Russian Retreat May Jettison Space Station Deal

At a time when the international space station is winning growing political support in the United States, Russia is proposing design changes that could undermine the consensus in Congress protecting the $30-billion project from budget cuts.

A delegation of senior Russian space officials is scheduled to meet with U.S. counterparts Friday at the Johnson Space Center in Houston to propose a design revision that would reduce Russia’s costs.

Although the extent of changes Russia wants is unclear, the coming talks have drawn a stern warning from congressional leaders worried that Russia is about to breech the informal agreement covering its participation in the international effort, which is led by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

“A deal is a deal,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that controls the NASA budget. “We ought to let our partners know that we give very high priority to maintaining those original commitments if we want this program to survive.”

Although NASA is spending billions of dollars on space hardware that depends on Russia meeting its commitments, the original agreement covering Russian participation in the program has never been made into a formal agreement and signed.

Russia is to provide the crucial first building block of the space station, which contains its initial electrical power, navigation, propulsion and life support systems. It is to be launched in November 1997. U.S., Japanese and European modules subsequently will be attached to the Russian segment.

In addition, Russia is supposed to provide three laboratory modules, a Soyuz emergency return space vehicle and a power system for science projects, all requiring about 18 launches. The U.S. portion of the project will require 27 space shuttle flights.

Any major changes in the Russian segments could have broad ramifications for the station because its electrical, data and structural systems are integrated.

One possible proposal is that Russia would use Mir, the existing Russian space station, as a building block for the larger station. Another is to use two laboratory modules built for Mir: Spektr, a biomedical and atmospheric research module that is already attached to Mir, and Priroda, a yet-to-be launched Earth resources module.

The Russian proposal has come at a politically awkward time. NASA has achieved a broad base of support for the program, and Congress recently took the unusual step of authorizing all the NASA funding necessary through 2002 to complete the space station, $2.1 billion a year.

But now congressional staff members say that they are reexamining issues that they thought had been settled.

NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin has long declared that the space station design is final, ending numerous redesigns over a decade. But Russia’s deep economic problems have left many U.S. experts concerned that it might not meet its commitments, forcing NASA to try once again to reconfigure the station.

“Russia is basically out of money,” said Donald Fuqua, president of the Aerospace Industries Assn.

Fuqua said that Goldin has assured the industry that the space agency has contingency plans if Russia drops from the program, but any such plans are likely to require more U.S. money. A request for additional spending, combined with Russia’s departure, would certainly put the project into renewed political jeopardy.