Space Station Woes Highlight Inherent Problems

July 16, 2002 -- A series of recent troubles have revealed signs of strain in the effort to build the world's largest orbiting space station.

Inspectors have reported finding one hair-fine crack after another in the fuel lines of each of the four space shuttles — the "work horses" that provide transportation between Earth and the fledgling station. And an independent panel recently concluded the space station program does not do enough science to be classified as a research program in its current scaled-down status.

Some argue the string of bad news only highlights inherent flaws that have plagued the multibillion-dollar program for years.

"The space station is a monster when it comes to its budget," says Robert Sekerka, a Carnegie Mellon University physicist who serves on independent science advisory councils. "The cracks are only going to put more pressure on the NASA budget — where will that come from?"

One likely source is the space station's dwindling research budget.

Whither the Science?

As originally planned, the space station was to include six laboratories and a habitation module designed to sleep a crew of seven or more. But working with international partners and setting up a laboratory in space has proven more costly than expected and money has been targeted mostly at just keeping a skeletal crew in orbit. NASA announced last year that the U.S. cost of the space station, already estimated at about $30 billion, was heading for overruns of up to $4.8 billion.

"The space station is simply a technology that lacks a mission commensurate with its costs," says Alex Roland, a former NASA historian who now teaches at Duke University.

The recent cracks detected in the space shuttle fleet are sure to wrack up more costs.

Bruce Buckingham at NASA's Kennedy Space Center says the agency is still uncertain how long the cracks, which are between one-tenth of an inch and three-tenths of an inch in length, have existed in the shuttles' fuel liners. The liners are used to smooth the flow of super-cooled liquid hydrogen or oxygen to the main engines.

"It could be they cause no problem," Buckingham says. "But the primary risk we're concerned with is if the cracks continue to propagate and bits break off and enter the engine."

Shuttle Program Manager Ron Dittemore says repairing the cracks won't involve dismantling large parts of the orbiters since the agency is planning to repair the lines in place on the craft. He adds it may be possible that the shuttles can fly with the cracks still there. He said the cracks don't appear to be age-related since there are just as many in Columbia, which first flew in 1981, as in Endeavour, which began flying in 1992.

"We may have been flying with them [the cracks] for a long time," he says.

Still, NASA, which remains haunted by the tragic explosion of the Challenger shuttle in 1986, is taking no risks. The entire fleet will be grounded until at least September as engineers thoroughly analyze the problem and try and understand its causes.

"These are the kinds of things you just can't foresee," says Sekerka. "A lot of unforeseen problems are inevitable. That's why the program has this horrendous cost."

Panel: More Passengers Needed

To cut costs, a NASA advisory council recommended last winter that NASA reduce shuttle flights to the station from six to four a year and maintaining a lean crew of three rather than expanding it to seven as planned. Responding to orders from the White House to reduce costs, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe accepted the so-called "core complete" plan at least temporarily.

Researchers immediately cried foul. Three crew members, they said, would have to spend most of their time maintaining the station, leaving little time for science.

"For us the reduction in crew size is a major major blow," Mary Musgrave, a professor of natural sciences and math at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, said in an interview after the council's announcement. "With only three people, there's very little crew time for experiments."

Last week, an independent panel commissioned by NASA appeared to back up these concerns.

In a report released last Wednesday the Research Maximization and Prioritization Task Force declared the International Space Station (I.S.S.) could not be classified as a research program. A crew of three might be able to do some science, but the panel said important medical, biological and physical science research would not be possible.

If plans for the space station crew aren't expanded, the panel concluded, "NASA should cease to characterize the I.S.S. as a science driven program."

It was a harsh assessment for a program that was billed to "establish an unprecedented state-of-the-art laboratory complex in orbit" according to a NASA press release issued at the start of the program.

Seeking a Private Safety Net

That leaves some wondering what to do with an expensive program that isn't meeting its intended goals. Some propose it's time private companies step in while others argue lawmakers should bite the bullet and provide the program with the funds it needs.

"The program has been unpredictable because NASA hasn't been able to manage itself," argues Mark Whittington, a space policy analyst. "I think if they turn over lower orbit missions to the private sector, it would free up a lot of money."

Currently NASA spends $400 million to $500 million per shuttle launch. Under a privatized plan, companies would compete for contracts to manage the shuttle and space station programs. The competition, says Whittington, would drive down costs and free up money for NASA to seek bigger missions like a manned journey to Mars.

It's a process that's already somewhat underway.

Since 1996, the United Space Alliance has taken over as a prime contractor in charge of 29 missions inside the shuttle program. Hundreds of government shuttle jobs were eliminated and the company estimates it has saved the government $1.2 billion since the contract began.

Still, Whittington argues NASA can go much farther to the point where private companies are managing the entire shuttle and space station programs. NASA administrator O'Keefe has suggested the agency is willing to eventually reach this kind of arrangement.

O'Keefe told a congressional committee last month that NASA hopes to avoid "potential continued cost growth for Shuttle operations by moving to a private organization that has greater flexibility to make business decisions that increase efficiency."

But others say space travel remains too unpredictable for private companies to take full responsibility yet of shuttle and space station programs.

Biting the Bullet

"The cost and risk is too great and the pay off is too long-term," says Sekerka. He argues it's the government's first responsibility to shoulder the program's escalating costs.

But times have changed from 1961 when President John F. Kennedy declared the United States would send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. The country met Kennedy's challenge, but there were other powerful factors driving the mission besides science and exploration.

The Apollo program was ignited by a cold war with the former Soviet Union and the political standoff provided plenty of motivation for Congress to fund the costly program.

'The moon landing for America was the brightest achievement of a decade gone wrong," says Roland. "Now no one pays much attention to NASA, largely because not much exciting is happening in the space program."

NASA's Buckingham counters the space station is an exciting project that is accomplishing something that's never been done before — building an international outpost for science. Exciting or not, Sekerka argues NASA should be given the funds to finish what it started.

"Congress needs to own up to what it had intended to do," he says. "If they really want a space station program, they have to fund it."