Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/STATION/FYI_68.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-06-03 | 5KB

From: [e-mail] (Miroslaw Kuc)
Subject: Space Station Freedom
Date: Sun, 30 May 1993 02:31:52 GMT
Summary: SSF

I came accross the following article in newsgroup sci.research which would
be of interest to all.  If this info has already appeared here, please
forgive me, I have not seen it.
Miro



Article 404 of sci.research:
Newsgroups: sci.research
Path: r-node!zooid!geac!utcsri!utnut!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!dtix.dt.navy.mil!relay-wo!nswc-wo.nswc.navy.mil!rsherme
From: [e-mail] (Russel Shermer (R43))
Subject: Fyi #68:  Rep. George Brown Lays Down His Marker on Space Station Freedom
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: NAVSWC DD White Oak Det.
Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 15:53:06 GMT
Lines: 76

Posted for:
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]


Rep. George Brown Lays Down His Marker on Space Station Freedom

FYI No. 68, May 20, 1993

At a jam-packed press conference this morning, House science
committee chairman George Brown (D-California) announced that "the
Freedom-derived Station is the only design I intend to support."
Although not a surprise because of his past support for the space
station, Brown's statement is significant.  One, he is clearly not
backing away from the station.  Two, Brown is signaling to the
administration his strong preferences about the design outcome he
wants.  Brown said that while he would not actively oppose a
scaled-down design, he would not support it either.  The loss of
his advocacy would be very detrimental in what is sure to be
another bruising battle over station funding.

In an hour-long conference announcing the introduction of H.R.
2200, the NASA authorization bill for fiscal years 1994 and 1995,
the only real topic of discussion was Space Station Freedom.  Brown
seeks station funding of $1.9 billion per year for each of the next
five years.  While this total of $9.5 billion is 24% less than the
existing station baseline, or a savings of $3 billion, it is $500
million more than the Clinton Administration wants to spend.  When
asked about this difference, Brown said the administration has
compromised its original positions on other legislation, and that
such negotiating would be expected on this issue.

Brown's move is clearly intended to pressure the White House as its
moves towards its June decision on the space station.  He views
current problems as political, not technological.  Commenting on
the review, Brown said, "Although a great many innovative ideas
have surfaced -- and this has been a valuable exercise -- none of
the alternative concepts to emerge in discussion so far have the
potential to mature to the state that now characterizes the Freedom
design.  Any new concept, however attractive it may sound, will
require detailed study and development before I would feel
comfortable with any large-scale commitment.  Thus, the
Freedom-derived Station is the only design I intend to support.  If
the Nation decides not to pursue the Freedom Space Station, I would
recommend that we give much more serious consideration to our next
step than a 90-day study can provide."

The committee will wait until the design review is completed before
taking further action on H.R. 2200.  A panel of outside experts is
scheduled to review NASA's study by June 10, at which time
President Clinton will select the redesign option.  Brown said that
he would be meeting with House appropriations subcommittee chairman
Louis Stokes (D-Ohio), Senate subcommittee chair Barbara Mikulski
(D-Md), and Senate subcommittee science chairman Jay Rockefeller
(D-WVA) to establish a consensus on station funding, and will work
with the White House.

Although key congressional players may eventually rally around a
station design, the outlook before the full Congress is quite
uncertain.  Brown warned that if the recommended design is a
"harebrained" idea it would have, on a scale of 1 to 10, a "1"
chance of passage.  A station design meeting all of its
international obligations and other requirements would have, Brown
said, only a "5" chance of passage.  "This is," Brown cautioned,
"going to be a very hard sell to Congress."

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
[phone]
###############



--
[e-mail]   | "Know thyself"  -  Greek maxim
[e-mail] | "Know thyself?" If I knew myself I'd run away.
[e-mail]   |                 -  Goethe