You know, the first thing I thought of when I read this article in to-daysLawmakers Want NASA to Postpone New Space Plane
By Kathy Sawyer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 28, 2003; Page A05
Citing policy and budget concerns, key members of Congress have called on NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe to postpone further work on the next U.S. space plane designed to carry crews to and from orbit.
Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Science Committee, and ranking Democrat Ralph M. Hall (Tex.) urged O'Keefe "to defer the current program" to build an Orbital Space Plane, at a cost of as much as $13 billion over the next five years, until the White House and Congress complete a multi-agency review of U.S. goals for human spaceflight.
They also said NASA's changing budget plan for the project "is no longer credible."
The letter, dated Oct. 21 and released yesterday, said it is not clear the Orbital Space Plane is the right approach. Because national goals have not been set, it said, "neither the mission nor the benefits of the OSP are knowable at this point."
Boehlert and Hall cited recent testimony by retired Adm. Harold W. Gehman, chairman of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, who called for a "healthy debate on what we want to do in space" before setting designs and costs. The congressmen cautioned NASA that until the nation develops a "shared vision" to guide such projects, "public support for the nation's civilian space program will inevitably founder."
Regarding NASA's budget numbers, Boehlert and Hill said: "Prior human space flight projects at NASA have been plagued by problems stemming from the unrealistic cost estimates put forth at their inception. We are not prepared to let budgetary gamesmanship damage another NASA program."
NASA and congressional sources recently estimated the project would cost $11 billion to $13 billion to get the plane to its initial operating capability over the next five years, and at least $5 billion more to reach full operational status.
NASA's initial budget request for fiscal 2004 for the project would have left it billions "in the hole," said a senior congressional staff member who asked not to be identified. One element of congressional concern is "determining where the money is going to come from," he said.
In addition, as the space agency struggled to regain its footing after the Feb. 1 loss of the space shuttle Columbia, O'Keefe this summer called for a two-year speedup of the timetable for the space plane.
But NASA has failed to budget realistically for the accelerated schedule, the senior staffer said. It is not clear whether the broader policy review underway will result in any more money for human spaceflight.
Under that schedule, the vehicle would be ready to visit the international space station and serve as a crew lifeboat by 2008 instead of 2010. By 2012, the agency wanted the vehicle to be ready to replace the space shuttle's function as a crew ferry to and from the orbiting laboratory. The new space plane was not intended to replace the shuttle's heavy-lift cargo capacity.
With the shuttle fleet grounded until at least late next year, the United States is dependent on Russian Soyuz craft for crew rescue and transport. One of the craft landed safely, and on target, yesterday on the Asian steppes. It was carrying the space station's returning two-man crew, which was replaced by a fresh crew last week.
NASA spokesman Michael Braukus said: "We acknowledge the committee's concerns and plan to work with Congress to alleviate them."
O'Keefe was traveling yesterday. He will send a formal response to the committee later in the week, Braukus said.
Two contractor teams are competing to build the space plane: Boeing Co. and a Lockheed Martin Corp. team that includes Northrop Grumman Corp. and Orbital Sciences Corp.
NASA had planned to issue a formal request for proposals in November and expected to sign a contract next summer.
Boehlert and Hall said it was not clear how much safer the space plane's design would be compared with the shuttle's. They added: "We believe that any crewed replacement vehicle will be judged by the extent to which it significantly improves safety."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
paper was this:
[Michael Wong]
The Government must do it all, for private industry won't and is
unwilling to take the long term view!
[/Michael Wong]
Sorry mike, but that's the first thing that went into my head
