The shuttle Columbia disaster is focusing new attention–favorable and unfavorable–on NASA’s $100 billion International Space Station, a stadium-size structure orbiting 240 miles above Earth that is billed as the most ambitious and complex engineering project ever.
NASA’s space shuttle fleet is down to three orbiters now and its missions are on indefinite hold while the agency investigates the disaster, leaving the space station’s main lifeline severed and the three crew members now there dependent on Russian rockets for supplies and a Russian lifeboat system for an emergency escape.
Indeed, a regular task for the shuttle was to give the space station a boost–literally–by turning on the spacecraft’s powerful engines and raising the structure’s orbit by 30 miles or so. Without the periodic boosts, the massive structure eventually would crash to Earth.
Perpetually plagued with colossal cost overruns and delays that have pushed its completion years into the future, the space station is receiving dividends from the outpouring of support for Columbia’s seven astronauts and pledges from lawmakers that the space program will go on.
But it also is a target of heightened scrutiny from critics and even budget-conscious National Aeronautics and Space Administration officials asserting that the shuttle disaster is yet another reason why the space station should be scaled back or even scrapped.
“If worst comes to worst we would de-man the station,” said Michael Kostelnik, NASA’s associate administrator for the International Space Station and the space shuttle program. “It’s not the best option, but we could do that.”
However, Yuri Grigoriev, an official with the Russian company that builds the Soyuz spacecraft, said that curtailing the space station would threaten the program. The space station, he said, was designed for permanent staffing and requires constant attention.
Originally conceived by NASA in the late 1960s as the first step toward manned exploration of Mars and other planets, the project morphed under President Ronald Reagan in 1984 into a space-based hub for the manufacture of unique products. In subsequent administrations, it was repackaged as a laboratory for research only possible in space–such as research that could lead to cures for dreaded diseases–and an international peace project.
As was the case in the aftermath of the 1986 explosion of the shuttle Challenger, the Columbia disaster is sparking a series of investigations, by NASA and Congress, centering on what went wrong and on how–even whether–space exploration by humans should continue.
Hearings planned
The congressional committees that oversee NASA–the House Committee on Science and the Senate Commerce Committee–will begin joint hearings on the issues next week.
“It’s premature to make any assumptions at this point, but the International Space Station is certainly going to be a focus of our investigation,” said Heidi Gringe, spokeswoman for the House Committee on Science.
For years, NASA’s dream of a permanent space station has been the rationale for maintaining a shuttle fleet. The shuttle was developed to ferry humans back and forth from the space station. But the shuttle preceded the space station, which began operating in 2000.
The space station has long been mired in cost overruns and politics, delaying its targeted completion date from 1990, to 2002 and then to 2006. The Columbia investigation likely will delay that date further.
To win congressional favor, the project was split between contractors in some 15 states, creating a logistical nightmare.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton reorganized the project, putting it under a single contractor and bringing in Russia, Japan and numerous European nations to share the costs. But Russia’s unstable economy has forced the U.S. to invest additional billions of dollars in the project.
A 16-nation project
The space station is now maintained by 16 countries.
Over the last decade, NASA’s budget has been cut by 40 percent. NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe has eliminated a habitation module and crew return vehicle for the space station, a decision that reduced the number of crew members from seven to three.
In the debate, NASA also scrapped plans to develop the X-33, a new plane-like spacecraft expected to replace the shuttle.
The space station was originally budgeted in the 1980s at about $8 billion, but NASA spent that and more during the research and development phase.
Now the General Accounting Office estimates that the space station would cost at least $70 billion over its lifetime. But that figure could grow dramatically in the wake of the Columbia disaster.
“People are not linking the space station to the shuttle disaster. But they are linking it to budget cuts at NASA, which are caused by the space station gobbling up money,” said Robert Park, a physics professor at the University of Maryland and a director at the American Physical Society, a professional organization of physicists.
The International Space Station “is not exploration; it’s going in circles closer to the Earth than Baltimore is to New York,” Park added “It is the single greatest obstacle of continued exploration of the solar system–it’s blocking just about everything.”
