AIP FYI #120: Hearings Review Columbia Accident Investigation Report, NASA

The findings of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) and
NASA’s plans to return to shuttle flight continue to be the subject
of congressional hearings. On September 3, the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee heard from CAIB Chairman
Admiral Harold Gehman and NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe on the
Board’s report. A week later, the House Science Committee reviewed
NASA’s preliminary plan to implement the Board’s recommendations and
a proposed target date of March 11, 2004 for the next shuttle
launch. (Recent news reports indicate that NASA has decided to move
the target date back to at least May of 2004.) While Members of
Congress at both hearings remained supportive of O’Keefe and of the
space agency, at the House Science Committee hearing, in particular,
members decried the lack of national goals for space exploration and
questioned the need for human space flight.

Although Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) commented
that “we will have to figure out where we want the space program to
go,” and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) called on NASA to conduct a
cost-benefit analysis on the manned space program, committee
members in general seemed eager for the shuttle fleet to return to
operation and for NASA to continue with its current programs. “It
is imperative that America remains at the forefront of space
exploration,” and that “we get Americans back in space aboard an
American vehicle,” said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS). Other senators
voiced similar opinions. Asked by McCain about the effects of past
NASA budget cuts on the shuttle program, Gehman said the Board had
“attempted to document the fact that the shuttle upgrade program had
been underfunded for decades.” He declared that operating the
shuttle “costs more than anyone will admit.” He said one of the
Board’s key recommendations was to establish a technical review
authority, independent from the shuttle’s program management, that
would have responsibility for technical requirements,
specifications, and waivers, but not cost and schedule.

At the September 10 Science Committee hearing, Chairman Sherwood
Boehlert (R-NY) charged that NASA was setting an “exceedingly
ambitious” target date for return to flight. Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI)
added that the agency’s plans appear to be “a rush back” to
“business as usual,” reflecting the concerns of many committee
members. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) declared his desire to see no more
Americans go up on the shuttle.

Committee members raised questions about the goals and purposes of
the space program, but had varying opinions about how, and by whom,
those goals should be set. “Everybody’s calling out for some
leadership from the White House on this,” said Space and Aeronautics
Subcommittee Chair Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA); “there needs to be a
vision statement by the President.” Smith, who chairs the Research
Subcommittee, thought the Science Committee should evaluate the
future of the space program, and what might be accomplished by
unmanned, robotic exploration. O’Keefe reported that an internal
Administration review of the nation’s goals in space is underway.
Reps. Bart Gordon (D-TN) and Nick Lampson (D-TX) criticized the
review for lacking congressional or public input. When pressed,
O’Keefe said representatives from the White House, OSTP, OMB, and a
number of agencies were involved, and would “serve up a range of
options…to the President.” He also noted that NASA’s strategic
plan spells out the next objectives for the space program: to
develop revolutionary technologies to overcome current limitations
to power generation, propulsion, and human endurance in space, so
that the nation would be ready to undertake further goals once they
are set. Gehman remarked, though, that in establishing a vision for
space exploration, “NASA’s vision doesn’t count;” there must be a
broader public consensus.

Gehman said the Board recommended that the nation first decide what
it wants to do in space, then determine the next-generation vehicle
needed to achieve it. The Board also recommended that crew transfer
and cargo-carrying capabilities for the space station be handled by
separate vehicles as soon as possible, requiring a decision on
design of an Orbital Space Plane to replace the shuttle for crew
transfer and rescue functions over the 15-20 year expected lifespan
of the station. According to Gehman, the Board found the shuttle
“not inherently unsafe,” and believed that it could be operated with
“acceptable risk” for a number of years if the Board’s
recommendations were followed, but that operating it for another 20
years was “beyond the scope of imagination.”

Regarding the cost of the shuttle fleet’s return to flight, O’Keefe
said it would be “nothing like a major redesign effort,” and the
initial expense would not “amaze anybody.” He said the cost would
depend on the options chosen to fulfill the CAIB recommendations.
O’Keefe was not sure whether the President would request additional
funds in an amendment to the FY 2004 request, a supplemental
request, or incorporate them into the FY 2005 budget request.
Boehlert chided O’Keefe on shifting $40 million within NASA’s
current operating plan from the science account to support the CAIB
investigation. “I hope this is not a trend,” he said, warning
O’Keefe to “not make a habit of dipping into science funds.” “I am
mindful of your point,” O’Keefe replied. Questioned about the fact
that Senate appropriators would provide over $200 million less for
Space Flight Capabilities in the FY 2004 VA/HUD bill than the House
bill recommends, O’Keefe agreed that the return to flight effort
would be “more difficult if we’re starting out in a hole.”
Questioned in both hearings about accelerating development of the
Orbital Space Plane, O’Keefe said that achieving a usable vehicle
before the intended 2010 date “may require more money up front.”

Boehlert asked whether the launch target date continued the pattern
of the shuttle program being schedule-driven. O’Keefe responded
that the shuttle would return to flight when the CAIB
recommendations were achieved “and not one day before,” but he
argued that basing the proposed schedule on an optimal systems
engineering plan for space station assembly was an effective
management tool. He agreed that “we’ve got to effectively
communicate to every single person turning a wrench on this program”
that the schedule must be flexible in order to ensure safety.

Audrey T. Leath

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org www.aip.org/gov

(301) 209-3094