More Money, No; More Science, Yes : Space agency has problems; are they fixable?

America’s space program seems finally to be getting some breaks to balance its breakdowns.

One break is a perceptive set of ideas from a White House expert panel for how to make the National Aeronautics and Space Administration work better.

Another is California’s Rep. George E. Brown Jr. (D-Colton), elected last week as chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. A scientist with a limited tolerance for nonsense, Brown is not only prepared but also eager to step in and help guide America’s space effort, as well as federal involvement in science and technology generally.

The last break worth mentioning is the return to Earth of the shuttle Columbia--not exactly covered with glory, but still able to claim vast contributions to astronomy despite an epidemic of mechanical failures of the telescopes it carried into space.

Brown, who met with Norman Augustine, chairman of the study panel and of Martin Marietta Corp. hours after the report was released, said his first impression was that the panel was on target. It is an impression shared by many space specialists.

The panel’s main message was that--especially during tight budget years of the near future--NASA should regain its focus on mission, stop trying to do everything and concentrate on doing a few things well. It called for:

--Not much more money for NASA, if any at all during the high-deficit years, but more science.

--Less manned space activity--presumably meaning fewer shuttle flights and more launches of new high-powered rockets to lift both manned capsules into space and scientific probes, which are often better suited than man to NASA’s central mission of exploring and learning.

--A redesigned, less complicated and less costly proposal for a U.S. space station with limited missions--studying Earth, studying the effect of space on life and experimenting on producing crystals and other materials in space.

The tone of the report was sympathetic, but its proposals go beyond mere modification to basic change. That probably is necessary to cure whatever caused the agency to blithely send into space the $1.5-billion Hubble telescope without ever checking to see whether it worked.

The committee of academic, corporate and space experts said not to build any more orbiters. Chairman Augustine warned of the statistical likelihood of another shuttle tragedy, similar to the explosion of the Challenger in 1986.

The new rocket-launch system would not replace the shuttle but would take the pressure off shuttle teams to get back into orbit as soon as possible after every mission. They also could keep space programs going if the panel is right about the inevitability of another shuttle disaster.

Brown calls himself a “space nut,” but he also is devoted to science and reason and comfortable with the scientific method that leaves nothing to guesswork. He will bring those traits to his hearings early next year on what’s ahead for NASA--a welcome break for the space program.