Representative Sensenbrenner, chairing the House Committee looking into these ridiculous assertions, was not inclined to support further funding. The Clinton Administration's Office of Management and Budget refused to send its director, Jacob Lew, to explain why Congress should pony up even more money for the dubious privilege of watching the Russians continue to fail to launch the first flight component, previously scheduled for flight in late 1997 and June 1998.
Meanwhile Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott was busy planning NATO airstrikes against the Serbs in Kosovo, and couldn't be bothered to appear before the House Committee. His absence from the hearings angered the chairman.
At $21 billion in sunk cost, the International Space Station is already one of the most expensive space projects ever, without even the first component in orbit. Some detailed cost estimates which include the cost of space shuttle launches, indicate the ultimate price tag of the Space Station to US taxpayers may be upwards of $150 billion. In spite of promises of Russian involvement reducing the cost, it has actually led to a series of outrageous cost overruns. Some in the science community have pondered the merit of such massive concentrations of research and science infrastructure dollars.
Russian Space Agency officials claimed yesterday that the countdown preparations for the first component, Zarya (Russian for "Daybreak") also known as FGB (an acronym from the Russian for Functional Cargo Module), represents a point of no return. While loading ethylene glycol into the module's temperature regulation system is an operation that takes some effort to undo, space expert James Oberg points out that the meaning of the term "scrub" derives from the need to scrub out the tanks of a launch vehicle when early launches were cancelled.
Anyone who does not anticipate that the space station program is going to continue to distort the market for space transportation and space operations facilities is incredibly ignorant. The space station program must be cancelled, before the sunk cost becomes even larger.
There is considerable reason to doubt whether the space station will be able to survive further delays. Even if the FGB component is launched on schedule, there is no reason to expect the American nodes and the crew module will be in place on time. Further, it is doubtful that the first manned operations will go forward in January 2000 as presently scheduled. If the FGB should reenter while NASA continues to dither about needing more money, the country will be in for significant embarrassment, as well as much greater losses.
Today there are plenty of companies eager to provide space transportation solutions for both cargo and passengers. There are numerous opportunities for hotel companies and space research companies to build their own space facilities, or lease them from companies which have had designs on the drawing boards for years. Some of these companies, including Houston's Space Industries, have a reputation for successful space missions.
We should give up the idea that NASA is needed for space activities or that the space station is a worthwhile investment.
NASA delenda est.
For more information on this story, see IST Exclusive, Russia Gets..., Rep. Questions..., Goldin tells..., and NASA Defends....
