Panel Backs Two Cheaper Options for Space Station

The two cheaper options for a space station are the “most deserving of further consideration,” a presidential panel said Friday, urging the White House to pursue a simpler design for the project and to cut program staff by at least 30% to trim costs and increase efficiency.

In a 78-page report to President Clinton, the panel concluded that none of the three redesign options developed for the space station by a National Aeronautics and Space Administration team would meet White House cost targets.

But in weighing the three competing redesigns, it reserved its praise for those two options that differ most from the current design. That stance could put it on a collision course with some key members of Congress who have argued that the option closest to the current design would have the best odds of political survival.

Other members of Congress have suggested scrapping the project altogether, given the skyrocketing cost of all three of the redesign options.

The NASA team, which released its report Monday, came up with four basic designs, called Options A1, A2, B and C. Option B was the most expensive and the one that most closely resembles the space station’s current design.

However, the White House advisory panel recommended only Options A1, A2 and C. The committee said A1 and A2 were so similar that it considered them as one.

Option A uses much of the equipment and general design that had been developed for the space station. Its plan calls for construction in orbit with 16 shuttle flights. This option would cost $12.8 billion over five years, the committee said.

Option C, the report said, is the cheapest and least risky. This design would involve building a module that would be launched unmanned by components of the space shuttle. The module, which resembles a tin can, would have the most enclosed volume and would be powered by solar panels. Its estimated cost is $11.9 billion over five years.

Option B has been estimated to cost $13.3 billion.