Last updated 4/11/97 by Matt Peterson
| NASA HEARINGS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Date | Time | Location | Committee | Witnesses: |
| Space Station Program Status | 4/9/97 | 10:00 am | 2325 Rayburn House Office Building | House Sbcmte. on Space & Aeronautics (Chrm. Rohrabacher); Science Cmte. | NASA and Outside Witnesses TBD |
Members Present: Rohrabacher (R-CA), Cramer (D-AL), Bartlett (R-MD), Hall (D-TX), Weldon (R-FL), Gordon (D-TN), Brady (R-TX), Roemer (D-IN) Cook (R-UT), Jackson Lee (D-TX), and Luther (D-MN).
Witnesses:
The Subcommittee met to hear testimony on the Status of the International Space Station (ISS) Program. Mr. Rohrabacher welcomed the witnesses and then yielded to the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for an opening statement.
Mr. Sensenbrenner expressed deep concern about the problems with the Russian Service Module, and the resulting decision by NASA to seek authority to reallocate funds from the space shuttle program to support initial contingency measures made necessary by the Service Module delay. He expressed concerns about the impact of removing funds from the shuttle program. He recounted a series of promises made and not kept regarding funding and development milestones for the Russian hardware, and cited his concerns expressed early in the ISS program about the Russians being on the “critical path” to ISS development. He stated clearly and forcefully that he believed the time had come to make a decision, once and for all, regarding the role the Russians will play in the ISS program. He said that he supports the space station and envisions a station in which the Russians would have a role to play. He indicated that he would be marking up an Authorization bill for NASA on April 16 and that answers were needed soon in order to remove the Russians from the critical path and “resolve this issue and save the International Space Station.”
Mr. Rohrabacher then recognized the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Cramer, for an opening statement. Mr. Cramer indicated his continued strong support for the space station, but shared the concerns about the Service Module delay. He also expressed some concern about funding for science payload development and indicated the need to address those issues and ensure that the space station provides a strong science capability.
Ms. Jackson Lee then made an opening statement in which she echoed the concerns about schedule and science and also about the transition of jobs in the context of efforts to commercialize and privatize the space shuttle and space station. She indicated her interest in ensuring that qualified workers are not lost in the transition
Mr. Trafton provided a brief overview of the space station status, referring to his written testimony, which he submitted for the hearing record. He pointed out the progress that has been made since the redesign of the space station in 1993, and applauded the efforts of the NASA-contractor team and the international partners. Having said that, he acknowledged the difficulties resulting from the inability of the Russian Government to provide adequate and timely funding for the Service Module. He indicated that the decision had been made, given the December 1998 launch of the Service Module, to delay the launch of the FGB and the US Node to a point “no later than October 1998”. In response to a question later in the hearing, Mr. Trafton indicated that a planning date for the first element launch will be defined in mid-May, and could be as early as June 1998.
He briefly outlined the plan, in the interim, to modify the US-owned, Russian-built FGB to enhance its capability for control of the station, and to make it refuelable. At the same time, he indicated that NASA would continue the active development of a Naval Research Laboratory module as an “Interim Control Module”, or ICM, to augment the FGB before the Service Module arrives, and enable assembly of the station to continue despite the Service Module delay.
Dr. Park spoke largely against the space station, though not against the space program. He was critical of the technology being used in the space station and generally sought to minimize the value of the research to be conducted in the station laboratories. He said he felt that science priorities were misplaced and that more effort should be placed into robotics technology.
He suggested that the shuttle experience to date has produced no new scientific processes of a practical nature. He noted that he was the director of public information for the American Physical Society, whose official view is that scientific justification is lacking for a permanently manned space station in Earth orbit.
Dr. DeLucas enthusiastically endorsed the ISS program as a vast improvement in the length of time and the level of opportunities available for microgravity research. He indicated a number of examples of direct applications of space-based research in the fields of crystallograhy and bio-medicine. He stated his belief that important medical breakthroughs are almost certainly going to derive from space-based research.
