MOONDUNES
Space Station Freedom 1993, The “Fiscal Black Hole”
Its prototype, space station Freedom, never got off the launch pad. Grounded by cost overruns and long-winded debates in Congress in the early 1990s, both for and against, led to the more sophisticated model, now with its days numbered. This report traces the background of SS Freedom, proving to be a lesson learned only partly, since the day the ISS hits the water, Congress will have to look back up into the night sky, to Mars.
(Begin Perplexity-AI)
The concept of Space Station Freedom emerged as the Apollo program concluded, with NASA seeking to establish a permanent presence in space. The station was envisioned to serve multiple purposes, including:
Microgravity Laboratory: Conducting scientific experiments that require the unique conditions of space.
Assembly Point for Spacecraft: Serving as a hub for building and launching missions to other celestial bodies.
Observation Post: Providing a vantage point for astronomical observations.
Transition to the International Space Station
The cancellation of Space Station Freedom led to its integration into what would become the International Space Station (ISS). The ISS involved collaboration among multiple countries, including contributions from Russia, which brought extensive experience from its own space station programs like Mir. This transition marked a shift from a primarily U.S.-led initiative to a more globally collaborative effort in human spaceflight25.
Legacy
Although Space Station Freedom was never built, many of its concepts and designs influenced the development of the ISS. The lessons learned from the Freedom project contributed to advancements in international cooperation in space exploration and established frameworks for future missions26.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/space-station-freedom-zwlT28SERf2fUV_S_fnZ0w
The Roemer-Zimmer Amendment was a significant proposal introduced in 1993 that aimed to eliminate the Space Station program17. This amendment was offered by Representatives Tim Roemer (D-IN) and Richard Zimmer (R-NJ) during the debate on H.R. 2200, the NASA authorization bill17.
Key points about the Roemer-Zimmer Amendment:
Purpose: The amendment sought to cancel the Space Station program, which was seen by its proponents as draining resources from other NASA initiatives1.
Context: It was proposed at a time when NASA’s budget was under scrutiny, and various space programs were facing cuts1.
Argument: Supporters argued that the Space Station was “sucking the lifeblood out of the rest of the space program” and that its elimination would allow for better allocation of resources within NASA1.
Outcome: The amendment failed to pass. A recorded vote was taken on June 23, 1993, and the amendment was not adopted5.
Impact: Despite its failure, the amendment highlighted the ongoing debate about the prioritization of space exploration projects and budget allocation within NASA1.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/roemer-zimmer-amendment-1993-aBiRm5qhRRq9T0qxp1yh4w
(End Perplexity-AI)
Why does the United States need a space station?
That question has been the subject of much public debate since President Reagan directed NASA to develop the space station in his 1984 State of the Union address. However, we find the question is asked less when the public comes to understand the critical role Space Station Freedom will play in this nation’s future and the destiny of our whole planet.
Space program success at stake
I can’t overemphasize the importance of Space Station Freedom to the ‘ success of our national program. In order to return to the moon and go on to Mars — goals President Bush set for our nation — and in order to benefit from the rich resources of the other planets, we must have Space Station Freedom. Freedom will be our way station, a staging and training area for these manned expeditions, and a place to learn to live in space.
At first, we will use Freedom to prepare us for more ambitious plane-tary trips, to help us better under-, stand and withstand the long-term effects of weightlessness and the unforgiving environment of space. ‘ Then, when we venture forth to the moon, Mars and beyond, the space station will be our primary transportation node — the place where we will build and service the vehicles which will take us on those journeys.
No matter what major objectives we choose for our space program in the 1990s and the early 21st century. Freedom is a necessary stepping stone. NASA’s Office of Exploration succinctly captured its importance in a single phrase in its 1988 Annual Report: “All roads must begin with Space Station Freedom .”
But why explore? Why spend taxpayers’ money out there in space when we’ve got demands at home?
First, because pushing forward seems to be inherent in human nature and the American character. History has shown us that those nations which have ceased to explore also ceased to advance on the homefront and are destined to decline. Space is truly our final frontier. We must go there if we are to continue to grow.
