|
7 December 2001 |
|
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/... |
|
WASHINGTON -- America's European partners in the international space station Thursday threatened to pull out of the deal because of a U.S. proposal to scale back the orbiting lab. Other international partners -- Canada, Japan and Russia -- joined the Europeans in scolding the United States during a NASA Advisory Council meeting. The station, which is being assembled in space, was designed to foster closer relations with other countries and produce world-class research. Both of those objectives now are threatened by budget woes. The Bush administration, faced with nearly $5 billion in cost overruns in the next five years, proposed eliminating the living quarters and the escape pod to save money. Now the United States is looking much like a general contractor who promises a fancy new home with the latest amenities and then later says he can build only a small house without even a single bedroom. "Unacceptable" was the word used repeatedly by partners at the advisory-council meeting Thursday. The United States cannot unilaterally cut back on what it promised the partners, they said. "These other countries want to deal with countries that play by the rules and honor their commitments," space analyst John Pike of globalsecurity.org said. "There's going to be a widespread belief you can't trust the Americans if the U.S. doesn't come through. And I don't see any indication the U.S. is going to come through." The international uproar comes on the eve of confirmation hearings for Sean O'Keefe, whom President Bush nominated to replace Dan Goldin as NASA administrator. O'Keefe formerly worked in Bush's budget office, stressing to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration the need to control its burgeoning costs. The cutbacks would mean only three astronauts -- instead of six or seven -- could live at the station because the current escape pod fits only three. It also leaves astronauts and researchers without the habitation module, which was designed as their bedroom. A three-person crew would mean almost no time for the research that drew the partners to contribute billions in hardware. It would give the other nations less time for their own astronauts to spend on board -- a key perquisite because it helps build public support in their countries. But a task force led by A. Thomas Young, former head of Lockheed Martin Corp., recently issued a report saying NASA had done such a poor job managing its space-station finances that it ought to scale back the project for at least a two-year probationary period. Jorg Feustel-Buechl of the European Space Agency said that was such unwelcome news that he had trouble persuading European leaders last month to stay in the program. They decided to block 60 percent of future funding until the United States signals it will keep its commitment. Feustel-Buechl told the council he needs that promise by October or "more dramatic decisions" will be made. Feustel-Buechl said later that one option is "stepping out of the program." "The 'enhancements' are not just voluntary possibilities, they are obligations," he said. The United States, he added, should not solve its budget problems at the expense of its partners. ESA had its own $300 million cost overrun last year but didn't try to scale back what it had promised the international consortium, he pointed out. If the U.S. cutbacks in crew size make the European lab useless, that will lead to "a long and cumbersome compensation negotiation," Feustel-Buechl said. The current small crew proposal means the Europeans would get only 100 minutes of research time each week -- about 10 times less than promised. The Canadians would get just 30 minutes a week, according to D.A. Bassett of the Canadian Space Agency. And Canada would be able to send an astronaut to the station only once every 11 years instead of every three years. The Canadian Space Agency already has complained to the State Department. Tomiji Sugawa of Japan's space program said the smaller crew is "not acceptable." If the current three-person crew-limit lasts much longer, the United States should offer to renegotiate the deal, he said. W. Michael Hawes, deputy associate administrator of spaceflight development for NASA, said he has been hearing the complaints for months. The United States won't make a final decision on the crew size without consulting the partners, he said. "They're looking for a commitment from the U.S. government, and the U.S. government has more process to go through before it can make its judgment." NASA has been looking for other ways to provide the crew-return vehicle and the habitation module -- where astronauts would sleep -- without breaking the bank. Instead of building a seven-person lifeboat, the United States is considering buying Soyuz vehicles from Russia. Two Soyuz vehicles would allow a crew of six. The United States also is looking into having the Russians or Italians provide the living quarters. Feustel-Buechl said the Europeans had kept their part of the bargain, which included building a laboratory named Columbus. He drew laughs when he pointed out the name was tied to the original 1992 launch date -- which now has been postponed to 2004. The $100 billion space station has had schedule delays and ballooning costs for years. Some of the delays were caused by Russia. But the latest $5 billion cost overruns were pinned on U.S. problems. Tamara Lytle can be reached at 202-824-8255 or tlytle@tribune.com.
|
|
|