Mr. Tumlinson expressed his support for NASA and the space station program, but was critical of “any plan for government management” of the future operational space station. He recounted the history of exploration in this country, with the government playing a role in exploration and subsequent development and growth being based on an entrepreneurial spirit. He indicated that he believed the space station was about research, not exploration, and he believed that NASA’s efforts should be redirected towards exploration rather than management of a “building” in low earth orbit. .
In the course of the hearing Members expressed both their support and their concerns about the space station program. There was particular concern expressed about the proposed funding for the contingency hardware development from space shuttle funds. Several committee members expressed concern about the possible impact on shuttle safety, though Mr. Trafton explained that the funds would be from uncosted carry-over funds, and not from reductions in shuttle program functions or activities.
In that context, a question was raised by Mr. Luther regarding the incident aboard STS-83, with the failure of a fuel cell forcing the mission to be cut short. He was especially concerned about issues of liability involving such an incident. Mr. Rohrabacher agreed and asked NASA to provide a complete report on the incident itself and on the question of liability within thirty days.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before the Committee to discuss the status of the International Space Station (ISS).
We are now into our fourth year of development since President Clinton asked NASA, in the spring of 1993, to redesign the Space Station. Since then, the ISS Program has moved steadily and aggressively forward, overcoming many challenges to develop this unprecedented international orbital research facility, the doorway to the future of human space exploration.
In preparation for ISS assembly and operations, we have flown five successful Space Shuttle/Mir docking missions, and one rendezvous mission. We have gained much from our collaboration with Russia and from continuous presence of American astronauts onboard Mir. We have just recently completed the first year of continuous U.S. presence in space, through the Phase 1 Program, with U.S. astronauts living and working aboard Mir. We have successfully performed joint U.S. and Russian operations on the ground and in orbit and demonstrated that scientific research will benefit greatly from the ISS. On-orbit experiments such as those to be flown on the International Space Station have already provided new insights that may lead to treatments for cancer, AIDS, influenza viruses, and other diseases. While the foundation being provided through Shuttle-Mir cooperation in developing on-orbit assembly and operations capabilities for the ISS remains an unequivocal success, Russia’s challenges in providing hardware contributions as a international partner have been a continuing cause for concern. This is addressed later in the testimony.
Our other international partners -- Canada, Europe and Japan -- have proven their commitment to this international venture for humankind, investing nearly $6 billion to date for design and development of their hardware contributions. The European Space Agency (ESA) has entered into the largest single contract in ESA history for development of the Columbus Orbital Facility. ESA has confirmed its commitment to a three-component ISS contribution: the Columbus Orbital Facility (COF), the COF utilization plan and the Ariane Automated Transfer Vehicle. The Japanese program is solid and on track with its contributions of the Japanese Experiment Module(JEM), the JEM Exposed Facility, and the JEM Experimental Logistics Module. Canada is also making good progress, with Canadian government approval of funding for the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM) having been secured. The SPDM will augment the robotics system already being provided by Canada with additional capabilities to carry out on-orbit maintenance and operation of the Space Station. The Canadian decision to fund the SPDM, in spite of constrained budgets, underscores its commitment to this program. Relative to non-partner international involvement, the Italian Space Agency remains on schedule for delivery of the first Mini-Pressurized Logistics Module to the Kennedy Space Center in 1998. There are now a total of 15 countries participating in the International Space Station Program, and interest is expanding. NASA and the Brazilian Space Agency have agreed to conduct feasibility studies to explore mutual interests relative to Station.
