NASA’s FY2001 Budget: Posture Hearing

Today’s hearings were couched as being “posture Hearings”. In Washington parlance this hearing was the occasion for an agency to present the details of the new fiscal year budget as proposed by the President a few weeks earlier. Typically, the agency whose head is testifying seeks to cover all aspects of the agency’s activities – with questions from members of Congress covering an equally broad range.

These hearings were anything but that.

You could see what was coming before the hearings even began, As Dan Goldin went up to greet members of the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics a few minutes before the hearings began, he shook hands with all of the members of the committee who were present – Reps Rohrabacher, Ehlers, Weldon, and Gordon. He did not make the slightest motion to shake Rep. Sensenbrenner’s hand and just walked right past him. The reasons became obvious a few minutes later.

Subcommittee chair Rohrabacher opened the hearings by reading closely from a prepared statement. His premise was simple: the committee had warned NASA and the White House not to place Russia and its fragile economy in the critical path as the International Space Station was built. This happened none the less.

When concerns were raised by Congress, NASA replied that they did not want to do all that was necessary for fear of hurting Russia’s pride. The relationship with Russia has “failed’ and, according to Rohrabacher, this “debacle’ has resulted in the delay of the Space Station for 2 years at a cost of several billion dollars to taxpayers.

In summarizing his anger and frustration he closed by saying “I guess Russian pride isn’t a problem anymore. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only reason for continuing the pretense of this socialist partnership with Russian bureaucrats is the pride of a few people on this side of the Atlantic.”

Ranking Minority member Gordon didn’t dwell on ISS other than to ask why the U.S Propulsion Module has experienced delays and increases in the proposed cost. He also noted that NASA had a year of mixed success with failures more or less balancing the successes and that Aeronautics research funding seemed to be declining.

Dan Goldin was given 10 minutes (he’s usually allotted 5) to make his opening statement. Before he did, he was asked to rise to be sworn in. As he did, he asked if those folks he brought with him from NASA could also be sworn in on the off chance that they might be called upon at some point during the hearing to given some detailed information. With a nod from Rohrabacher, more than two entire rows seated behind Goldin stood – perhaps 30 people – and took the oath. The scene was somewhat reminiscent of those special group ceremonies often performed on July 4th where a crowd of people become citizens all at once.

Goldin opened by noting that he had often felt like Sisyphus in the past 7 years when he came to the Hill to testify – i.e., the fellow in Greek mythology who was doomed to forever roll a large rock up hill only to have it roll back down again- and again and again. Today, Goldin said he felt like Hercules – an obvious reference to NASA’s budget increase. Goldin then proceeded to race through a gee whiz multimedia presentation of all the things NASA does quoting his more extensive prepared statement along the way.

Once Goldin had completed his opening statement, Rep. Sensenbrenner began to speak – the tone was stern and not unlike a scolding. Sensenbrenner reminded Goldin that the President had sent him a letter in 1994 that stated ” I want to assure you that the United States will maintain in-line autonomous U.S. flight and life support capability during all phases of station assembly.” Sensenbrenner said that he had taken this pledge at face value at the time it was offered. But clearly, this is not what happened. He chided Goldin for coming up to Congress year after year with predictions of when the Service Module would launch only to have those predictions never come to pass.

At this point, Sensenbrenner read from a long list of instances wherein Goldin or other representatives from NASA had testified with sincerity about Service Module launch dates – and the contingency plans NASA had in place. None of these launch dates were met and the ICM is still on Earth.

Sensenbrenner then expressed exasperation that NASA was now coming up to ask for more money to give to the Russians to deal with yet another Service Module delay. He asked Goldin if the President did not mean what he said in 1994 or whether NASA ignored the directive given by the President.

Goldin started to describe the current status of the program noting that NASA had only just completed the MEIT (Multi Element Integration Test) when Sensenbrenner interrupted Goldin abruptly in a loud voice asking “why did you tell us this year after year?

Goldin replied that NASA thought that the Russians would be ready. He then moved onto a new tact and said “we’ve had our own problems too” and that “blaming the Russians is not right”. He reiterated that NASA’s testimony was given with the understanding and expectation that the Russians would be ready to meet each successive Service Module launch date. Goldin noted that the only major mistake NASA made was not starting the U.S. Propulsion module much sooner than it did.

Noting that the Russian government had only allotted $50 million to Russia’s space program this coming year, Sensenbrenner said that the $35 million NASA is now asking to send to Russia would amount to a 70% boost in their space program’s funding.

Goldin said that the additional $35 million NASA was now requesting is the “right thing to do”. He said that the two items NASA wanted to purchase from Russia were needed to allow the ICM to dock with the FGB i.e. the APAS and the pressure dome and that they would be much more expensive and time consuming to produce in the US than to procure from Russia. Moreover, Goldin said that these items would cost $14 million and that the remainder of the $35 million (for other items) would not be transferred until the Russians had met their existing commitments.

