Space station cost overruns jeopardize scientific research

Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2001

The International Space Station (ISS) is now expected to be $4 billion over budget by 2006, which would put it substantially over a congressionally mandated $25 billion budget cap imposed in 2000. In an effort to remain below the cap, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is once again making changes in the project, including cutting scientific research.

Since its inception in 1984, the ISS has been plagued by cost overruns. Its initial cost estimate was $8 billion, with construction to be completed within 10 years. The original space station concept envisaged three elements: an occupied base for eight crew and two automated research platforms. By 1989, the estimated cost had risen to $14.5 billion (in 1984 dollars), and development of the automated platforms had been halted.

In 1993, NASA unveiled the current ISS design, estimated at $17.4 billion and slated to be completed in 2002. That year also marked the beginning of Russian involvement in the project. In March 1998, the cost projection was raised to $21.3 billion, and in late 1998, to $22.7 billion. Now, it's being estimated at $28 billion to $30 billion, including the $4 billion overrun.

In recent testimony before the House Science Committee, NASA administrator Dan Goldin said the new overruns were first discovered in November 2000 after the delayed launch of the Russian Zvezda Service Module. "First and foremost, the cost growth is driven by the unprecedented technical and management complexity of the ISS program," Goldin said. He cited the advanced life support systems, Space Module training facility, and software integration as examples. He said delays by Russia in completing its obligations had added to the problems, and he blamed Boeing, NASA's primary contractor, for consistently underrepresenting cost projections, thus making it difficult for NASA to provide Congress with accurate forecasts.

In response to the projected new cost overruns, the Bush administration has proposed a NASA budget designed to achieve the program's top priorities, with the stipulation that no funding be taken from programs outside the Human Space Flight Program. To achieve this, NASA has proposed to end construction of the ISS after completion of the "U.S. Core" and the launch of the European and Japanese lab modules. NASA will then work with Congress to determine whether further U.S. development of the ISS is possible.

In order to complete the U.S. Core, which still lacks a docking node called Node 2, funds will be redirected from a propulsion module, habitation module, an emergency Crew Return Vehicle (CRV), and measures to increase scientific research capability. Halting development of the CRV means that only three people would be able to be on board the station at any given time because of present crew evacuation capacity.

NASA estimates that 2.5 people are required simply to run the station, so only half a person's time would be available for scientific research. As a result, many scientists are concerned that NASA has lost sight of the ISS's primary goal: world-class research in space. In addition, the fate of a Japanese-- built centrifuge system is also uncertain under NASA's redirection plan. According to testimony by the Congressional Research Service's Marcia Smith, "Many in the scientific community consider the centrifuge to be one of the premier pieces of scientific equipment planned for the space station."

In a March 9 letter to NASA space flight chief Joe Rothenberg, Martin Fettman, chairman of NASA's space station biological research project science working group, wrote that if NASA goes ahead with the proposed redirections, "we might as well completely discontinue" science funding for the space station. The letter also warns that the entire life science community would "turn its support away" from the station. John McElroy, chair of the National Research Council's Space Studies Board, echoed Fettman's frustrations: "It's the old fear of putting up a tin can that isn't capable of doing good science."

According to Rothenberg, NASA will continue to "maximize research" aboard the space station. "We honestly believe the science community is our customer," he adds. Rothenberg said cuts would be made only after consulting with researchers.

Members of Congress were also upset by news of the overruns and were concerned about NASA's plans to address them. Reflecting on NASA's consistent history of cost problems, House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) asked Goldin whether "part of the uniform at NASA is a pair of rose-colored glasses." Boehlert said that although Congress has historically supported the station, "This is not a case of unconditional love." Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) said that she was "outraged that we are not going to have enough area to have six people." Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) told Goldin that NASA was going to have to find sources of funding other than the "federal money truck."

In response, Goldin said that NASA "believes that there is considerable potential for instituting creative cost-cutting actions which streamline processes, focus resources, and leverage the strength of our international partners." Although Goldin appeared candid with the committee, he repeatedly asked for the committee's patience regarding many of the specifics of NASA's redirection scheme. According to Goldin, NASA is currently in the midst of a bottom-up review, the results of which will be available sometime during the summer. At that time, Goldin promised to return to explain to the members its findings and NASA's future ISS plans.