Order Code IB93017
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Space Stations
Updated July 31, 2003
Marcia S. Smith
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
The Space Station Program: 1984-1993
Space Station Freedom
1993 Redesign — the Clinton Administration Restructuring
The International Space Station (ISS): 1993-Present
ISS Design, Cost, Schedule, and Lifetime
September 1993-January 2001: the Clinton Administration
2001-Present: the Bush Administration
Risks and Benefits of Russian Participation, and the Iran Nonproliferation Act (INA)
Congressional Action
FY2003
FY2004
International Partners
The Original Partners: Europe, Canada, and Japan
Russia
Issues For Congressional Consideration
Impact of the Loss of Space Shuttle Columbia
Cost and Cost Effectiveness
Operations and Commercialization Issues
Issues Related to Russia’s Participation
LEGISLATION


IB93017
07-31-03
Space Stations
SUMMARY
Congress continues to debate NASA’s
change. Under the 1993 agreement, Phase I of
International Space Station (ISS) program to
U.S./Russian space station cooperation in-
build a permanently occupied space station in
volved flights of Russians on the U.S. space
Earth orbit where astronauts live and conduct
shuttle and Americans on Russia’s Mir space
research. NASA expects that research per-
station.
Phases II and III involve the con-
formed in the near-zero gravity environment
struction of ISS as a multinational facility.
of the space station will result in new discov-
eries in life sciences, biomedicine, and materi-
In 1993, when the current space station
als sciences.
design was adopted, NASA said the space
station would cost $17.4 billion for construc-
The space station is being assembled in
tion; no more than $2.1 billion per year. The
Earth orbit. Almost 90 launches are needed to
estimate did not include launch or other costs.
take the various segments, crews, and cargo
NASA exceeded the $2.1 billion figure in
into orbit; more than two dozen have taken
FY1998, and the $17.4 billion estimate grew
place already.
ISS has been permanently
to $24.1-$26.4 billion. Congress legislated
occupied by successive “Expedition” crews
spending caps on part of the program in 2000.
rotating on 4-6 month shifts since November
The costs estimate subsequently grew almost
2000. “Expedition 7” is now onboard. The
$5 billion, leading NASA (at White House
original date to complete ISS assembly, June
direction) to cancel or indefinitely defer some
2002, slipped to April 2006, with at least 10
hardware to stay within the cap.
years of operations expected to follow. Cost
overruns in 2001 forced additional changes to
Controversial since the program began in
the schedule. The grounding of the space
1984, the space station has been repeatedly
shuttle fleet in the wake of the Columbia
designed and rescheduled, often for cost-
tragedy also will affect the schedule, and
growth reasons. Congress has been concerned
operations.
Congress appropriated about
about the space station for that and other
$31.8 billion for the program from FY1985-
reasons. Twenty-two attempts to terminate the
2003. The FY2004 request is $2.285 billion.
program in NASA funding bills, however,
were defeated (3 in the 106th Congress, 4 in
Canada, Japan, and several European
the 105th Congress, 5 in the 104th, 5 in the
countries became partners with NASA in
103rd, and 5 in the 102nd). Three other at-
building the space station in 1988; Russia
tempts in broader legislation in the 103rd
joined in 1993. Brazil also is participating,
Congress also failed.
but not as a partner. Except for money paid to
Russia, there is no exchange of funds among
Current congressional space station
the partners.
Europe, Canada, and Japan
debate focuses on the impact of the space
collectively expect to spend about $11 billion
shuttle Columbia tragedy on the ISS program;
of their own money. A reliable figure for
the possibility that portions of the space sta-
Russian expenditures is not available.
tion may not be built for cost reasons; and
whether Russia can fulfill its commitments to
President Clinton’s 1993 decision to
ISS.
bring Russia into the program was a dramatic
Congressional Research Service
˜ The Library of Congress

IB93017
07-31-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The “Expedition 7” crew (Russian Yuri Malenchenko and American Edward Lu)
continues its work aboard the International Space Station (ISS). While the U.S. space shuttle
fleet is grounded due to the Columbia accident, Russian Soyuz and Progress spacecraft are
being used to ferry crews and some cargo to ISS. However, most of the additional segments
needed to continue space station construction are designed to be launched on the shuttle and
must await the space shuttle’s return to flight. Because Russia’s Progress spacecraft can
deliver much less cargo than the shuttle, the size of the Expedition crews has been reduced
from three to two to lessen resupply requirements. On June 1, President Bush and Russian
President Putin issued a joint statement reasserting the commitment of the two countries to
work together to continue the space station program.
The FY2004 request for ISS is $2.285 billion ($1.707 billion for construction and
operation, plus $578 million for research), but these numbers reflect NASA’s shift to full
cost accounting (see CRS Report RS21430) and are not directly comparable to the FY2003
and prior funding levels. NASA is designing an Orbital Space Plane (OSP) to take crews to
and from ISS, with a $550 million request for FY2004, and a projected 5-year (FY2003-
2007) cost of $2.4 billion. NASA accounts for OSP under the Space Launch Initiative(SLI)
in the Office of Aerospace Technology, rather than as part of the space station budget, even
though its purpose is to support ISS. In the FY2004 VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill (H.R.
2861), the House took no action on the space station, space shuttle, OSP, or Next Generation
Launch Technology programs pending release of the report on the Columbia accident
investigation (expected in late August).
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
NASA launched its first space station, Skylab, in 1973. Three crews were sent to live
and work there in 1973-74.
It remained in orbit, unoccupied, until it reentered Earth’s
atmosphere in July 1979, disintegrating over Australia and the Indian Ocean. Skylab was
never intended to be permanently occupied. The goal of a permanently occupied space
station with crews rotating on a regular basis was high on NASA’s list for the post-Apollo
years. In 1969, Vice President Agnew’s Space Task Group recommended a permanent space
station and a reusable space transportation system (the space shuttle) to service it as the core
of NASA’s program in the 1970s and 1980s. Budget constraints forced NASA to choose to
build the space shuttle first. When NASA declared the shuttle “operational” in 1982, it was
ready to initiate the space station program.
In his January 25, 1984 State of the Union address, President Reagan directed NASA
to develop a permanently occupied space station within a decade and to invite other countries
to participate in the project. On July 20, 1989, the 20th anniversary of the first Apollo
landing on the Moon, President George H. W. Bush gave a major space policy address in
which he voiced his support for the space station as the cornerstone of a long-range civilian
space program eventually leading to bases on the Moon and Mars.
CRS-1

