Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post
Newsgroups: americast.wpost
From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com
Organization: American Cybercasting
Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com
Subject: Shuttle Replacement Proposal Appears Stuck on Launchpad; Hill May Prove
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 07:35:20 EST
Message-ID: <6.1992Nov21.073520@AmeriCast.com>

Shuttle Replacement Proposal Appears Stuck on Launchpad; Hill May
Prove Obstacle for Space Council Report<By Kathy
Sawyer=Washington Post Staff Writer=

Since the 1986 Challenger disaster, the development of a cheaper,
safer, more reliable ride to orbit has been considered the most
urgent issue confronting the U.S. space program.

But for all those years, even though billions of dollars and U.S.
competitiveness in space are said to be at stake, Congress and
the executive branch have been unable to agree on an approach, or
how to pay for it.

Initial reaction to a new plan floated this week by the White
House, which would require congressional approval, indicates the
issue will stay stuck on the dime unless the new administration
can blast it off.  The plan, drafted by a task force of experts
appointed by Vice President Quayle's National Space Council,
called for development of a single expendable, multipurpose
"core" vehicle called Spacelifter that could carry small to medi-
um payloads, cut current launch costs approximately in half, and
could be adapted to carry humans. It would become operational
around the end of the decade. The report called for phase-out of
the costly shuttle fleet as quickly as possible.

It also recommended making the Air Force responsible for managing
and paying for the new system. A prime reason given for this by
administration and congressional sources is that the Defense ap-
propriation committees on the Hill are willing to approve the
funding, whereas the committees overseeing NASA are not.

NASA administrator Daniel S. Goldin said he agrees with some of
the recommendations, but disagrees with others. In particular,
despite the widespread shuttle-bashing that has occurred since
the Challenger accident, he and a number of sources on Capitol
Hill said the report was too tough on the reusable manned space
plane.

"The shuttle is our main line launch vehicle, our access to
space," he said, and shuttle safety remains NASA's top priority,
at least through the year 2005, "no matter what" because any re-
placement would take at least that long to develop. But he said a
low-cost, more flexible rocket fleet "would benefit the nation. .
. . It's crucial that the new administration take a look at this
(report) and see what they think."

Several key House and Senate staffers involved in space issues,
who asked not to be identified, were less diplomatic.

The White House "rounded up the usual suspects," said one, refer-
ring to the task force. He said the chairman, Edward C. "Pete"
Aldridge Jr., a former secretary of the Air Force, is known to be
"down on the shuttle."

"Frankly, (the report) is going the wrong way," said another.
"The report is very anti-NASA. . . . It's true they have a lot to
improve, but NASA, unlike the Air Force, is an open book. That's
the hallmark of the space program."

He said the issue has to be dealt with as part of a "broader set
of issues involving relationships between the military and civi-
lian space budgets."

Several sources said the proposed system would not reduce launch
costs enough to justify the estimated investment of from $5 to
$7.5 billion. They also noted that costs per launch are often
based on "wildly optimistic" estimates of launches per year.
Another aide said all the launch studies make "naive assumptions"
and lack fundamental information. "There's all this talk about
competing with the Europeans (in launch systems). But nobody in
this town seems to have a working knowledge of why they've been
so successful, and why we've been unsuccessful." He said cost-
cutting may depend on factors other than technology, such as
"OSHA, EPA and union rules, that you ain't gonna change."

Aerospace community plans have a credibility problem on Capitol
Hill, he said, because the same engineers and officials whose
cost assessments have been wrong in the past are still doing the
planning. "These companies will say they'll do anything, as long
as there's a buck in it," the aide said. "Congress needs a sense
they fully understand the real changes that need to be
made."<02:06 11-21C9999-----

Copyright 1992, The Washington Post.  This story is from the
Washington Post's Capitol Edition On-Line and is not to be ar-
chived or redistributed.

For more information, send-email to American Cybercasting Cor-
poration (usa@AmeriCast.COM)