WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 (UPI) -- Members of Congress expressed doubt Wednesday the International Space Station would be completed and generate the scientific research once touted as the reason for building the orbiting outpost.
At the same time a congressional hearing blasted the cost estimates made by NASA for the facility, two of the project's 16 international partners released letters critical of U.S. management of the station.
At issue was a congressional review of a report released Nov. 2nd that suggested neither the space agency nor the Office of Management and Budget can make a final estimate of how much additional money it will take to complete the baseline station. At the moment, the project is billions of dollars over its planned budget.
A spokesman for the Bush administration said Wednesday the project's cost woes may be even greater than forecast. "The $4.8 billion (cost overrun) may not be the end of it," said Sean O'Keefe, deputy director of OMB.
While O'Keefe praised NASA's technical design and development of the station, he said major changes in the space agency's budgeting was needed to salvage the project.
"Managing the program within cost and schedule must be elevated in importance -- particularly within the culture of NASA's human spaceflight program," O'Keefe told the House Science Committee.
Several members of Congress agreed the project had been poorly managed.
"I believe that billions of dollars has been misspent on this project," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA. Rohrabacher is chair of a subcommittee that reviews space agency projects.
"NASA just has to be more effective in spending taxpayer dollars," Rohrabacher said. "Let's bring in some more partners to this project."
Some of the project's existing partners, however, publicly expressed for the first time doubts about the future direction of the project.
In a statement released during the hearing by the Canadian Embassy, Canada's Space Agency called the ability of the United States to finish the station into question.
"The government of Canada believes that NASA is unable to bear the costs of fulfilling its responsibilities ... and would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the impact of the planned reductions in scope of U.S. operations," the agency said through its Washington spokesman Graham Gibbs. "The government of Canada requests that the United States convene a government-level multilateral consultation of ISS partners at the earliest practical time."
The European Space Agency, in a statement, also criticized NASA plans to scale back the station due to U.S. budget woes.
"There is no provision in the ISS agreements that would allow the possibility of any partner deciding unilaterally to cancel the provision of one or several of its listed elements," said a statement made by Dr. Herbert Diehl, chairman of the European partner's co-coordinating committee and the chief spokesperson for Europe's role in the space project.
Diehl called on the United States to "abide by the terms of its agreements."
At issue was the Bush administration's plan to cancel the space station's rescue craft and habitation modules as a cost-saving move, leaving the baseline station only able to support a crew of three astronauts.
Such a crew size would make it difficult for the station to conduct orbiting scientific research. But reaching even a reduced-size station may prove difficult given the budget cuts and restrictions imposed on the project earlier in the year.
"We need to complete the core elements of the space station within the existing budget," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science committee.
"The space station's cost trajectory is, in a word, unsustainable," he said. "The era of the blank check for NASA is over."
A. Thomas Young, chair of the committee that reviewed the station and compiled the report released last week, urged Congress to give the space agency 16 to 18 months to sort out the station's budget problems and come up with a new estimate, hire a new manager for the project and develop a new budget to complete the full-sized outpost.
"Sometimes hard choices have to be made in order to get a program that is worth it," Young told Congress. He also suggested a new effort to prioritize scientific goals for the station could set the facility's ultimate size and scope.
"Let the science priorities determine the size of the crew," Young said.
O'Keefe suggested a new station development plan could be prepared by next year. "If we are unable to get off the starting blocks with a new plan, we'll know that within the next six months," O'Keefe said.
But some members of Congress remained skeptical.
"We find our nation on the verge of ending up with a bargain basement space station," said Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla. "It might wind up with little real science, rather than a world-class research facility."
