Keeping Dreams Of Space Alive

July 13, 1991

What justifies recent votes by the House and a Senate subcommittee to keep funding the space station Freedom isn`t its intrinsic merit. In efforts to hold down its soaring costs, the project has been downsized and stripped of most of its intended functions.

Supporters in Congress are buying, essentially, a renewed commitment to keep pressing on, out of Earth`s bounds and into the unknowns of the solar system beyond. Many are persuaded not by science or economics but by reluctance to say no to the seduction of space and humankind`s pioneering spirit.

Most Americans share that reluctance. But science and economics cannot be ignored completely. Because of budgetary constraints, a House subcommittee earlier voted not to fund space station plans. But under pressures from the administration, the House later voted $1.9 billion for another year of space station work at the expense of other NASA projects, some of which may be of more importance and utility for space exploration. The Senate appropriations subcommittee last week decided to give the program $2.02 billion next year, taking much of the money from a housing program for the elderly.

At one time, the space station was envisioned as an assembly point and launching platform where manned spacecraft could take off for the moon, for Mars and possibly beyond with less interference from gravity. To help justify the enormous costs, other projects were added, such as growing crystals, manufacturing drugs, monitoring the environment on Earth and studying the effects of weightlessness on humans and other life forms in preparation for long space voyages.

As cost estimates grew astronomically, many of these projects were abandoned and the size of the space station shrunk. Scientists decided some experiments could be done as easily and more economically on space shuttles, unmanned craft or even on Earth.

Current plans call for spending $30 billion to $40 billion for a space station primarily intended to study weightlessness and new materials. But some long-time supporters of the station and the manned space program say the money would largely be wasted because the cut-back model could not accomplish its assignments and cannot be justified on scientific grounds. It would be, some opponents say, primarily a NASA jobs program. The National Academy of Sciences says the space station has only limited usefulness, and opposition to it among scientists is widespread.

Other critics argue that the station is an unnecessary expense because it is not essential to a manned voyage to Mars, for which President Bush has set a target date of 2019. A Stanford University group says that by working with the Soviet Union and using a heavy-duty Soviet rocket, a mission could be sent to Mars directly from Earth.

Supporters argue that NASA and the nation have already invested about $5 billion in space station planning that would be wasted if the project were killed. Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency are all backing the program and as partners have promised about $8 billion for it. Critically, their willingness to join in future big-science programs might be jeopardized if the U.S. backs out on the space station. And the Bush administration strongly supports the station as part of its on-to-Mars Space Exploration Initiative.

In a report issued recently, a panel headed by former astronaut Thomas Stafford made four proposals aimed at sending humans to Mars within about 25 years. It backs a space station as ``critical to exploration and our future in space.`` But the panel says downsizing may interfere with the station`s functions.

If the full Senate agrees to more funding to keep the space station program alive, what the nation will really be buying is the dream of escaping Earth`s confining gravity and moving on toward the stars and planets that have always beckoned to the human soul. Necessary or not, the space station has come to symbolize that great adventure in the minds of many. The question is whether that symbol of space adventure may now have become an obstacle to achieving the reality.