The ISS Program has now passed the 59% milestone completion mark, having built over 162,000 pounds of U.S flight hardware. As testing of more design units is completed, we are seeing production runs of hardware and software increase. The final quarter of calendar year 1996 marked the largest increase in the amount of flight hardware built since the Program’s inception, over 30,000 pounds. Design and fabrication of flight elements for the first six American flights are almost complete. Qualification testing is well underway across the Program and flight hardware is being assembled and checked out. Integrated test and verification planning is progressing well and steps are being taken to provide even more integrated testing at the Kennedy Space Center. The NASA/industry team has worked long hours and demonstrated a true commitment to the American people in delivering the International Space Station. The largest international, scientific research facility in history is rapidly becoming a reality.
The Space Station Program continues to demonstrate a high level of performance, completing approximately 97% of scheduled work at approximately 103% of budgeted cost. Given the breadth and complexity of the ISS Program, and taking into account the experiences of other major Government development programs, we are convinced that we have demonstrated strong performance. Change request activity is subsiding, with most major cost drivers definitized. ISS program management has been innovative and creative in addressing and resolving many of the challenges, but significant issues remain.
Nevertheless, the performance of the ISS Prime contractor has not improved as well as planned, which is negatively impacting the Program’s total performance. While the differences seen between development targets and the prime contractor’s actual level of performance are to be expected in a program of this complexity, the continued cost growth and performance problems have strained near-term reserves. Recovery plans will mitigate our cost and schedule variances, but these variances will continue to require the use of reserves.
We are now in a critical phase where a considerable amount of hardware is being assembled and tested, and software is being developed, integrated and checked out. Peak manufacturing and testing activity is occurring through FY 1997 and FY 1998. During this timeframe, the potential for unforeseen challenges to our cost and schedule targets will remain high. The program had adequate reserves built into the total development estimate to address these anticipated challenges. However, Russian schedule uncertainties have required us to develop and maintain contingency capabilities that are diverting these resources.
The Russians are facing tremendous economic challenges and are struggling to meet their commitments. Russia has missed a number of development milestones for their contributions to the International Space Station due to funding shortfalls. Delivery of the Service Module (SM) has been delayed from April to December 1998. The funding issue was addressed at the February 1997, meeting between Vice President Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, where Russian officials committed that adequate funds were budgeted in 1997 to keep the Service Module on track for a December 1998 launch.
A NASA team, led by General Thomas Stafford, recently completed a visit to Moscow where they gained further insight into the Russian funding status. The team received assurances of the Russian government’s commitment to participation as planned in the ISS. They were advised that the first increments of ISS funds would be in cash, not government loans or guarantees, and would be dispersed to the Russian Space Agency in two installments, one in April, and one in May. The disbursement schedule for the remainder of 1997, intended to keep the Service Module on its new schedule for launch in December 1998, is to be determined by the end of May.
As the Committee is aware, NASA has been reviewing a number of options to mitigate the impact of the Service Module slip. In order to allow the Agency to work around the delay of this key Russian module, we are rescheduling the launch of the first element, the Functional Cargo Block, to no later than October 1998. To launch hardware to orbit simply to maintain our baseline schedule exposes the flight hardware to unnecessary risks. This is because FGB on-orbit avionics and fuel reserves would be stretched to support any additional Service Module delays. As designed, the FGB cannot adequately provide control functions for the assembly sequence to continue beyond the arrival of the U.S. Node. Continued ISS assembly hinges upon the Service Module; it provides critical capabilities for the control and stability of the Station prior to arrival of the U.S. Laboratory Module. The Service Module also provides crew habitation and life support systems for early human occupation of the Station.
We have initiated a contingency plan to ensure that we can continue the ISS assembly process despite the Service Module delays. We are now pursuing two hardware options to address the delay in the Service Module. First, we will modify the FGB to enhance its attitude control capabilities and make it refuelable. Second, we will pursue the development of an existing, proven system built by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, as an interim control module, or ICM. The ICM will provide command, attitude control, and reboost functions. The FGB modification and the ICM addition will allow for a Service Module delay up to December 1999.
