subcommittee took the better part of a day and ranged over a broad spectrum of topics. In both cases a familiar theme dominated the discussion: the status of the International Space Station (ISS). Except for repairs to the Hubble Space Telescope, space science was barely mentioned.
Goldin confirmed that the cost estimate to complete assembly of the ISS has grown from $17.4 billion to at least $23.4 billion. He estimated that Russian delays and resulting U.S. contingency plans accounted for “a large share,” but not all, of the overrun. Goldin admitted that the U.S. has not achieved the expected $2 billion in savings from bringing the Russians on as partners, but reminded appropriators of Russia’s economic difficulties: its GDP has dropped from one-half that of the U.S. during the Cold War to one-twenty-second now. When asked by Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) if he would do it over again, Goldin was adamant. It was “clearly the right thing to do,” he said; NASA gained invaluable knowledge from Russian experience, as well as getting the use of additional vehicles for access to the station.
Rep. Anne Northup (R-KY) asked whether, “as we pour billions of dollars into Russia’s space program, are we indirectly aiding Russian defense programs?” “We have very limited dollars going to the Russian Space Program,” Goldin corrected her. NASA spent $60 million in FY 1999 to purchase goods and services from Russia and keep much-needed cash flowing to the Russian Space Agency, and is requesting $100 million for the same purpose in FY 2000. No such funding is currently planned for FY 2001; NASA considered a request of $150 million per year for four years, but decided it would be a disincentive to the Russians. “You can assure the taxpayers,” Goldin declared, that “for every dollar spent [in Russia], we’re getting a dollar’s value.” He added that NASA operates under very strict export control rules for transfer of critical technologies.
Goldin said one of the reasons for ISS cost growth was that NASA has not attempted such a major endeavor in over 20 years, and its engineering tools were inadequate. The agency intends to develop an intelligent synthesis environment so that spacecraft design and operation could be simulated in a virtual environment before committing large amounts of money to build hardware. Goldin also stressed the importance of reducing the cost of access to space, but has had to postpone for several years a decision regarding replacement of the shuttle fleet by a Reusable Launch Vehicle, because the technology is not yet sufficiently developed to attract private sector investment. The cost of space launches, he said, is “the biggest single barrier” to eventual commercial utilization and operation of the space station.
Questions were raised at both hearings about a repair mission to the Hubble Space Telescope, utilization of remote sensing data from NASA’s Earth Science program, the Triana mission, and NASA’s compliance with the Year 2000 problem. Goldin was able to report that not only was NASA 93 percent Y2K compliant, but it was working with its subcontractors and international partners to ensure their compliance as well.
Three of the Hubble’s six gyroscopes have now failed, and Goldin explained that an additional failure would destroy the stability the telescope needs to perform science. He said an expedited servicing mission being readied for October is “among our highest priorities.” In answer to a question from Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Goldin affirmed that funding the Hubble repairs would have a negative impact on other NASA programs: “The only way we can fix it is to not do something else.”
Noting that the VA/HUD subcommittees also have jurisdiction over the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Sen. Bond asked whether NASA’s remote sensing data could be used for disaster prediction and mitigation. When Goldin replied that NASA was looking at ways to help FEMA and reduce its costs, Bond said, “look carefully every dollar we have to give them [is one that] doesn’t go to NASA.” In the House, VA/HUD Chairman James Walsh (R-NY) asked whether NASA was exploring making remote sensing data available to state and local governments for land use and planning purposes. While NASA is beginning such a dialogue, Goldin noted, “we need to reach out [to governments] with the same intensity as we do to industry.” In response to questioning by Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), Goldin assured him that NASA’s climate change research was not politicized. “We are strong adherents of the peer review process,” Goldin stated, and support researchers on both sides of the policy debate.
Triana, an Earth Science mission to view the sunlit disk of the Earth, originally proposed by Vice President Gore, drew aggressive challenges to its scientific utility. Goldin responded that it will carry three scientific instruments, and NASA needs experience operating an Earth-facing satellite at that position. “I have great respect for your ability to set priorities intelligently,” Rep. John Sununu (R-NH) told Goldin, but Triana “is at the bottom of the pack.”
House Members Carrie Meek (D-FL) and David Price (D-NC) raised questions about declining funding for NASA’s academic programs, including programs for science, math and engineering education. “Are we doing enough?” Goldin asked. “No. Could we do more? Yes.” He said he was “limited by the capacity of the budget,” but was “personally frustrated” about it.
Despite concerns over the space station and the above-mentioned issues, Members in both chambers praised NASA’s performance and seemed supportive of its budget request. The VA/HUD subcommittees must await budget allocations from the Budget Committees before beginning the process of drafting their appropriations bills.
