Status Report

AIP FYI #139: Final Appropriations Report Language on Space Station

By SpaceRef Editor

November 16, 2001

Filed under American Institute of Physics, International Space Station, US

Accompanying the FY 2002 VA/HUD appropriations bill was
lengthy language by the conferees on the International Space
Station (ISS). Running almost three pages, the report
language is critical of NASA’s management of the project, and
skeptical about the redesigned and downsized “U.S. Core
Complete” station. Selections from the report language
follow:

“When the House and the Senate drafted their respective bills
[July 2001], the Administration had recently proposed dramatic
changes to the ISS program in light of a purported shortfall
of over $4,000,000,000. The redesigned station was dubbed
“U.S. Core Complete” and included elimination of the Crew
Return Vehicle, the Habitation Module, the Propulsion Module,
a 37 percent reduction in ISS science, and undefined
“management efficiencies” and better cost estimating. It was
the position of the House at that time that such changes could
not be endorsed given the limited amount of information
available to the Congress. It was this lack of information
which led the House to conclude that termination of the Crew
Return Vehicle was premature, that NASA should be encouraged
to pursue an international barter arrangement for development
and construction of a habitation module, and that a
significant add-back to the ISS science program was warranted.
In the hope of getting more information, the House initiated
an investigation into the ISS program with the goal of
answering basic questions with regard to the real cost of the
program, the underlying cause of cost increases, lapses in
oversight and the causes thereof, and the extent to which
previously identified problems or concerns were not addressed.

“The initial stages of the House investigation have been
completed with the conclusion being that the concept of “U.S.
Core Complete” is ill-defined, that the science program needs
to be more rigorously evaluated, that all options for
enhancing crew time for research need to be fully explored,
and that international agreements need to be evaluated and
compliance with such agreements needs to be clarified. It is
also the initial conclusion of the House investigation that
NASA’s lack of an integrated financial management system
impedes its ability to determine the status of contract
execution and provide program managers with necessary
financial information.

“The conferees are in agreement that first and foremost the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the
Administrator of NASA shall submit a report to the Committees
on Appropriations of the House and the Senate which defines in
specific detail the U.S. Core Complete configuration of the
ISS and provides a ten-year total funding profile for that
configuration; clearly defines the content and scope of the
research science program; and provides costs and schedule to
develop the Crew Return Vehicle. The conferees are aware of
ongoing negotiations between NASA and the Italian Space Agency
concerning a stretch version of the Multi-Purpose Logistics
Module as a substitute for the habitation module. The
conferees see the utility of using a proven platform and
encourage NASA to move with all deliberate speed, subject to
an appropriate and cost-effective barter arrangement.

“The conferees are in agreement that the Director of OMB shall
certify and report such certification to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and the Senate, that any proposal
to enhance the ISS design above the content planned for U.S.
Core Complete, is (1) necessary and of the highest priority to
enhance the goal of world class research in space aboard the
International Space Station; (2) within acceptable risk
levels, having no major unresolved technical issues and a high
confidence in independently validated cost and schedule
estimates; and (3) affordable within the multi-year funding
available to the ISS program as defined above or, if exceeds
such amounts, the additional resources are not achieved
through any funding reduction to programs contained in Space
Science, Earth Science, and Aeronautics.

“The conferees are aware of a study being conducted by the
National Research Council per the direction of the House
Committee on Science and the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation to address the station research
program. If possible, the conferees would like the National
Research Council to expand that study to compare and evaluate
the research programs of the ISS which can be accomplished
with a crew of three and a crew of six; and, an assessment of
the probable cost-benefit ratios of those programs, compared
with earthbound research which could be funded in lieu of
research conducted on the ISS.

“The conferees agree with the direction contained in the
Senate report for NASA to empanel a task force to study all
options, together with their costs, for enhancing crew
research time on the U.S. Core Complete ISS.

“The conferees are concerned that NASA lacks an integrated
financial management system and therefore can not adequately
manage its programs. NASA is directed to place the highest
priority on correcting this fundamental management deficiency,
a deficiency which should have been corrected many years ago.

“Finally, the conferees direct the Secretary of State, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the
Administrator of NASA to submit a joint explanation of how the
United States is fulfilling its written commitments to its ISS
international partners. This report is due no later than July
15, 2002.

“With regard to the decision by the conferees to reduce the
ISS budget by $75,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, the conferees
note that the Post-Assembly Operations Cost Estimates
(November 1999) and a report on ISS Operations Architecture
(August 2000) both called for significant reductions in
personnel associated with the program. Yet NASA and the ISS
program management refuse to implement the provisions of these
two reports for no apparent reason other than the desire to
maintain a standing army of personnel. The conferees have
reached the conclusion that the only way management will
actually manage the program, and thereby get its costs under
control, is through being forced to live with less. The
conferees are reluctant to take this approach, but find that
the intransient [sic] management cannot be trusted to make the
tough decisions on their own and must be forced to make
decisions which are in the long-term interest of the program.
NASA is directed to submit to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House and the Senate a report, concurrent with
submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget, which describes its
plans for managing and operating the ISS over the life of the
station, to include specific manpower and financial needs for
operation and support.”