The $40 Billion Controversy

By JEROME CRAMER/WASHINGTON Richard Truly

Q. Congress debated eight hours before approving your space station earlier this month. But many remain unconvinced that the benefits of the project match its price tag. Why does the U.S. need it?

A. There are several answers, but essentially we need to build space station Freedom with our foreign partners to keep the leadership position the U.S. holds in space. Look at how foreign countries now hold the dominant economic positions in so many parts of American life. That's not true of space. In this area we are still the world's leader. We've spent $5 billion in the station's development and definition. We've created a complex international partnership. We need, I believe, to keep this position as No. 1. It's a matter of both world leadership and economics.

Q. But for $30 billion or $40 billion? Couldn't we keep this leadership position by building something smaller, cheaper and more manageable?

A. Space station Freedom is an inevitable step in the march to space exploration. It is the linchpin of planning for the entire manned space program. It is the only way to put humans in space, to learn about their physiology so that generations in the next century can explore the cosmos more safely and confidently. Keep in mind, the fight we won in the House of Representatives to keep the station alive was about more than the space station. It was a fight for the entire space program. It's unthinkable that this nation, based on our history, science and technology for the past 30 years, would turn its back on manned space efforts.

Q. In these times of budget limitations, can we afford the luxury of manned space programs? What are the payoffs?

A. On one level, various studies show that for every dollar spent on manned space exploration there is an economic benefit of from $7 to $9. Freedom will pay dividends by providing new research in the areas of environmental control and life-support research, power generation and health-care technologies. But a large part of space exploration pays off in ways that can't be quantified. The discovery factor can't be downplayed; the fact that we'll be in space looking at areas of science that could lead to cures for disease can't be ignored. It's there, but you can't put a dollars-and-cents price tag on that. It's like trying to weigh the cost and benefits of going to the moon.

Q. Doesn't this sound a little like a Republican "trickle-down" theory of science -- spend money and hope it helps someone later or results in a cure for cancer or some other disease? Why not spend the money directly on scientific research or give the money to schools to improve education?

A. This is not a Republican idea, and the space station is not a Republican project. The strong bipartisan vote in the House proved that. But to answer your question, if we spent the space-station dollars directly on education or housing or whatever, it still wouldn't cure the problems of cities or schools. There isn't enough money in the NASA budget to cure those problems. If NASA were cannibalized that way, you wouldn't have a space station or a leadership role in space. We also wouldn't have touched the pressing problems of schools, housing or cities in any significant way.

Q. But couldn't this money be spent directly on science projects within NASA to greater effect?

A. There's no guarantee that the money cut out of the space station would remain in NASA. When the House Appropriations Committee earlier tried to kill the space station, the money did not go to science, certainly not to science within NASA. The money would most likely fund other uses in society. Those who say that savings from reduced space exploration will go to increase direct science spending are politically naive. Killing the space station would hurt all NASA programs.

Q. The station has gone through at least half a dozen designs and redesigns. It has been reduced from eight astronauts to four. Are you convinced that this current plan is the best space station possible?

A. Space station Freedom will meet its objectives. It's time to get the sketches off the boards and build it. If we go through another redesign, it could be the end of the century before the station is ever built. I believe this is the space station for us to build. It will perform world-class life- science studies that are needed to explore space. If it is killed, it will totally destroy the balance in NASA between manned and unmanned exploration. Again, this attack on the station was an attack on manned spaceflight. If Freedom is killed, it will set back space exploration -- both manned and with robots -- at least a generation. We've got to walk through this door to find out more about the effect of space on man before we can continue exploring the universe.

Q. Some members of Congress hit you hard. One called it "Space Station Lite -- one-third the mission for nearly four times the price." Another said it was simply an employment program for the aerospace community. Your reaction?

A. Such charges are irresponsible. At a time when the defense industry is laying off employees, the space station promises to employ 100,000 workers. This program is at the very essence of our nation's economic vitality. It's ) not about jobs so much as it is vision, daring, exploring. These are the things that made America great. Killing the station would undercut our leadership role in science and high technology. It would hurt our aerospace industry -- one of the few areas in which we still enjoy a favorable balance of trade. And it would put at risk our ability to make and maintain international commitments.

Q. To pay for the space station, the House essentially capped all other increases in NASA programs such as advanced physics research and space-shuttle funding. Did your other scientists object?

A. Some did, but we are working with the Senate to get the funds restored. Those projects have been planned for years. We haven't given up the fight for those funds. By the way, I would fight just as hard if nonmanned programs were threatened by cuts. I'd come out of my chair if Congress tried to cannibalize one program to pay for another.

Q. What about NASA's program to build a hypersonic-transport plane that could take people across the Pacific in a matter of hours? Is this still on the mark?

A. The U.S. canceled the first supersonic-transport program because of environmental concerns. It was too noisy to make economically realistic. But research continues at NASA on a new generation of planes and engines. Our job is to fund basic research and then let the private companies -- Boeing and others -- decide whether the plane should be built.

Q. What about Mission to Planet Earth, another multibillion-dollar NASA project? Will Congress take aim at this expensive venture?

A. The program is poorly understood and promises unbelievable benefits. It's essentially a large number of satellites and earth-observing stations that will accurately measure the earth's atmosphere. We'll be able to see where the ozone layer has been damaged, for example, and see if something can be done to fix it. It's an indication that NASA funds programs looking at both today's problems and tomorrow's possibilities.

Q. You've just had astronauts in orbit for an extended period. That's something you used to do. Do you miss being in space? Is it hard for you to sit on the ground and watch them?

A. You bet it is. Until this recent work on the budget, I'd attended every launch since Challenger. I love to see them go up and to be there when they land. I'd trade slots with any of them in a minute.