High Costs Lead to Uncertainty : World’s Space Programs Reach a Critical Phase

The exploration of space is in its most critical phase since the dawn of the Space Age three decades ago, and decisions that are being made now will define the character of space programs around the world for the rest of this century.

Interviews with experts in Moscow, Europe and the United States reveal that some space programs are retrenching dramatically while others fight to maintain their status, and it is clear that all face major turning points in the immediate future.

The Soviet Union is believed to be in the strongest position of all the space powers, but for the first time Soviet scientists are having to woo popular and political support within the Soviet Union, suggesting that a power struggle is under way that could seriously alter the Soviet program. “Everything must be justified,” a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences said.

The European space program is besieged by internal bickering over pet projects that are being promoted by differing factions in the European Space Agency, and some member nations--most notably Great Britain--have severely reduced their commitment to space. A critical meeting in Holland next month will determine the scope of the European program through the end of the century.

The United States is perceived widely as a nation that has lost its commitment to space exploration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is viewed as leaderless and, as one top European leader put it, plagued with “indecisiveness.” European officials are also deeply concerned over past disappointments in joint ventures with NASA, and the major role Europe has been expected to play in the U.S. space station is in jeopardy.

Japanese scientists are pushing for a major expansion of their program at a cost of about $42 billion through the year 2000, tripling their budget, and Japan could emerge as a significant space power in the 1990s.

Other countries, most notably China and India, are moving forward with their neophyte programs. China is to launch a satellite next year that was first launched by the U.S. space shuttle and later rescued by another shuttle after it failed to reach its proper orbit.

Yet it appears that the dominant character of space exploration for the foreseeable future will continue to be the competition between the Soviet Union and the United States for world leadership, despite widespread discussions about international cooperation. The driving force behind space exploration is still nationalism.

There is, for example, no serious talk under way between the Soviet Union and the United States about such ambitious programs as a joint mission to Mars with the superpowers holding equal status. Instead, major international programs are most often viewed as projects that would bear the clear imprimatur of either the Soviet Union or the United States, with other nations playing supporting roles.

Nowhere is that more clear than in the proposed space station which NASA is fighting to save from congressional critics who question the value of a program that is now expected to cost well over $30 billion.

In Europe, the station is nearly always referred to as the “international space station.”

But NASA refers to it as the U.S. space station with international partners.

U.S. Will Be Landlord

Even in the delicate negotiations that are under way between NASA and Europe over $2 billion worth of hardware Europe is supposed to provide, NASA is making it clear that the United States will be the landlord, Europe the tenant.

At a recent meeting of the International Aeronautics Federation in Brighton, England, one European scientist was almost apologetic when he described negotiations between the European Space Agency and NASA.

Europe, he said, will be required to provide and maintain its own habitable space module that will be attached to the U.S. station. But since it will depend on the U.S. facility for its life-support systems, Europe will also have to pay part of the operating cost of the overall station. And in exchange for being permitted to attach the module to the station and draw on its resources, the United States will reserve the right to use half of the space in the European module for U.S. experiments.

An audible groan swept through the room as some scientists heard the conditions for the first time.

“That’s right,” the scientist said. “The U.S. will have half the use” of the module.

There is at least a remote chance that Europe will decide next month to pull out of the space station, a move that many space policy experts believe would be devastating to the United States’ stature in space exploration because it would represent yet another setback, although in this case political rather than technological.

Japan, which is also being asked to provide one habitable module, is being offered the same conditions, according to Japanese officials at the Brighton meeting.

That partly explains why the battle cry in Japan and especially Europe these days is for “autonomy.” There is considerable bitterness in Europe over past ventures with NASA, particularly in the use of Spacelab, a $1-billion-plus laboratory that was given to NASA by the European Space Agency in expectation that it would fly aboard the shuttle several times each year. The loss of the Challenger, a growing demand for shuttle services by the Defense Department and a reduced flight schedule means the laboratory will fly far less frequently than had been expected.

Bristle at Dependency

European scientists openly bristle at their dependence on the U.S. or the Soviet Union for key space projects. Europe has no manned space vehicles. German and French astronauts have flown aboard the space shuttle, and the Soviet Union is openly wooing European participation in its program, but Europe clearly wants an ability of its own to launch astronauts into space.

That is one of the key decisions that will confront ministers from the 13 member states of the European Space Agency when they meet in Holland on Nov. 9-10.

At that meeting, perhaps the most crucial in the history of the European space program, the ministers will be asked to decide the fate of European participation in the space station, and whether to move Europe toward autonomy with the development of a European space shuttle, called Hermes, and a powerful launch vehicle, Ariane V. The cost of all three programs has been estimated at $30 billion over the next 15 years.

Many experts believe that Europe will decide either for the space station or for a European shuttle, but not both.

The decisions the ministers make, in the eyes of many officials, will determine the scope of Europe’s program through the end of this century. But the timing could not be worse.

Great Britain, traditionally one of the pillars of the European Space Agency, announced recently that it would not increase its funding for space programs, thus virtually dealing itself out of the ambitious drive for “European autonomy.” The announcement stunned space scientists and brought about the resignation of Roy Gibson, head of the British space program.