IB93017
07-31-03
President Clinton was strongly supportive of the space station program, and
dramatically changed its character in 1993 by adding Russia as a partner to this already
international endeavor. Adding Russia made the space station part of the U.S. foreign policy
agenda to encourage Russia to abide by agreements to stop the proliferation of ballistic
missile technology, and to support Russia economically and politically.
President George W. Bush made statements that were generally supportive of the space
station program following the February 1, 2003 space shuttle Columbia accident. On June
1, 2003, he and Russian President Putin issued a joint statement renewing the commitment
of the two countries to work together to ensure the success of the space station program.
The Space Station Program: 1984-1993
NASA began the current program to build a space station in 1984 (FY1985). In 1988,
the space station was named Freedom.
Following a major redesign in 1993, NASA
announced that the Freedom program had ended and a new program begun, though NASA
asserts that 75% of the design of the “new” station is from Freedom. The new program is
simply referred to as the International Space Station (ISS). Individual ISS modules have
various names, and the entire facility is informally referred to as ISS or “Space Station
Alpha.” ISS is a laboratory in space for conducting experiments in near-zero gravity
(“microgravity”). Life sciences research on how humans adapt to long durations in space,
biomedical research, and materials processing research on new materials or processes are
underway or contemplated.
From FY1985 through FY2003, Congress appropriated
approximately $31.8 billion for the space station program.
Space Station Freedom
When NASA began the space station program in 1984, it said the program would cost
$8 billion (FY1984 dollars) for research and development (R&D—essentially the cost for
building the station without launch costs) through completion of assembly. From FY1985-
1993, Congress appropriated $11.4 billion to NASA for the Freedom program. Most of the
funding went for designing and redesigning the station over those years. Little hardware was
built and none was launched. Several major redesigns were made. A 1991 redesign evoked
concerns about the amount of science that could be conducted on the scaled-down space
station. Both the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the
Space Studies Board (SSB) of the National Research Council concluded that materials
science research could not justify building the space station, and questioned how much life
sciences research could be supported, criticizing the lack of firm plans for flying a centrifuge,
considered essential to this research. NASA subsequently agreed to launch a centrifuge.
Cost estimates for Freedom varied widely depending on when they were made and what
was included. Freedom was designed to be operated for 30 years. As the program ended
in 1993, NASA’s estimate was $90 billion (current dollars): $30 billion through the end of
construction, plus $60 billion to operate it for 30 years. The General Accounting Office
(GAO) estimated the total cost at $118 billion, including 30 years of operations.
In 1988, after 3 years of negotiations, Japan, Canada and nine European countries under
the aegis of the European Space Agency (ESA) agreed to be partners in the space station
CRS-2

IB93017
07-31-03
program. A government-to-government Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was signed
in September, and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between NASA and its counterpart
agencies were signed then or in 1989. The partners agreed to provide hardware for the space
station at their own expense, a total of $8 billion at the time.
1993 Redesign — the Clinton Administration Restructuring
In early 1993, as President Clinton took office, NASA revealed $1 billion in cost growth
on the Freedom program. The President gave NASA 90 days to develop a new, less costly,
design with a reduced operational period of 10 years. A new design, Alpha, emerged on
September 7, 1993, which NASA estimated would cost $19.4 billion. It would have used
some hardware bought from Russia, but Russia was not envisioned as a partner. Five days
earlier, however, the White House announced it had reached preliminary agreement with
Russia to build a joint space station. Now called the International Space Station (ISS), it
superseded the September 7 Alpha design. NASA asserted it would be a more capable space
station and be ready sooner at less cost to the United States. Compared with the September
7 Alpha design, ISS was to be completed 1 year earlier, have 25% more usable volume, 42.5
kilowatts more electrical power, and accommodate 6 instead of 4 crew members.
In 1993, President Clinton pledged to request $10.5 billion ($2.1 billion a year) for
FY1994-1998. NASA said the new station would cost $17.4 billion to build, not including
money already expended on the Freedom program.
That estimate was derived from the
$19.4 billion estimate for the September 7 Alpha design minus $2 billion that NASA said
would be saved by having Russia in the program. The $2.1 billion and $17.4 billion figures
became known as “caps,” though they were not set in law. (See Cost Caps below).
The International Space Station (ISS): 1993-Present
The International Space Station program thus began in 1993, with Russia joining the
United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada. The 1993 and subsequent agreements with Russia
established three phases of space station cooperation and the payment to Russia of $400
million, which grew to $473 million. (NASA transferred about $800 million to Russia for
space station cooperation through this and other contracts.)
During Phase I (1995-1998), seven U.S. astronauts remained on Russia’s space station
Mir for long duration (several month) missions with Russian cosmonauts,
Russian
cosmonauts flew on the U.S. space shuttle seven times, and nine space shuttle missions
docked with Mir to exchange crews and deliver supplies. Repeated system failures and two
life-threatening emergencies on Mir in 1997 (see CRS Report 97-685) raised questions about
whether NASA should leave more astronauts on Mir, but NASA decided Mir was
sufficiently safe to continue the program. Phases II and III involve construction of the
International Space Station itself, and blend into each other. Phase II began in 1998 and was
completed in July 2001; Phase III is underway.
ISS Design, Cost, Schedule, and Lifetime
ISS is being built by a partnership among the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, and
Canada. The 1988 Intergovernmental Agreement was renegotiated after Russia joined the
CRS-3