Support may grow
Despite the setbacks, supporters of the space station maintain that the Columbia disaster will strengthen the nation’s resolve to continue the program.
Some say support in Congress for the overall space program is overwhelming, unlike the days following the Challenger explosion when it almost seemed that an end to U.S. manned exploration of space was inevitable.
“My concern was that if something like this [accident] happened again, the program would be at great risk and the U.S. government and citizens would end the space station,” said Tom Moser, retired deputy associate administrator at NASA who previously served as program director for the space station.
“But I was 100 percent wrong based on what I have heard the president and Congress say,” Moser added. “I think the [Columbia disaster] has caused people to say, `We have the will to do this and we want to do this.'”
The disaster also has exacerbated debates in the scientific community about the relevance of research coming out of space missions. The American Physical Society several years ago issued a statement contending that the results of space experiments were not worth the costs.
But Jim Pawelczyk, an assistant professor of physiology and kinesiology–human muscular movements–at Pennsylvania State University who conducted medical research on a Columbia mission in 1998, said the benefits are immeasurable.
“A detector used in many of the best mammography systems today is essentially a design that came from a radar detection system for space research,” Pawelczyk said.
“Research shows that astronauts are more prone to osteoporosis . . . and a brain mapping experiment in space could give us insight into Alzheimer’s disease,” he added. “We need the International Space Station so desperately.”
More Top Picks Cuisinart 14 Cup Programmable
Meanwhile, efforts are being made to lift the sagging spirits of Commander Ken Bowersox, Flight Engineer Nikolai Budarin of Russia and Science Officer Don Pettit at the space station. The crew members were not informed of the Columbia disaster for 24 hours, and were said to have felt detached and lonely.
Former President George Bush and his wife, Barbara, called them from Johnson Space Center here to assure them that their work was important and that NASA was doing everything it could to determine the Columbia disaster’s cause.
Confidence and pride
“We’ve got the greatest confidence and greatest pride in our team,” Bowersox said in his response to Bush. “We know they’re going to figure this out.”
– – –
Space station under scrutiny
The International Space Station, a project that has already been downsized because of financial concerns, faces additional scrutiny because of the space shuttle Columbia disaster. The station relies on space shuttles as well as Russian rockets to ferry food and parts to the astronauts, and to perform other tasks.
THE STATION HISTORY
Background: In 1984 President Ronald Reagan announced plans to build a space station. NASA said it would be in orbit by the early 1990s. After several delays and cost overruns, the first modules were launched in November 1998. Its first resident crew arrived two years later.
– Estimated original cost: $8 billion.
– Size: 46,000 cubic feet in the working and living areas.
– Weight: About 1 million pounds.
– Power: The solar panels provide enough electricity for about 10 hours of scientific experiments per week.
– Crew: Three-person permanent crew with room for several more astronauts.
AS IT IS ENVISIONED
– Background: Only a fraction of the complex is finished. Many scientific labs and equipment for experiments are still not in place.
– Revised estimated cost: $100 billion.
– Power: Solar panels added, more than doubling the station’s power generating capability.
– Crew: More astronauts could be accommodated in the expanded facility.
STATION’S RECENT PAST
Jan. 29, 1998: Fifteen nations sign on to create the International Space Station.
Nov. 10, 1998: The first pieces of the station are put in orbit.
Nov. 2, 2000: The first crew arrives.
April 31, 2001: NASA says the station is $4 billion over budget. Cost-cutting includes limiting the crew to three rather than seven.
Nov. 2, 2001: A panel assigned to inspect the space station’s finances says NASA should cut program personnel and scale back its plans.
Jan. 4, 2002: Sean O’Keefe, a critic of the space station’s cost overruns, becomes NASA’s administrator.
April 2002: Russian funding problems threaten to interrupt program.
Nov. 23, 2002: The space station’s sixth and current crew arrives.
Sources: NASA, Boeing, AP
baiduhai/Los Angeles Times
– See microfilm for complete graphic.