Space Is Not Cheap

One of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s most often-cited explanations for the space shuttle’s problems is that budget cuts throughout the 1970s hindered the development of the program. Deadlines had to be stretched out to meet the reduced money, NASA officials say, the scale and scope of the shuttle had to be cut back, choices had to be made, and in the end, the shuttle wound up costing more for less performance.

History at the space agency appears to be repeating itself. Budget cuts mandated by the Gramm-Rudman deficit-reduction law will delay the agency’s space-station project by at least a year and add $1.4 billion to the total cost. NASA had sought $1.8 billion for the space station for next year. The Administration requested $1 billion, and Congress is likely to grant even less.

Now the space station, which was called by the National Research Council “the most ambitious and lengthy task NASA has ever undertaken,” will not be assembled in orbit until 1995 at the earliest. In the meantime, according to an NRC report, the cost has more than tripled from the $8 billion that President Reagan proposed in 1984.

The space station, a permanent orbiting laboratory, which continues to be the subject of controversy, is an important goal for the American space program. It will establish a permanent American presence in space and position NASA for further manned exploration of the solar system. America’s commitment to exploring the heavens, now more than 30 years old, should not waver.

It is foolish--not to mention counterproductive--to save money now on something that will cost more later. We have learned from the shuttle that there is no way to conduct a space program on the cheap. We have also learned the long-term cost of budget-induced compromises. The space station is worth doing, and it is worth doing right.

Which is not to say that NASA has demonstrated that it knows how to do it right. The tremendous increase in estimated cost of the space station is due in part to constant decision changes and disagreements about the role and the uses of the space station. NASA’s tarnished reputation raises questions about its ability to manage this project.

This is NASA’s opportunity to show that the doubters are wrong. But Congress is tying its hands. The space-station budget cuts show the poverty of decision-making by the Gramm-Rudman law. Across-the-board cuts have no virtue other than being politically expedient. By refusing to weigh options and make individual decisions, Congress ignores its responsibility to govern the country wisely.