AIP FYI #37: Hearing Addresses NASA Budget Request, Shuttle Investigation
“It’s simply impossible to get a clear fix at this point on how much the
human space flight program will require in the upcoming fiscal year.” –
House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
As the Columbia Accident Investigation Board continues to seek answers to
the shuttle tragedy, Congress must proceed with consideration of NASA’s FY
2004 budget. On February 27, the House Science Committee heard from NASA
Administrator Sean O’Keefe on the agency’s budget request and how the
grounding of the shuttle fleet is impacting the international space station.
Committee members raised questions about the Earth Science budget, cuts to
aeronautics R&D and tech transfer programs, proposals for a number of new
initiatives, and progress on a vehicle to complement or replace the
shuttle.
There is no indication yet of when the investigation board will complete
its work and the shuttle fleet will return to operation. Committee Chairman
Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), who had previously voiced concern over the
independence of the accident investigation board, expressed himself “more
convinced than ever that the Columbia Accident Investigation Board has the
independence and resources it needs.” However, others were not yet
satisfied. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) urged that the board be appointed as a
presidential commission, and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee called for greater
diversity on the board. Members repeatedly questioned whether, during the
Columbia flight, engineers’ concerns were addressed at the appropriate level
within NASA. O’Keefe thought so, but added, “Was that a judgment call that
was in error? We’ll find out.”
O’Keefe reported that, the previous day, the space station international
partners had reached agreement on a plan to use the Russian Soyuz to bring
back the three-person station crew in April or May, and replace them with a
two-person crew. Additional flights of the unmanned Progress resupply
vehicle would be planned over the next two years. Previous hearing
testimony, Boehlert noted, indicated that the station needed more than two
crew members just to maintain operations. NASA and its international
partners have concluded that a two-member crew can continue operations and
conduct some science, O’Keefe replied, and can use the Soyuz as an escape
vehicle if needed. The objective, he said, is to keep the station operating
and continue conducting research, so that assembly can be continued at the
earliest opportunity.
O’Keee called the $15.5 billion FY 2004 request a “responsible” budget that
incorporates full-cost accounting, pursues transformational technologies
that will “open new pathways,” and includes exciting initiatives aligned
with NASA’s new Strategic Plan (available in pdf format at
www.nasa.gov/about/budget/content/strategi.pdf). He described nine
specific new opportunities in the request: initiatives in human research;
optical communications; climate change research; aviation security; national
airspace system transformation augmentation; quiet aircraft technology
acceleration; education; several “Einstein” observatories; and Project
Prometheus, a mission to Jupiter’s icy moons that will use nuclear power and
propulsion technologies. He said the request also supports space station
assembly to the U.S. core configuration, upon the shuttle’s return to
flight, so the station could be built out to a configuration dictated by the
research objectives. He added that NASA plans to proceed with establishment
of a non-governmental organization to prioritize those research objectives.
Remarking that the change to full-cost accounting made comparison with the
FY 2003 appropriation difficult, Boehlert asked NASA for a conversion of the
final FY 2003 numbers to enable “meaningful comparisons.”
Questioning NASA’s plans for several “expensive new missions,” Ranking
Minority Member Ralph Hall (D-TX) commented, “A year after OMB cancelled the
$1 billion Europa Orbiter mission because it was too expensive, NASA is now
proposing to undertake a $4 billion mission to Jupiter’s icy moons. Two
years after OMB deferred work on a $1.4 billion U.S. Crew Return Vehicle for
the International Space Station, NASA is now proposing to spend what it
estimates could be ten times as much on an Orbital Space Plane.”
Hall urged greater attention to crew survivability systems for the shuttle.
Many members inquired about the role and cost of the planned Orbital Space
Plane, and whether development could be accelerated with additional funding.
The plane is intended to complement the shuttle by providing crew transfer
capability, O’Keefe explained, and the shuttle would continue to be used for
its heavy-lift capacity while technologies were developed for a
next-generation launch vehicle. He hoped that a single design would be
selected within the next 12-18 months, but could not speculate on the total
cost at this time. The plan currently calls for the Orbital Space Plane to
be operational by 2010, but NASA is exploring whether its development could
be accelerated.
Several members questioned the value of human space flight and of recent
research performed aboard the shuttle and space station. O’Keefe, as in
past hearings, used the Hubble Space Telescope as the “most instructive
example” of how human involvement can complement unmanned missions. He also
referred to the role of space-based research in development of a heart pump,
and said that human research on the station could have “rather dramatic”
applications for those on Earth.
Indicating his interest in doubling the science budgets of NASA and DOE,
Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) thanked O’Keefe for seeking increased funding for
NASA science programs. Boehlert expressed concerns about whether “Earth
Science is getting its due,” and called it a critical NASA mission “of
enormous scientific utility.” Committee members were also concerned about
the aging of the NASA S&T workforce and the agency’s difficulties in hiring.
Boehlert testified to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on March 6
about this issue, and has reintroduced legislation (H.R. 1085) that would
give NASA enhanced flexibility and authority in recruiting and retaining
scientists and engineers.
While the tone of the hearing was generally positive toward NASA programs,
the House Science Committee, as an authorizing committee, does not have
control of NASA’s purse strings. Future hearings on the agency’s FY 2004
budget will be held by VA/HUD appropriators in the House and Senate, who
will draft the funding legislation for NASA and other programs under their
jurisdiction.
Audrey T. Leath
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3094