IB93017
07-31-03
program. The new version was signed in 1998. The IGA is a treaty in all the countries
except the United States, where it is an Executive Agreement. The IGA is implemented
through Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between NASA and each of its counterpart
agencies. Brazil participates through a bilateral agreement with NASA. Boeing is the U.S.
prime contractor.
NASA originally stated that ISS would be operated for 10 years after assembly was
completed, with a possibility for 5 additional years if the research was considered
worthwhile. Using the original schedule, assembly would have been completed in 2002,
with operations through 2012. By 2001, that schedule had slipped by four years, and with
the new approach being taken by the Bush Administration, it is not clear when assembly will
be “complete.” Hence, while the operational period remains at 10 years, correlating that with
a specific year is difficult. Each U.S. module was designed with a 15 year lifetime (5 years
during the assembly period, plus 10 years thereafter). Spacecraft often exceed their design
lifetimes, however, so that also may not serve as a reliable benchmark.
ISS segments are launched into space on U.S. or Russian launch vehicles and assembled
in orbit. The space station is composed of a multitude of modules, solar arrays to generate
electricity, remote manipulator systems, and other elements that are too numerous to describe
here. Details can be found at [http://spaceflight.nasa.gov]. Six major modules are now in
orbit. The first two were launched in 1998: Zarya (“Sunrise,” with guidance, navigation, and
control systems) and Unity (a “node” connecting other modules). Next was Zvezda (“Star,”
the crew’s living quarters) in 2000. Destiny (a U.S. laboratory), Quest (an airlock), and Pirs
(“Pier,” a docking compartment) arrived in 2001. Among the other modules that will be
added are laboratory modules built by Russia, Europe, and Japan, and at least one more
“node” built by Europe. (Some of the European- and Japanese-built modules count as U.S.
modules because they are built under barter agreements with NASA.) The U.S. space shuttle,
and Russian Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, take crews and cargo to and from ISS. A Soyuz
is always attached to the station as a lifeboat in the event of an emergency.
The schedule for launching segments and crews is called the “assembly sequence” and
has been revised many times. At the end of the Clinton Administration, the assembly
sequence showed completion of assembly (“assembly complete”) in April 2006. The most
recent assembly sequence is discussed below, but due to the Columbia tragedy, will need to
be revised. Construction is suspended until the shuttle returns to flight.
Three-person “expedition” crews have occupied ISS on a 4-6 month rotating basis since
November 2000 and the plan was to continue with three-person crews (two Russians and one
American, or two Americans and one Russian) until a larger crew could be accommodated.
The number of astronauts who can live on the space station is limited in part by how many
can be returned to Earth in an emergency by lifeboats docked to the station. Currently, only
Russian Soyuz spacecraft are available as lifeboats. Each Soyuz can hold three people,
limiting the space station crew size to three if only one Soyuz is attached. Each Soyuz must
be replaced every 6 months. The replacement missions are called “taxi” flights since the
crews bring a new Soyuz up to ISS and bring the old one back to Earth. Therefore, under
normal conditions, the expedition crews are regularly visited by taxi crews, and by the space
shuttle bringing up additional ISS segments or exchanging expedition crews.
CRS-4

IB93017
07-31-03
In the wake of the Columbia accident, the ISS partners are temporarily limiting
expedition crews to two (one American, one Russian) to reduce resupply requirements. They
are taken to and from ISS on the Soyuz “taxi” missions.
NASA planned to build a U.S. Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) for at least four more crew
members. NASA actually was designing a CRV capable of accommodating six to seven
crew members in case Russia was not financially able to provide Soyuzes in the future. The
CRV would have had a lifetime of 3 years, instead of 6 months like the Soyuz, reducing
operational costs. NASA also planned to build a Habitation Module to accommodate the
larger crew, and a Propulsion Module to provide fuel in case Russia was not able to provide
all the Progress spacecraft it promised. Europe also was to provide Node 3, another
connection point between modules. As discussed below, the Bush Administration canceled
or deferred these ISS elements.
September 1993-January 2001: the Clinton Administration.
Cost Growth. From FY1994-FY2001, the cost estimate for building ISS grew from
$17.4 billion to $24.1-26.4 billion, an increase of $6.7-$9 billion. The $17.4 billion (called
its “development cost,” “construction cost,” or “R&D cost”) covered FY1994 through
completion of assembly, then scheduled for June 2002. That estimate did not include launch
costs, operational costs after completion of assembly, civil service costs, or other costs.
NASA estimated the program’s life-cycle cost (all costs, including funding spent prior to
1993) from FY1985 through FY2012 at $72.3 billion. A more recent, comparable, NASA
life-cycle estimate is not available. In 1998, GAO estimated the life-cycle cost at $95.6
billion (GAO/NSIAD-98-147).
Cost growth first emerged publicly in March 1996 when then-NASA Administrator
Daniel Goldin gave the space station program manager control of money allocated for (and
previously overseen by) the science offices at NASA for space station research. Congress
gave NASA approval to transfer $177 million from those science accounts to space station
construction in the FY1997 VA-HUD-IA appropriations act (P.L. 104- 204). A similar
transfer was approved for FY1996 ($50 million). NASA changed its accounting methods
so future transfers would not require congressional action, and transferred $235 million from
space station science into construction in FY1998. (“Space station science” funding is for
scientific activities aboard the space station.
It is separate from NASA’s other “space
science” funding, such as Mars exploration, astrophysics, or earth sciences.)
One factor in the cost growth was schedule slippage related to Russia’s Zvezda module.
As insurance against further Zvezda delays, or a launch or docking failure, NASA decided
to build an “Interim Control Module” (ICM). To cover cost growth associated with the
schedule delay and ICM, NASA requested permission to move $200 million in FY1997 from
the space shuttle and payload utilization and operations accounts to the space station
program, and to transfer $100 million in FY1998 from unidentified NASA programs to the
space station program.
The appropriations committees approved transferring the $200
million in FY1997, but not the FY1998 funding.
In September 1997, NASA and Boeing revealed that Boeing’s prime contract would
have at least a $600 million overrun at completion, and that NASA needed $430 million
more than expected in FY1998.
Boeing’s estimate of its contract overrun grew to $986
CRS-5

