ON 4 December, the second component of the International Space Station roared
into orbit aboard the space shuttle Endeavour. The station is the key to NASA鈥檚
ambitions to remain at the forefront of human space exploration. But as 1998
closes, those ambitions look increasingly fragile.
The second component, called Unity, has now been bolted onto the Russian
module Zarya, launched in November. It is basically a connector, but when Unity
will acquire any further modules to connect with remains to be seen.
The third major station component, the Russian Service Module, may not be
ready for its scheduled launch next July. Without this module, which carries
thrusters to keep the station in orbit, the partially completed structure will
slowly fall from the sky. NASA must decide by March whether or not to build a
temporary replacement module to keep the uncompleted space station aloft.
Advertisement
The collapse of Russia鈥檚 economy made 1998 an extremely tough year for the
station. Originally, the US had hoped that collaborating with Russia would trim
$2 billion from the project鈥檚 price tag. But as the Russians scramble for
funding, hardware sits in storage, launch plans must be revised and engineers
stay on the payroll. Far from saving money, the Russian collaboration is
actually costing billions of dollars.
In April, an independent cost-assessment team headed by Jay Chabrow of JMR
Associates in Las Vegas, a technology consulting firm, stated that NASA鈥檚
$17.4 billion estimate for the project was unrealistic, and suggested
that the price would rise to $21 billion or more. If you include the cost
of shuttle launches, the figure rises to $100 billion. And as New
快猫短视频 revealed in May, even these figures ignore the extra cost of any
launch failures鈥攚hich are almost certain to occur.
With all these mounting costs, it is hard at first sight to see why NASA
doesn鈥檛 call it quits. The station is certainly not being promoted in the
interest of science. In July, the American Society for Cell Biology became the
latest scientific body to say that the station would not serve any significant
research purpose. It declared that crystallography experiments in
microgravity鈥攐ne of NASA鈥檚 crucial scientific justifications for building
the station鈥攈ad made 鈥渘o serious contribution鈥� to scientists鈥� ability to
analyse protein structures or develop new drugs.
So why is NASA so determined to continue with the struggling project, even at
the expense of cheaper but highly promising proposals to explore the Solar
System with robotic space probes?
What is at stake, says NASA administrator Daniel Goldin, is the agency鈥檚
future as the torch-bearer for the human exploration of space. The space shuttle
is nearly two decades old and a trip to Mars is not yet within reach. The
International Space Station will keep the ball rolling until we have the ability
to send astronauts beyond the Moon.
鈥淚f you cancel this programme, you cancel the future of human space flight,鈥�
says Goldin. 鈥淵ou are not going to open the space frontier.鈥�
