The International Space Station’s Distressing Shortfall

Editor’s note: Editor’s note: This article first appeared as an op ed in the 18 June 2001 edition of Space News. It is reprinted here with the permission of the author, Patricia L. Russell, executive director of American Society for
Gravitational and Space Biology (ASGSB).

NASA shocked all of us when the estimated shortfall originating at NASA’s Johnson Space Center was announced. The suddenness of the acknowledgment and the sheer size of the shortfall were distressing to those working on the international space station program and to those whose work is consistently impacted by problems with the station.

The subsequent removal of George Abbey as Johnson’s director was not
surprising. What was surprising was the administrator’s technical
response to the announcement: limiting, descoping and canceling certain
space station functions in order to keep the program within budget caps.

These changes represent significant problems for the members of the
American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology (ASGSB) who were
relying on certain space station capabilities to carry out their
research programs.

NASA was to offer testimony as to the genesis and impact of the
shortfall March 28. This hearing was pushed back to April so as to have
the 2002 budget in hand for an analysis of the impact of the shortfall
against the budget. Testimony transcripts can be found on the House
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Web site at http://www.house.gov/science.
One of the most distressing responses to the budget shortfall is
the proposal to possibly cut the centrifuge from the space station
program.

This facility is critical to plant and animal research and has been
vetted time and time again by independent science advisory panels. Other
significant impacts include reduction of crew from six to three, (making
it nearly impossible for the crew to do anything but housekeeping tasks)
and reducing available time to perform all the scientific research to
less than 20 hours per week.

Cancellation of the Crew Return Vehicle — which in good conscience none
of us ought to support as it places the crew at risk — and delay in
completing science facilities and technology testbeds present
significant reductions in station research capability.

An old Cold War adage states that Republicans fund space programs and
Democrats maintain a semblance of support. The latter seemed true during
the administration of U.S. President Bill Clinton, but the former is
certainly not reflected in the 2002 budget submitted by President George
W. Bush. One of the hardest hit areas of NASA’s budget is the new Office
of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR).

In general, while other agencies, such as the U.S. National Institutes
of Health and the U.S. Department of Energy have received budget
increases at least reflecting the estimated rise in inflation, NASA’s
overall budget increase does not come close (3.4 percent vs. 1.8 percent
respectively). A recent report, titled Minority Additional Views FY
2002 Views and Estimates To The House Budget Committee, released
March 16 by the Democratic minority members of the House Budget
Committee recommended that the Budget Committee “at a minimum…
provide a budget increase to NASA that tracks the rate of technical
inflation.”

During the press conferences held April 9, when President Bush’s budget
was released, the focus was on cutting the congressionally mandated
set-asides known as earmarks out of the budget.

The message was that while the agency accounts were increasing in small
percentage numbers, the real dollars were stronger as the set-asides
were cut out of the budget. This reality is not likely to be maintained
once the budget gets through congressional approval and has, as far as I
can ascertain, not impacted the Office of Biological and Physical
Research at all. In fact, OBPR, due in part to full cost accounting
restructuring, has received a 6.9 percent cut of its 2002 budget request
relative to the dismal 2001 budget.

Coincidentally, in a status report released by NASA Headquarters, the
set asides for OBPR totaled almost 8 percent of the budget. However,
these minor budgetary changes are lost in the impact of NASA full cost
accounting and in the loss of the centrifuge and crew time as a result
of the space station budget problems.

The OBPR is ramping up to take responsibility for managing all
biological and physical research on the space station and for the first
time will have control over execution of funded projects for the space
station and the space shuttle. With the transfer of station program
management back to NASA Headquarters, OBPR will be in a good position to
see some efficiencies as they work to get scientific research on the
space station secured and off to a good start.

The OBPR has a mandate from the administrator to build a productive
scientific community to utilize its space assets, expanding agency
support to approximately 1,000 scientific investigations. However, loss
of flight opportunities, and loss of critical research infrastructure
make this mandate almost impossible to meet.

In regard to program changes made in reaction to the shortfall, one
could say that NASA’s administrator has decided not to take budget cuts
on the research chin any longer, and has responded by canceling items so
critical that Congress and the president will be forced to give NASA the
funds it needs to do the science. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to
happen.

As Congress responds to the impact of the budget on NASA’s capabilities,
and on its future ability to do the research promised these many years,
the life sciences program is being made the scapegoat to bad program
management. The loss of the centrifuge, one of several life sciences
research-critical components, represents a shutdown of the plant and
animal research programs. The life sciences community has viewed this
new development with dismay.

The loss of the centrifuge means the loss of a generation of researchers
and of new knowledge that will expand our understanding of gravitational
biology, and thus the very basic understanding of life.

Patricia L. Russell is executive director of American Society for
Gravitational and Space Biology in Arlington, Va.

Related Links