IB93017
07-31-03
million in 1999, where it remained. In 2001, NASA estimated that overrun at $1.14 billion.
The contract runs through December 31, 2003.
In March 1998, NASA announced that the estimate for building the space station had
grown from $17.4 billion to $21.3 billion. In April 1998, an independent task force
concluded that the space station’s cost through assembly complete could be $24.7 billion and
assembly could take 10-38 months longer. NASA agreed its schedule was optimistic and
there would be about $1.4 billion in additional costs, but Mr. Goldin refused to endorse the
$24.7 billion estimate. By 2000, the cost estimate had increased to $24.1-$26.4 billion.
Cost Caps. The $2.1 billion per year figure the White House and Congress agreed
to spend on the space station, and NASA’s $17.4 billion estimate to build the station, became
known as “caps,” although they were not set in law. Both were exceeded in 1997-1998. As
costs continued to rise, Congress voted to legislate caps on certain parts of the ISS program
in the FY2000-2002 NASA authorization act (P.L. 106-391). The caps are $25 billion for
development, plus $17.7 billion for associated shuttle launches. The act also authorizes an
additional $5 billion for development and $3.5 billion for associated shuttle launches in case
of specified contingencies. The caps do not apply to operations, research, or crew return
activities after the space station is “substantially” complete, defined as when development
costs consume 5% or less of the annual space station budget. GAO reported in April 2002
that it could not verify whether NASA is complying with the cap because NASA cannot
provide the data GAO requires (GAO-02-504R).
2001-Present: the Bush Administration.
Cost Growth. As President Bush took office, NASA revealed substantial additional
cost growth. In 2000, NASA’s estimate of the remaining cost to build ISS was $8 billion
(FY2002 to FY2006). In January 2001, however, it revealed that an additional $4.02 billion
was needed. That figure grew to $4.8 billion by June, and the IMCE task force (discussed
below) said another $366 million in growth was discovered between August and October.
Those increases would have raised the cost to over $30 billion, 72% above the 1993 estimate,
and $5 billion above the legislated cap. NASA explained that the cost growth became
evident as 2000 progressed and program managers realized they had underestimated the
complexity of building and operating the station. The agency thought it had sufficient
funding in program reserve accounts to cover contingencies, but in late 2000 and early 2001
concluded that funding was insufficient. The Bush Administration signaled it would not
provide additional funds, and NASA would have to find what it needed from within its
Human Space Flight account. The Administration said it supported the legislated cap. A
July 2002 GAO report (GAO-02-735) traces financial developments in the ISS program from
May 2000-November 2001 and concludes that NASA’s focus on managing annual budgets
resulted in NASA’s failure to heed indicators of future program cost growth.
“Core Complete” Configuration.
In its February 2001 “Budget Blueprint,” the
Bush Administration announced it would cancel or defer some ISS hardware to stay within
the cap and control space station costs. It canceled the Propulsion Module, and indefinitely
deferred the Habitation Module, Node 3, and the CRV. The decision truncates construction
of the space station at a stage the Administration calls “core complete.” The Administration
said that “enhancements” to the station might be possible if NASA demonstrates improved
cost estimating and program management, but is only committed to build the core complete
CRS-6

IB93017
07-31-03
configuration. In 2001, NASA estimated that it would cost $8.3 billion from FY2002-2006
to build the core complete configuration, which was then described as all the U.S. hardware
planned for launch through Node 2 plus the launch of laboratories being built by Europe and
Japan. NASA subsequently began distinguishing between “U.S. Core Complete” (the
launches through Node 2, which, prior to the Columbia tragedy, was scheduled for February
2004) and “International Partner (IP)Core Complete” which includes the addition of
European and Japanese laboratory modules (through 2008).
The $8.3 billion estimate for FY2002-2006 was deemed “not credible” by the IMCE
task force (see below). NASA Headquarters directed the space station program office to
reassess its estimate, and had two independent groups conduct their own estimates. One was
an internal NASA group and the other was the Department of Defense’s Coast Analysis
Improvement Group (CAIG).
Following those reviews, in November 2002 the
Administration submitted an amended FY2003 budget request that shifted $706 million into
the ISS program from FY2004-2007: $660 million to boost program reserves to ensure
sufficient funds to finish the core complete configuration, and $46 million in FY2004 for
“long-lead” items to preserve the option of increasing crew size beyond three. The $46
million will be spent on Node 3 and an Environmental Control and Life Support System
(ECLSS), which are enhancements that might be pursued.
The amended request also
proposed another potential enhancement, an Orbital Space Plane (see below), and increasing
the annual shuttle flight rate to ISS to five per year beginning in FY2006. The Orbital Space
Plane concept was approved in the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-7).
What annual shuttle flight rate can be accommodated following the loss of Columbia in
February 2003 is yet to determined.
At a December 2002 “Heads of Agency” meeting in Japan, the international partners
agreed on a process for selecting a final ISS configuration by December 2003. Despite press
reports that the United States agreed to provide for crew size to increase in the 2006 time
frame, the Bush Administration remains committed to building only the core complete (three
person) configuration at this time.
Current Assembly Sequence. The most recently revised version of the “Rev F”
(Revision F) assembly sequence was released in October 2002. Although it has been
overtaken by suspension of shuttle flights due to the Columbia tragedy, it can be useful as
an indication of how much work remains to complete ISS assembly. Unlike the many earlier
versions, the October 2002 edition did not show a date for completion of assembly
(“assembly complete”). The immediately prior version showed assembly complete in April
2006.
The October 2002 version instead was based on the Bush Administration’s “U.S.
Core Complete” and “International Partner (IP) Core Complete” configuration. It showed IP
Core Complete occurring in January 2008.
More than two dozen launches needed to
assemble and occupy ISS already have occurred. The October 2002 assembly sequence
shows 26 more launches from November 2002 through January 2008, of which all but two
are U.S. space shuttle launches. The assembly sequence does not list expected Russian
launches of Soyuz “taxi” flights (2 per year) or Russian Progress cargo missions (3-6 per
year). It shows only the first launch of Europe’s Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and
Japan’s H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV), both of which are automated cargo missions (akin to
the Russian Progress flights). Additional ATV and HTV flights are expected. Hence, the
total number of launches is much higher than the 26 shown in the October 2002 assembly
sequence.
CRS-7