We are currently evaluating options to address further potential perturbations to the Program which could result from Russian schedule delays. These evaluations include assessing the possibility of advancing life support systems from the U.S. habitation module to the U.S. laboratory module to enable earlier human presence. In addition, we are evaluating options to provide a longer term propulsion capability to guard against further delay of the Russian Service Module. We are continuing the technical evaluations, assessing the schedule implications, and completing the cost estimates necessary to enable us to make a decision on these issues, in consultation with our international partners, the research community, the Executive Branch, and the Congress.
NASA and its partners have agreed to baseline a single assembly sequence at a Space Station Control Board meeting in mid-May. Baselining a single assembly sequence will bring stability to the program and avoid the costs and inefficiencies of parallel paths. Baselining the Service Module launch for December 1998 remains NASA’s preferred approach, but that decision would be made only if the following criteria are met: Russian contractors’ receipt of Russian Government funding in April and May 1997; completion of a Service Module General Designer’s Review; and, satisfactory progress by Service Module subcontractors to support a December 1998 launch. A delay in these events would necessitate the baselining of the ICM for launch in December 1998. NASA intends to preserve the ICM risk mitigation capability in either case.
The costs associated with NASA’s contingency efforts to offset the Service Module delay are being minimized wherever feasible, but NASA will certainly require resources outside the planned program to undertake these changes. Implementation of these plans will require additional funds in order to minimize delays. NASA will submit a revision to the FY 1997 Operating Plan to reallocate $200 million from Space Shuttle program funds to the U.S./Russian Cooperation funding line. We intend to redesignate this line as “U.S./Russian Cooperation and Program Assurance.” This budget line will be the source of funds to address specific Program requirements resulting from delays on the part of Russia in meeting its agreed to commitments to the ISS program and, in this context, to maintain the baseline program schedule to the fullest extent possible. NASA is also seeking continuation of the U.S./Russian Cooperation and Program Assurance budget line in FY 1998, with a placeholder amount of $100 million within the President’s total request of $13.5 billion. The exact amount and source of the funding for FY 1998 would be determined in the July/August 1997 timeframe, after a careful review of the program plans and budgets to determine the amount required and in view of Russia’s performance on the Service Module and its other programmatic commitments. We will keep the Committee apprised of our deliberations in this regard.
NASA is continuing to meet its commitments to the Congress and the American people in building the ISS. The ISS program continues to identify ways to maximize program efficiencies and leverage investments to enhance the capabilities of the Space Station. Ongoing discussions with the International Partners have resulted in some U.S. hardware development being performed by the International Partners to offset Shuttle launch cost for International Partner hardware. After delivery, the United States will own and utilize this hardware. Examples of this hardware include: Nodes 2 and 3, which ESA has agreed in principle to provide, and the Centrifuge Accommodation Module, Centrifuge Rotor and Glovebox which we are currently negotiating with Japan.
NASA, the Administration and the Congress recognized the risks and challenges involved in undertaking a partnership on the International Space Station with the Russian Federation, but agreed that the risks were outweighed by the tremendous benefits. We have already learned much from the Shuttle/Mir Program. The International Space Station remains a much more capable and robust laboratory facility than it would be without the Russian contributions -- we will gain incredible scientific capabilities; we will develop cutting-edge technology. The American taxpayer has gained by the Russian involvement, and would stand to lose a great deal if they do not continue as part of the program. The Russian funding shortfalls have presented challenges. Now, in conjunction with our international partners, we have developed the necessary plans to move ahead, while still retaining Russian partnership in the program. With the support of this Committee and the Congress, we can enhance program stability and adapt to the realities that have come with Russia’s involvement.
The International Space Station is an initiative of significant size and complexity, offering enormous returns. It is a demonstration of America’s leadership in the development of peaceful cooperative ventures entering the 21st century. Humankind’s thirst to expand its knowledge and desire to explore the unknown are essential elements to our continued growth as a Nation and as a world community. The Space Station is our opportunity to prove America’s commitment to lead the way.