Each of the agency’s member states decides how much it will spend on projects proposed by the agency, and industries within each country are eligible for contracts up to the total amount contributed by the country. Thus, even if Europe moves ahead on the space station program, none of the companies in England that participated in designing the European module will be eligible for contracts.

European scientists are bitter over the decision, and they see it as one more example of the dissension and lack of commitment to space exploration within the European community.

England has been cool to the idea of a European space shuttle, a pet project designed and promoted by the French. Instead, England had favored development of a “space plane,” called Hotol, that could take off and land like a traditional aircraft, the so-called “next generation” shuttle that would give Europe manned access to space.

But the decision by Britain not to increase funding has also doomed Hotol for the foreseeable future. Alan Bond, a British engineer who designed the craft, was so incensed that he said he might defy his government and take the still-secret concept to any country willing to build it, even if it means he could go to prison for violating Britain’s secrecy laws.

Reluctance Is Typical

England’s reluctance to commit more resources to space exploration is typical of the members of the European Space Agency, much to the consternation of many European scientific leaders.

“(Europe’s) space efforts have not been commensurate with (it’s) wealth,” Raymond Lygo, chief executive of British Aerospace, told the Brighton conference. “Although the United States and Europe are of similar population and economic strength, Europe’s per-capita expenditure on space is less than one-fifteenth that of the United States.”

He went on to say, however, that America seems to have lost its way. “One senses a certain indecisiveness as to the way ahead,” he said.

Jacques Blamont, chief scientist of the French space agency, put it less charitably during an interview in Moscow.

“NASA is fossilized,” he said. “There is no leadership.”

That assessment, which is widely shared, comes at the worst possible time, according to many experts, because it makes potential partners in international programs more wary.

The cost of space exploration has risen so high that such adventures as a manned flight to Mars cannot be undertaken without extensive international cooperation, noted John M. Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University in Washington.

“Either we learn to work in various kinds of partnerships, or many goals cannot be attained,” Logsdon said.

Many scientists believe that international missions would lead to a safer world because cooperation would draw nations closer together. Logsdon, however, said he thinks the scientists have it backwards.

“It is still politics that drives what happens in space programs,” he said, not the other way around.

Nationalism, even in technological progress, is still very much alive, he added.

Soviets Go Courting

Yet the Soviet Union, confident in the maturity of its program, is unabashedly courting other countries--particularly in Europe--in an effort to encourage more of them to put scientific instruments aboard Soviet spacecraft.

That mating dance comes at a peculiar time in the changing relationship between the superpowers. Logsdon noted that the Soviet space program is still predominantly military in character, but it is slowly becoming more “civilianized,” thus paving the way for greater international participation in Soviet missions.

Meanwhile, the U.S. space program, which traditionally has been primarily civilian in character, is becoming more “militarized,” he said, thus limiting the opportunities for international cooperation.

Further evidence of that shift came last week when NASA released its schedule of shuttle flights through 1990. The flights are scheduled to resume next June, and despite pressure from the scientific community to give greater priority to scientific flights, both the second and third missions will belong to the Defense Department.

The schedule, which does not include any new programs, calls for three flights in 1988, eight in 1989 and seven in 1990. Before the Challenger disaster in January of 1986, NASA had planned to launch about 24 flights each year.

One thing just about everybody agrees on is the fact that space exploration today comes with a very high price tag. Some would argue that the commitment has not been much of a burden for a highly industrialized country like the United States, but few would say that about the Soviet Union.

“The concern over the allocation of resources is real,” Logsdon said.

Today, there is much evidence that the Soviet space program is coming under close scrutiny. During the first week of October, Soviet scientists hosted a major international conference on space exploration. Nearly 900 scientists from around the world attended the meeting, many expecting some sort of dramatic announcement that never came. Some said later that Soviet scientists apparently had set up the meeting in an effort to convince their superiors in Moscow of the international political fallout from an aggressive space program.

The extraordinary meeting suggested that for the first time, Soviet scientists are having to prove their case in public. The pressure comes largely from a desire by top Soviet authorities to improve the living standards for citizens in a country that is believed to spend nearly one dollar out of every seven on space projects.

Some officials suggest that there may be another factor.

Superpower Status

Aside from military might, there is little in the Soviet Union that earns Moscow its position as a world leader. If the role of the military declines, an aggressive program in space exploration could help the Soviets maintain their status as a superpower, some experts believe.

Boris V. Raushenbah of the Soviet Academy of Sciences noted that the two could go hand in hand.

Money released from reduced military commitments, he suggested, “could fund many projects” in space.

Yet even the hardiest of space boosters admits from time to time that it does not hurt to take a long look at space programs that cost billions of dollars and expose astronauts to considerable danger. Noted British Aerospace’s Lygo:

“After three decades of dramatic and seemingly unstoppable progress in space, the almost unthinkable series of launch failures in 1985 and 1986 has caused many people to ask if we have come too far, too fast.”