When asked by Sensenbrenner why the Russians could not simply have been paid to launch the Service Module in the first place as a contractor Goldin replied that there is much more to all of this than just launching – i.e. there would be the cost of maintaining the Service Module once in orbit i.e. Soyuz and Progress flights.

Rep. Rohrabacher Then commented on Goldin’s earlier remarks, and suggested that instead of Hercules, Goldin might be feeling a bit more like Diogenes (a noted Greek cynic philosopher) – without a lamp. He then went on the voce his agreement with Sensenbrenner’s concerns and that NASA apparently did not listen to the advice given by Congress over the years and that we now find ourselves “behind the eight ball”.

Goldin replied again that this is all much more than just buying equipment. He then took on an angry tone of voice and noted that he had “gotten a $65 million quote from “a company” for a Soyuz . The next day a private concern got a quote from that company for one Soyuz, two Progress vehicles, and 45 days of Mir operations for only $45 million. He then identified the company as Energia and said that “Energia played double book keeping with us and we withdrew the offer.”

Rohrabacher smiled and noted that the Russian system is rather corrupt and wondered just how reliable a system NASA expected to see when “we have made ourselves dependent on this chaotic government”. Goldin replied that NASA had done an audit of all money sent to Russia and that they were able to track all of it and were certain that it had arrived at its intended destination.

Rep. Weldon noted that he had been disappointed to hear that RASA had cut a deal with a company for $22 million to extend the life of Mir. He added that he was also disappointed to hear that $35 million in additional funds was needed in order to make the ICM compatible with the FGB. He observed that the Russians apparently do not deal with the US in a straightforward fashion when it comes to quoting prices.

Goldin said that he was shocked and upset to learn of Russia’s latest delays. He repeated that a private company was quoted a much lower price for much more hardware and services than the US government was. He added that a good partner is one that gives its other partner(s) a straight answer in such matters. That is apparently not the case here.

Goldin took this opportunity to revisit his earlier comments on the commercial use of Mir. He said that there are two troublesome issues. The first has to do with funding shortfalls for ISS from Russia. So long as Russia meets its ISS commitments, it is not the US’ position to have any opinion on Mir. Goldin did say that he had told Yuri Koptev that if Russia was funding Mir and not all of its ISS responsibilities that there would be serious consequences.

Rohrabacher told Goldin that it was his understanding that the price quotes for a Soyuz had actually come from RSA via Energia and n fact, that RSA had been the one brokering the deal. He then suggested that having a private enterprise in the picture – and getting pricing quotes – might be serving a useful purpose by giving insight to just what things actually cost in the Russian space program. Goldin replied that Energia had wanted the original price for a Soyuz to be $135 million but that Yuri Koptev had interceded and that the price was dropped to $65 million.

Goldin’s anger then surfaced again as he said that he was “not pleased with the performance and attitudes at Energia and that it was its director who had been pushing hard to keep Mir going. Further, according to Goldin, it was the director of Energia who took him on a tour of the shop floor and pointed out the tail numbers of the Soyuz and Progress vehicles being built for ISS only to pull this hardware later for use with Mir. RSA has always met its obligations “when funded”, said Goldin, but he has his concerns about Energia.

Goldin then said “I hope our friends in Russia are listening to this hearing over the Internet. Some strong words have been said here – for a clear purpose”.

Later Goldin said that we (NASA) “will get through all of this” somehow – and that these difficulties often cause cold war scars to re-emerge. Looking at the “big picture” is the advice Goldin had for those struggling to understand the situation. He said that NASA has taken steps to reduce its dependency on Russia but lamented the fact that Russia’s problems seem to get all of the attention – and the blame. He then said “Boeing is a good company – not outstanding”.

With regard to the Shuttle flight rate, Rep. Weldon reminded Goldin that he had testified in February and June 1998 that the cuts in the Space Shuttle workforce at KSC were defensible and that safety was not compromised. Now, it seems that this has been reversed with the recent announcement of new hires and that NASA may have been incorrect in cutting these people in the first place.

Goldin did not answer Weldon’s concerns per se but instead noted that he had talked to the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel all along and that new hiring began with FY 99 dollars even before the ASAP report came out. He added that United Space Alliance has always been given the flexibility to hire in areas where they saw the need to do so.

Weldon then reminded Goldin of his predicted flight rate of 8 flights in FY 1999 and asked what had happened to drop the rate in half. Goldin replied that a combination of wiring problems, fuel line damage and ISS element deliveries had all conspired to put the launch schedule on hold several times.

Related Links