IB93017
07-31-03
The IMCE (“Young”) Task Force. At the urging of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), NASA created the ISS Management and Cost Evaluation (IMCE) Task
Force in July 2001. Headed by retired Lockheed Martin executive Tom Young, the task
force evaluated ISS program management and cost estimates. IMCE was a subunit of the
NASA Advisory Council (NAC). The task force released its report on November 2, 2001
[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/youngrep.pdf], concluding that NASA’s estimate
for FY2002-2006 of $8.3 billion to finish the U.S. core complete stage was not credible. The
task force called on NASA to make significant management and cost estimating changes by
June 2002. IMCE viewed the next two years as a period for NASA to demonstrate
credibility. If it does, a decision could be made to restore the CRV and Habitation Module
(or something similar) as “enhancements.” See CRS Report RL31216 for more on IMCE.
In December 2002, IMCE issued a status report concluding that NASA was making needed
changes both in management and cost estimating. It declared the new program plan credible.
Concerns of the Non-U.S. Partners and U.S. Researchers. The non-U.S.
partners, and U.S. scientists who plan to conduct research on ISS, have expressed deep
concern with the core complete configuration (see CRS Report RL31216). Concerns focus
on the decision to indefinitely defer a Crew Return Vehicle (CRV). Without CRV, the space
station can accommodate only three permanent crew members, not seven as planned. Since
2 ½ crew members are needed to operate and maintain the station, this leaves only one-half
of one person’s time to conduct research. Research is ostensibly one of the major reasons for
building the space station. For U.S. researchers, another issue is that NASA also has reduced
the space station research budget by 37.5% over the FY2002-2006 period, necessitating a
reassessment of U.S. research priorities on ISS. For Europe, Canada, and Japan, the “core
complete” configuration also poses problems because the additional four permanent crew
member slots were to be allocated, in part, to their astronauts. Without those positions,
European, Japanese, and Canadian astronauts could work aboard ISS only for short durations
as part of visiting crews on the U.S. space shuttle or Russian Soyuz “taxi” missions.
Crew Return Capability: CRV, CTV, and Orbital Space Plane (OSP). As
noted, crew size aboard ISS is limited in part by the number of occupants that could be
accommodated in a “lifeboat” in the event of an emergency such as a catastrophic hull
depressurization or a fire. One Soyuz spacecraft, which can accommodate three people, is
always docked at ISS today to provide this lifeboat function. Instead of building a U.S.
CRV, one option is to procure additional Soyuzes, so two could be docked at the station at
a time. That would allow crew size to expand to six. What price Russia would charge for
additional Soyuzes is not known. Whether NASA could pay for them is complicated by the
Iran Nonproliferation Act (see below)
NASA indefinitely deferred its plans to build a Crew Return Vehicle (CRV). A CRV
would be able only to return crews to Earth from the space station (it would be taken into
orbit, unoccupied, via the space shuttle). A Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV), by contrast, could
take people both to and from the space station. In November 2002, in its amended FY2003
budget request, NASA proposed building a CTV, which NASA calls an Orbital Space Plane
(OSP). OSP is a spacecraft, not a launch vehicle. It would be launched into space on a
traditional “expendable” launch vehicle such as an Atlas 5 or Delta 4.
NASA proposed
shifting $882 million (in FY2003-2007) into OSP from funding it had planned to spend on
building a replacement for the space shuttle (the Space Launch Initiative, or SLI, program).
The FY2003 request was $296 million. Congress approved the OSP program in the FY2003
CRS-8

IB93017
07-31-03
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7), but neither approved nor disapproved
the funding level, giving NASA flexibility in deciding that level.
NASA accounts for the OSP program not within the space station budget, but under the
Space Launch Initiative in the Office of AeroSpace Technology. That decision could be
controversial, since OSP’s purpose is to take crews to and from the space station, and it
replaces the CRV program, which was carried in the space station account. The $4.8 billion
ISS cost growth included required funding for the CRV, and was ameliorated in part by the
termination of CRV.
NASA plans to conduct design studies for OSP through FY2004, after which it would
decide whether to develop it or not. NASA included “placeholder” funding in the FY2003
amended budget request (for FY2003-2007) of $2.405 billion. The FY2004 request is $550
million. Until the design is firm, NASA says it cannot estimate the cost of building such a
vehicle, but some suggest the cost is $9-13 billion. NASA says OSP would be available first
in a CRV mode in 2010, and in 2012 (after the launch vehicle it will use is “human-rated”)
as a CTV. That would mean that Soyuz spacecraft would be needed until 2010 as lifeboats
for Expedition crews. In July 2003, NASA notified its OSP contractors (Boeing, Lockheed
Martin, and a Northrop Grumman/Orbital team) that it wants to accelerate the OSP schedule
by 2 years so that it would be available as a CRV by 2008.
In the existing international ISS agreements, Russia agreed to have one Soyuz (replaced
every 6 months) docked to ISS through the lifetime of the station.
A 1996 U.S.-Russia
agreement stipulates that through “assembly complete” (then expected in 2006), Russia
would provide crew return capability for three crew members. Eleven Soyuz spacecraft were
specified for this purpose. According to NASA, that requirement ends in the spring of 2006.
By 2006, the U.S. CRV was expected to be available, allowing crew size to increase. The
U.S. CRV was required to support at least four more crew members. In the event the U.S.
CRV is not yet available, the agreement simply calls on the parties to “discuss appropriate
action.” Until a CRV is available (whether in 2010 as NASA was planning last year, or 2008
as it is hoping today) Americans might be limited to residency aboard ISS only when the U.S.
space shuttle is docked. (Russia presumably would continue to have one Soyuz docked at
the station, but would control who could use it, with no guarantee that Americans would be
included.) As noted, the Iran Nonproliferation Act prevents NASA from paying to use Soyuz
unless Russia does not proliferate certain technologies to Iran. Some argue that NASA
should focus on building a vehicle that could be ready by 2006, rather than 2008 or 2010.
The ReMaP and NRC Reports on ISS Scientific Research. On July 10, 2002,
the Research Maximization and Prioritization (ReMaP) task force reported to the NASA
Advisory Council (NAC) on its efforts to reprioritize NASA’s ISS scientific research
program in light of the decision to scale back the space station’s capabilities; the report is
available at [ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/2002/REMAPrept.pdf]. ReMaP focused
on research intended to be conducted on ISS through NASA’s Office of Biological and
Physical Research (OBPR). ReMaP recommended that OBPR’s ISS research plan be
reconfigured with an interdisciplinary approach, identified research priorities, reemphasized
the need for a centrifuge, and stressed the need for a strategy for conducting research. It also
recommended that if NASA does not build ISS beyond the core complete configuration, then
the agency should cease characterizing ISS as a science-driven program. ReMaP noted that
there may be other valid justifications for building ISS, however.
CRS-9

IB93017
07-31-03
The National Research Council (NRC) released a study of how the ISS program
restructuring would impact scientific research in September 2002. Its overall conclusions
parallel those of ReMaP. Both NRC and ReMaP emphasized that the negative impact on
science is due not only to inadequate crew time, but to limits on the amount of “upmass”
(e.g., scientific equipment and experiments) that can taken to ISS because NASA proposed
to limit shuttle flights to four per year (see CRS Issue Brief IB93062).
Risks and Benefits of Russian Participation, and the Iran
Nonproliferation Act (INA)

