TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/091691/0916320.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 5.4 KB | 119 lines

                                                                                SPACE, Page 53

A Mission Close to Home


Despite complaints about a $30 billion price tag, NASA launches a
vital program to take the planet's pulse

JEROME CRAMER/WASHINGTON


    America's space program has spent billions of dollars and
years of effort to produce detailed studies of the clouds of
Venus and the craters of Mars. But in the future, NASA's
researchers will need to pay closer attention to their home
planet. As the earth's air, land and seas become ever more
threatened by human overpopulation and industrial pollution,
measuring the extent of the damage has become one of the most
urgent missions of science.

    This week the space shuttle Discovery is scheduled to
deploy the first satellite in the Mission to Planet Earth, an
ambitious, long-range program to monitor the planet's pulse.
This particular satellite carries four instruments to gather
information about the atmosphere's vital ozone layer. The most
important goal is to measure how badly this fragile band, which
protects the earth from the harmful ultraviolet rays in
sunlight, is being depleted by the industrial chemicals known
as CFCs.

    Much more is on the drawing boards. During the next 15
years, NASA hopes to spend $30 billion to $40 billion to launch
satellites containing dozens of instruments for the Earth
Observing System (EOS), the centerpiece of Mission to Planet
Earth. They will study the impact of such forces as global
warming, deforestation and desertification. NASA will also use
satellites from other nations and ground monitors to develop a
baseline of information against which global change can be
measured.

    Despite its importance, the mission has not escaped
criticism. When it was unveiled, detractors complained that,
like the controversial space station Freedom, it could turn into
a huge, unmanageable boondoggle. "NASA is obsessed with
giantism," contends Robert Park, director of the Washington
office of the American Physical Society. "They want to
accomplish good, solid environmental science," he says, but have
proposed to do it with complex, untested hardware. The mammoth
price tag is also a concern. Richard Darman, head of the Office
of Management and Budget, reportedly quipped, "I didn't know we
needed a $30 billion thermometer."

    NASA's plan called not only for a series of small
satellites but also for two large space platforms that would
wind up holding the majority of the earth-sensing equipment.
These could not be launched before the end of the decade.
Scientists objected that locking many of the instruments aboard
just two craft would make the program inflexible. If new
discoveries were made during the mission, how could the
platforms be redesigned to accommodate unplanned research?
Moreover, a Hubble-like glitch or catastrophic accident could
wipe out a major portion of the project. Says Tom Donahue, a
University of Michigan professor of planetary science: "NASA
didn't seem to realize that it was putting too many eggs into
one basket."

    Another question is how to gather, store, translate and
distribute the raw data developed during the project. NASA
critics contend that the agency now has reams of information
from space missions that no one ever examines, and the Earth
Observing System could require major new storage facilities
consuming about 60% of the mission's budget. "Creating a library
is a huge task in itself," says Congressman Bob Traxler of
Michigan, in whose district part of the library is to be built.

    In response to the criticisms, Congress and the White
House have put pressure on NASA to improve its proposal, perhaps
by launching six smaller space platforms instead of two large
ones. Admits agency spokesman Gregory Wilson: "There is a lot
of heat on NASA to accomplish EOS more quickly using smaller
missions." NASA has set up an "engineering review panel" to
study suggestions for the mission. It will release its report
within the next few weeks, and NASA is expected to go along with
any proposed changes. Says Edward Frieman, chairman of the
panel: "We found ways to do it faster and make it more flexible,
but not cheaper."

    Cheaper ways might be found if the project's budget were
not partly the product of pork-barrel politics. For example,
Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland will track and
coordinate a large portion of the project. Maryland Senator
Barbara Mikulski is chairman of the Senate Appropriations
subcommittee handling NASA funding. Major contracts have been
spread out among aerospace firms in the politically important
states of California, Pennsylvania and New York. NASA has
learned a lesson from the Pentagon: a program will fly
politically if it involves a popular cause, promises to spread
lots of money through key congressional districts and guarantees
contracts to companies with strong lobbying clout in Washington.

    In this case, NASA appears to have picked a winner. The
agency needs to refine its plans, but Congress will eventually
come up with $30 billion or more, if that's what it takes.
"It's a small price to pay to help save the planet," says John
Logsdon, a space-policy expert at George Washington University.
After the disasters with the shuttle program, the Hubble
telescope and the Galileo probe to Jupiter, the Mission to
Planet Earth gives NASA a chance to take a flight back to
respectability.