AIP FYI #54: Senate Appropriators Warmly Welcome O’Keefe

Last November, in his role as Deputy Director of OMB, Sean
O’Keefe testified to a congressional committee that achieving the
stripped-down “core complete” configuration of the International
Space Station would be a worthwhile goal even if the project goes
no further. On Wednesday, after four months as the new
Administrator of NASA, O’Keefe said it is “my fondest hope that
we do not stop there.” While he has by no means changed his
intention of finishing the core complete station before
determining whether to go beyond that stage, in recent
appearances he has seemed to place greater importance on how much
research the orbiting laboratory can ultimately perform.

As expected, the space station’s woes were the main subject of
discussion at a friendly May 1 hearing of the Senate
Appropriations VA/HUD Subcommittee on NASA’s FY 2003 budget.
Unlike a somewhat contentious House hearing several weeks ago,
O’Keefe, a former Senate Appropriations Committee staff member,
was warmly welcomed by the subcommittee. Chairwoman Barbara
Mikulski (D-MD), a strong advocate of space and Earth science in
general, and Maryland’s Goddard Space Flight Center in
particular, also concentrated on O’Keefe’s plans for NASA science
programs. Subcommittee members raised questions about space
shuttle safety, upgrades, and possible privatization, and, of
course, the research capability of the space station. This
project, which was “touted as the crown jewel of NASA, now
appears to be a rather expensive piece of costume jewelry,”
commented Ranking Republican Christopher Bond (R-MO).

O’Keefe explained that his approach to NASA’s FY 2003 budget is
to focus on enabling technologies to help the agency overcome
technological challenges “that limit our ability to explore.” He
also emphasized leveraging NASA’s investment in new technologies;
the space agency will work with DOE on its new nuclear systems
initiative to improve propulsion and power generating capability,
and with the Air Force on developing a new Space Launch vehicle.

Regarding the space station, O’Keefe reiterated that NASA is
focusing its efforts right now on successfully finishing the
three-person core complete configuration and working to “infuse a
sense of management discipline” to the program. NASA has planned
an aggressive assembly schedule that would achieve core complete
early in 2004. A scientific task force (see FYI #48) is
currently reviewing and prioritizing the many research objectives
that have been put forth for the station. If the science
prioritization indicates that a larger crew is warranted, O’Keefe
said, then decisions could be made within the next year or two
about allocating funds to develop necessary components such as a
habitation module and crew return vehicle. But if the assembly
schedule for core complete is not met, O’Keefe was emphatic that
“then there is no discussion beyond” that point; “that is the end
state.” “That sounds like it makes a lot of sense to me,” Bond
said; “I hope it works.”

Members were supportive of NASA’s plans to develop new nuclear
power and propulsion technologies, although Mikulski warned
O’Keefe not to ignore concerns that might be raised by
environmental groups. She also questioned O’Keefe’s cancellation
of the Pluto mission, noting that the opportunity for such a
mission would not come again for another 200 years. O’Keefe said
he was awaiting a National Academy of Sciences study ranking
space exploration goals, and explained that while current
propulsion methods relied on a “gravitational slingshot off
Jupiter,” NASA’s nuclear propulsion initiative would provide
“leap-ahead” technologies, facilitating accomplishment of the
mission objectives.

Mikulski also urged NASA to look at contingency plans to extend
the life of the Hubble Space Telescope beyond 2010 in case the
Next Generation Space Telescope project was delayed; O’Keefe
reported he was beginning to explore such possibilities. Noting
that NASA’s Earth Science budget was reportedly “in limbo”
awaiting the results of an Administration review of its global
climate change programs, Mikulski cautioned that “Administration
reviews can take forever.” O’Keefe replied that the missions in
the pipeline were continuing to go forward, and the review was
“not necessarily holding up or driving what we’re doing;” the
Earth Science program was “as aggressive as we think necessary
for the coming year.” Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) remarked that
funding for the physical sciences in general had “languished” in
recent years, and hoped that Congress would rectify this for NASA
and other federal agencies.

There is still uncertainty about the budget figures that
appropriators will be working with this year and how allocations
will be made to each subcommittee. Mikulski was unsure “when
we’re going to get our allocation,” but expected her subcommittee
to mark up its bill in June. She expressed hope that by then,
the subcommittee would have the results of many of the studies
and evaluations mentioned by O’Keefe, to help inform its
deliberations.

###############

Audrey T. Leath

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org

(301) 209-3094

http://www.aip.org/gov

##END##########