For many years, controversy over the ISS program focused on Russia’s participation in
the program. Among the issues were the extent to which successful completion of ISS is
dependent on Russia, Russia’s financial ability to meet its commitments, and whether the
United States should provide funding to Russia if it proliferates missile technology to certain
countries. While there is no exchange of funds among the other ISS partners, the United
States (and other partners) provide funding to Russia. By 1998, the United States had paid
approximately $800 million to Russia for space station cooperation. Although attention is
currently focused on NASA’s budgetary problems, the issues concerning Russia’s role
remain as important today as they were in the past.
Following the Clinton Administration’s decision to bring Russia into the program,
Congress stated that Russian participation “should enhance and not enable” the space station
(H.Rept. 103-273, to accompany H.R. 2491, the FY1994 VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill—
P.L. 103-124). The current design, however, can only be viewed as being “enabled” by
Russian participation. It is dependent on Russian Progress vehicles for reboost (to keep the
station from reentering Earth’s atmosphere), on Russian Soyuz spacecraft for emergency
crew return, and on Russia’s Zvezda module for crew quarters (which allows ISS to be
permanently occupied).
Russia’s financial ability to meet its commitments is an ongoing issue. The launch of
Zvezda, the first module Russia had to pay for itself, was more than two years late. (Zarya
was built by Russia, but NASA paid for it.) Since Zvezda’s launch in 2000, Russia has met
its commitments to launch Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, but is reassessing what other
modules and hardware it will build at its own expense. At the end of 2002, Russian Aviation
and Space Agency (RAKA, or Rosaviakosmos) director Yuri Koptev expressed concern as
to whether his agency could provide Soyuz spacecraft in 2003 due to budget constraints.
In the wake of the Columbia tragedy, ISS is now reliant on Soyuz and Progress spacecraft
to keep ISS operating, and Mr. Koptev is expressing deep concern about from where the
money will come. Mr. Koptev estimated in 1997 that Russia would spend $3.5 billion on
its portion of the ISS (later he said $6.2 billion if launch costs were included), but it is not
clear at this point how much money Russia will put into the program.
Political issues also are crucial. The overall relationship between the United States and
Russia is one major factor. Another is the linkage between the space station and Russian
adherence to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) designed to stem proliferation
of ballistic missile technology. Getting Russia to adhere to the MTCR appears to have been
a primary motivation behind the Clinton Administration’s decision to add Russia as a
partner. The United States wanted Russia to restructure a contract with India that would
have given India advanced rocket engines and associated technology and know-how. The
CRS-10

IB93017
07-31-03
United States did not object to giving India the engines, but to the technology and know-how.
Russia claimed that restructuring the contract would cost $400 million. The 1993 agreement
to bring Russia into the space station program included the United States paying Russia $400
million for space station cooperation. At the same time, Russia agreed to adhere to the
MTCR. The question is what the United States will do if Russia violates the MTCR. Some
Members of Congress believe Russia already has done so. The Clinton Administration
sanctioned 10 Russian entities for providing technology to Iran. Neither Rosaviakosmos nor
any major Russian ISS contractors or subcontractors were among those sanctioned.
On March 14, 2000, President Clinton signed into law (P.L. 106-178) the Iran
Nonproliferation Act (INA). The law, inter alia, prohibits NASA from making payments
after January 1, 1999 in cash or in kind to Russia for ISS unless Russia takes the necessary
steps to prevent the transfer of weapons of mass destruction and missile systems to Iran and
the President certifies that neither Rosaviakosmos nor any entity reporting to it has made
such transfers for at least one year prior to such determination. Exceptions are made for
payments needed to prevent imminent loss of life by or grievous injury to individuals aboard
ISS (the “crew safety” exception); for payments to construct, test, prepare, deliver, launch,
or maintain Zvezda as long as the funds do not go to an entity that may have proliferated to
Iran and the United States receives goods or services of commensurate value; and the $14
million for hardware needed to dock the U.S. ICM (see above). President Clinton provided
Congress with the required certification with regard to the $14 million on June 29, 2000, but
no certification was forthcoming for the remaining $24 million. Without such a certification,
NASA may only spend more money in Russia for ISS by meeting one of the remaining
exceptions— maintenance of Zvezda (further defined in the law) and crew safety. At a House
International Relations Committee hearing on October 12, 2000, Members sharply criticized
NASA’s legal interpretation of the crew safety exception. H.R. 1001 (Lampson) would
amend the INA to allow payments to Russia any time the space shuttle fleet is grounded.
Another expected benefit—financial savings—also is in question. Clinton
Administration and NASA officials asserted repeatedly that a joint space station would
accelerate the schedule by 2 years and reduce U.S. costs by $4 billion. That was later
modified to one year and $2 billion, and an April 1, 1994 letter to Congress from NASA said
15 months and $1.5 billion. NASA officials continued to use the $2 billion figure thereafter,
however. GAO concluded (GAO/NSIAD 94-248) that Russian participation would cost
NASA $1.8 billion, essentially negating the $2 billion in expected savings. In 1998, a NASA
official conceded that having Russia as a partner added $1 billion to the cost. Other benefits
cited by the Clinton Administration were providing U.S. financial assistance to Russia as it
moves to a market economy, keeping Russian aerospace workers employed in
non-threatening activities, and the emotional impact, historic symbolism, and potential long
term significance for future space cooperation, of the two former Cold War adversaries
working together in space.
One benefit that is being realized is that the space station can be serviced with Russian
as well as American spacecraft, providing redundancy in case either side must ground its
fleet due to an accident, for example. This is an important advantage now that the U.S. space
shuttle fleet is grounded. Russia is providing both crew and cargo flights to the space station,
enabling it to continue operation without the shuttle.
CRS-11

IB93017
07-31-03
Congressional Action
Table 1. U.S. Space Station
Funding
(in $ millions)
FY2003
For FY2003, NASA requested $1.839
Fiscal Year
Request
Appropriated
billion for the space station program: $1.492
1985
150
150
billion in the HSF account for ISS
1986
230
205
construction and operations, and $347
million in the SAT account for research. In
1987
410
410
the
FY2003
Omnibus
Continuing
1988
767
425
Appropriations resolution, P.L. 108-7,
Congress approved that funding, plus $8
1989
967
900
million for plant and animal habitats for
1990
2,050
1,750
ISS. According to NASA’s initial operating
plan, $1.810 billion is available for ISS in
1991
2,430
1,900
FY2003.
1992
2,029
2,029
1993
2,250
2,100
FY2004
1994
2,106
2,106
For FY2004, NASA is requesting
1995
2,113
2,113
$2.285 billion for ISS: $1.707 billion for
construction and operations, and $578
1996
2,115
2,144
million for scientific research. In addition,
1997
2,149
2,149
it is requesting $550 million for the Orbital
Space Plane. Note that NASA’s FY2004
1998
2,121
2,441*
budget reflects full cost accounting, where
1999
2,270
2,270
personnel and facilities costs are now
2000
2,483
2,323
included in the program’s budget, instead of
accounted for separately, as had been done
2001
2,115
2, 115
in the past. Hence FY2004 NASA funding
2002
2,114
2,093
figures are not directly comparable to
previous NASA figures. In the FY2004
2003
1,839
1,810**
VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill (H.R.
2004
2,285***
2861), the House took no action on the
space station, shuttle, or OSP programs
The numbers here reflect NASA’s figures for
“the space station program.” Over the years,
pending release of the report on the
what is included in that definition has changed.
Columbia accident investigation
* NASA’s FY1999 budget documents show
$2.501 billion on the expectation Congress
would approve additional transfer requests, but it
did not.
**Adjusted for 0.65% rescission.
International Partners
***Reflects shift to full cost accounting.
The Original Partners: Europe,
Canada, and Japan

Canada, Japan, and most of the 15 members of the European Space Agency (ESA) have
been participating in the space station program since it began. Formal agreements were
signed in 1988, but had to be revised following Russia’s entry into the program, and two
more European countries also joined in the interim. The revised agreements were signed on
CRS-12

IB93017
07-31-03
January 29, 1998, among the partners in the ISS program: United States, Russia, Japan,
Canada, and 11 European countries—Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
Representatives of the various governments signed the government-to-government level
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that governs the program. (The United Kingdom signed
the IGA, but is not financially participating in the program so the number of European
countries participating in the program is variously listed as 10 or 11.) NASA also signed
Memoranda of Understanding for implementing the program with its counterpart agencies:
the European Space Agency (ESA), the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), the Russian space
agency (Rosaviakosmos), and the Japanese Science and Technology Agency. The IGA is
a treaty in all the countries except the United States (where it is an Executive Agreement).
Canada is contributing the Mobile Servicing System (MSS) for assembling and
maintaining the space station. In February 1994, the new prime minister of Canada had
decided to terminate Canada’s role in the program, but later agreed to reformulate Canada’s
participation instead. The first part of the MSS (the “arm”) was launched in April 2001;
another part, the Special Purpose Dextrous Manipulator (the “fingers”), is scheduled for
2005. ESA is building a laboratory module called Columbus and an Automated Transfer
Vehicle (ATV).
The major contributors are Germany, France, and Italy. Budgetary
difficulties over the years led ESA to cancel other hardware it was planning. ESA also is
building a cupola (a windowed dome) and paying for Italy to build two of the three “nodes”
(Node 2 and Node 3) in exchange for free shuttle flights to launch its ISS hardware. Node
2 is completed and is undergoing integration testing at Kennedy Space center. Node 3 is not
included in NASA’s core complete configuration. Japan is building a laboratory module,
Kibo (Hope). One part is pressurized and another part will be exposed to space for
experiments requiring those conditions. The pressurized section is undergoing integration
testing with Node 2 at Kennedy Space Center. Japan also is building a large centrifuge and
a module (“CAM”) to accommodate it for NASA in exchange for free shuttle flights to
launch Kibo. CAM is scheduled for launch in 2007. NASA also has a bilateral agreement
with Italy under which Italy is providing three “mini-pressurized logistics modules”
(MPLMs). They are attached to ISS while cargo is transferred to the station, then filled with
refuse or other unwanted material and returned to Earth. Another bilateral agreement was
signed with Brazil in October 1997 for Brazil to provide payload and logistics hardware.
Brazil is restructuring its agreement in light of financial constraints, however.
According to Japan’s space agency, NASDA, Japan’s total spending on ISS is expected
to be $4.8 billion, of which $3.48 billion had been spent by the end of March 2001. CSA
reports that Canada’s total ISS funding is expected to be $1.3 billion (U.S.), of which $1.04
billion (U.S.) had been spent by October 2001. NASA reported in January 2002 that, as of
October 2001, ESA had spent $3.7 billion of an estimated total of $4.8 billion on its ISS
contributions. Russian figures are not available.
Russia
Issues associated with Russia’s participation in ISS are discussed elsewhere. This
section explains Russian space station activities from 1971 to the present. The Soviet Union
launched the world’s first space station, Salyut 1, in 1971 followed by five more Salyuts and
then Mir. At least two other Salyuts failed before they could be occupied. The Soviets
accumulated a great deal of data from the many missions flown to these stations on human
CRS-13

IB93017
07-31-03
adaptation to weightlessness. The data were often shared with NASA. They also performed
microgravity materials processing research, and astronomical and Earth remote sensing
observations. Importantly, they gained considerable experience in operating space stations.
Russia’s most recent space station, Mir, was a modular space station built and operated
between 1986 and 2001. Crews were ferried back and forth to Mir using Soyuz spacecraft
A Soyuz spacecraft was always attached to Mir when a crew was aboard in case of an
emergency, and Soyuz capsules now are used as lifeboats for ISS.
Crews occupied Mir from 1986-2000. For almost ten of those years (1989-1999), Mir
was continuously occupied by crews on a rotating basis.
Although occasionally crews
stayed for very long periods of time to study human reaction to long duration spaceflight,
typically they remained for 5-6 months and then were replaced by a new crew. From 1995-
1998, seven Americans participated in long duration (up to 6 months) missions aboard Mir,
and nine space shuttle missions docked with the space station. Individuals from Japan,
Britain, Austria, Germany, France, and the Slovak Republic also paid for visits to Mir.
Russia deorbited Mir into the Pacific Ocean on March 23, 2001.
Issues For Congressional Consideration
Impact of the Loss of Space Shuttle Columbia
At a minimum, the Columbia tragedy will affect the schedule for assembly of ISS, and
temporarily reduce the size of Expedition crews from three to two, as discussed earlier. The
crews will be taken to and from ISS using Soyuz spacecraft on the same 6-month schedule
already planned, and Russian Progress spacecraft will be used to resupply the crew. Progress
cannot take space station segments into orbit, so construction of ISS remains suspended until
the shuttle returns to flight. This agreement is dependent upon funding becoming available
to accelerate the procurement of additional Progress spacecraft, however. Although Russia
is obligated under existing agreements to provide two Soyuz and a certain number of
Progress spacecraft each year, Russia has cautioned its partners for some time that is does
not have the money to provide those spacecraft. Russia is looking to the other partners to pay
some of the costs. Under the Iran Nonproliferation Act (INA), though, NASA is prohibited
from paying Russia for such spacecraft unless the President certifies that Russia is not
proliferating certain technologies to Iran. NASA Administrator O’Keefe told the House
Science Committee on February 27, 2003 that he had not asked the White House to request
a waiver from the INA requirements. That position was reasserted by NASA’s Associate
Administrator for External Relations, John Schumacher, at a June 11, 2003 hearing before
a subcommittee of the House Science Committee. He conceded that NASA might ask for a
waiver from INA as a “last resort,” but did not anticipate doing so. H.R. 1001 would amend
the INA to permit payments to Russia for ISS any time the space shuttle is grounded, but Mr.
O’Keefe said no modifications to the INA are required now.
If the shuttle is grounded for an extended period. the decision to keep crews on ISS may
need to be reassessed. The Russians operated all of their seven space stations using only
Soyuz and Progress, so it is possible to keep ISS operating without the shuttle. In this case,
however, not only would questions remain about how to fund the requisite Soyuz and
Progress missions, but ISS was designed to take advantage of the crew- and cargo-carrying
capacity of the U.S. space shuttle. For example, NASA earlier stated that 2 ½ crew
CRS-14

IB93017
07-31-03
members are needed to operate ISS. If only a two-person crew can be supported without the
shuttle, even less time may be available for scientific experiments, and there also will be
fewer experiments to conduct since many cannot be transported to the station without the
shuttle. If little science can be accomplished, some may question the value of keeping a crew
aboard, and the wisdom of asking astronauts and cosmonauts to accept the risks inherent in
human spaceflight simply to maintain ISS systems. Conversely, how long ISS could
continue to function with no one aboard is unknown. Progress spacecraft could dock with
ISS automatically to reboost it and keep it at the proper altitude, but a major system
malfunction that could not be remedied by ground-based controllers could imperil the station.
Assessing the likelihood of such a scenario is difficult.
Cost and Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness involves what can be accomplished with the facility that is ultimately
built versus its cost. In 1993, NASA said it would cost $17.4 billion to build the U.S. portion
of the space station. That rose to $24.1-$26.4 billion by early 2000, with $5 billion more in
cost growth announced in 2001. Cost estimates for the earlier Freedom design had risen
significantly as the years passed, and with each Freedom redesign, the amount of science
diminished. Scientific research is often cited as a major reason for building the station.
Many wondered whether Freedom’s fate awaited ISS, and now believe it has. In FY1996,
FY1997, and FY1998 NASA transferred a total of $462 million from the space station
science accounts into space station construction. In response to the cost growth revealed in
2001, NASA reduced the ISS research budget by 37.5% (FY2002-2006) and indefinitely
deferred building hardware that would enable a larger crew to live aboard the station,
meaning that the amount of research that can be conducted will be sharply reduced.
Operations and Commercialization Issues
Although construction of ISS is not yet completed, attention is being given to who should
operate the facility and how to encourage commercial use of it. Congress declared economic
development of Earth orbital space as a “priority goal” of ISS in the 1998 Commercial Space
Act (P.L. 105-303). NASA supports space station commercialization, both in terms of getting
the private sector to use research facilities on ISS, and assuming space station operations.
According to its ISS commercialization Web site [http://commercial.hq.nasa.gov], NASA is
committed to setting aside approximately 30% of the U.S. share of ISS’s research capacity for
economic development. In 1998, NASA proposed creation of a non-governmental
organization (NGO) to oversee research on the space station that would be modeled after the
Space Telescope Science Institute that operates the Hubble Space Telescope. The NGO would
report to NASA. Others want the private sector, not the government, to manage and operate
the space station. Still others think there is a role for the private sector in building, not just
operating, the space station. However, efforts to do so have not materialized as planned. The
FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7) gives NASA permission to
proceed with Phase I of establishing an institute, but limits any contractual obligation to
leadership and advocacy activities, not engineering and integration functions.
Another issue is the extent to which “tourists” should be allowed aboard ISS. The
Russians launched American millionaire Dennis Tito to ISS in 2001 after months of strenuous
objections from NASA and other ISS partners. They argued that he was insufficiently trained
and the space station was not yet ready to accommodate nonprofessional astronauts. Days
CRS-15

IB93017
07-31-03
before the Russians were to launch Mr. Tito to ISS, NASA and the other partners agreed, on
the condition that guidelines be developed on necessary training before other “spaceflight
participants” visit ISS. The guidelines were released in January 2002, and another spaceflight
participant (South African Mark Shuttleworth) flew to ISS that April.
Following the
Columbia accident, Russia suspended its “tourist” flights to free the Soyuz spacecraft for ISS
crew exchange missions (discussed above). The Russian space agency is working with the
U.S. company Space Adventures on future tourist flights, and Space Adventures may purchase
a Soyuz, which it would use to take two tourists and one trained cosmonaut to ISS. Russian
officials say the launch date for such a Soyuz flight is dependent on when the space shuttle
returns to flight.
Issues Related to Russia’s Participation
The risks and benefits of Russia’s participation in the program have been discussed. A
continuing issue is how to cope with the fact that the Russian government may not provide
the funding needed to fulfill its commitments to the program. Although U.S. funding
uncertainty is a focus of attention today (as to whether the Bush Administration will commit
sufficient resources to build ISS to its original design), Russia’s financial circumstances
remain a challenge, too.
NASA’s decision to cancel the Propulsion Module ensures ISS
dependance on Russia for reboost (except for the very limited reboost capabilities of the U.S.
space shuttle once it returns to flight) until Europe’s ATV is available (scheduled for fall
2004). ISS will remain dependent on Russia for “lifeboat” spacecraft until another vehicle
is available, currently expected no sooner than 2008.
As discussed earlier, the Iran
Nonproliferation Act (INA) prohibits U.S. payments to Russia for ISS, with some exceptions,
unless the government of Russia prevents Russian nuclear and missile technology from
reaching Iran. The key question is what will happen if Russia insists it cannot fund reboost
or lifeboat missions, yet NASA is not permitted to transfer money to Russia for such missions
because of the INA. H.R. 1001 would amend the INA to make such payments possible any
time the space shuttle is grounded, but NASA officials have stressed that they see no need for
changes to the INA at this time.
LEGISLATION
P.L. 108-7, H.J.Res. 2 (Young)
FY2003 Omnibus Continuing Appropriations Act. Includes FY2003 funding for NASA
as part of the VA-HUD-IA portion of the resolution. Passed House January 8, 2003; passed
Senate January 23. Conference report (H.Rept. 108-10) passed House and Senate February
13, 2003. Signed into law February 20, 2003.
H.R. 1001 (Lampson)
Amends the Iran Nonproliferation Act to allow payments to Russia in connection with
ISS for safety and maintenance purposes any time the space shuttle fleet is grounded.
Introduced February 27; referred to House International Relations and House Science
Committees.
H.R. 2861 (Walsh)
FY2004 VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill (includes NASA). Reported from House
Appropriations Committee July 24 (H. Rept. 108-235); passed House July 25.
CRS-16