It offers us the first sustained opportunity to constantly monitor — and thus better understand — the planet we live on, a need that is becoming ever more urgent. From the vantage point of the space station, scientists can watch Earth as never before, making global measurements every 90 minutes of its atmosphere, oceans, land masses and living things and the interrelations between them. This information will enable us to better deal with such global problems as deforestation. desertification, ozone depletion and climatic shifts. Such knowledge is vital to our continued life on Earth.
Money spent on the Freedom won’t be spent in space, but here on Earth.
During the present decade alone, Space Station Freedom will create an estimated 20,000 direct jobs around the country. Here in Alabama, where a large part of the space station is being managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center, this economic impact is dramatic. Already 1,000 people are employed by the Huntsville operations of the Boeing Co. on this $2.6-billion segment of the space station. This workforce will continue to grow as the station progresses and is already attracting subcontractors and suppliers to our area, creating many more jobs.
Who will staff these engineering and science positions, and who will generate the new technologies tomorrow will require? It will be our children, the science and engineering students of today and the near future. Unfortunately, our country isn’t presently doing very well in attracting
young people to these fields — certainly not at the levels evident during the exciting days of Apollo’s quest for the moon.
If we look back at the NASA budget over the years and compare that to the number of degrees granted in physics and electrical engineering, for instance, we find that the two functions are related. We find that when the nation has been aggressive in its space program, that excitement has filtered down to the nation’s young people. They want to become part of the program. Hence, more students major in science, math and engineering.
The final reason for building Space Station Freedom is leadership. Our country has traditionally set the standards and inspired the world in its efforts to take the human race to the stars. And yet, if America is to hold on to its position of leadership, we need to demonstrate a stronger commitment.
The space station represents such a commitment. Today, U.S. leadership in space is being challenged. Spacecraft of considerable sophistication and proven relilability (sp) have been developed and flown by Europe, Japan, China and the Soviet Union. These countries understand that profit and productivity are the products of a successful space program.
Lyndon Johnson’s words remembered
In 1960, Vice President Lyndon Johnson said: “For a nation to be first in space is to be first in everything in the eyes of other nations of the world.” He was right then, and he would be right today. and is not alone in noting this correlation. It has been repeatedly recognized in presidential and congressional decisions to proceed with the space station and to keep it on
track.
This past July in his observance of the 20th anniversary of man’s first Lunar landing. President Bush reiterated it when he said, “We must have a manned space station. . because the space program should always go ‘full throttle up. That is not just our ambition; it is our destiny.”
Our response to his challenge must be to press forward with projects that are significant. demanding and genuinely useful. The space station is such a project. I believe it will be one of the soundest investments our nation will ever make
Thomas J. Lee, Director of the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama.
GPO-CRECB-1993-pt10-2-1.pdf, pages 13650-51
ROEMER-ZIMMER AMENDMENT WOULD ELIMINATE SPACE STATION PROGRAM
(Mr. ZIMMER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re- marks.)
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Speaker, as we debate the space station program today, you will hear proponents say that eliminating the space station will not assure that any more money will go to space science programs. They will also say that the space station is needed to ensure the very survival of the space program.
In fact, the opposite has proved to be true.
Among those are:
The Earth Observing System-plans for environmental satellites being designed to gather data about global climate change were delayed for lack of funds.
The Magellan-a mapping satellite surveying Venus was turned off while in perfect working order due to lack of funds.
The Space Exploration Initiative-our only long-range plan for human space exploration, was eliminated from the budget.
Instead of ensuring the survival of our space program, the space station is sucking the lifeblood out of the rest of the space program.
Support the Roemer-Zimmer amendment to R.R. 2200, the NASA authorization bill, and eliminate the space station program now
WHERE IS THE SPACE STATION MONEY GOING? (pages 13651-13652)
(Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to address the House . for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
But just yesterday, a question popped into my mind. If it does not pass, where will the money really go?
I had always assumed it would go to deficit reduction. Well, guess what? Not necessarily. By merely eliminating the space station’s budget authority, we do not prevent the money from being spent elsewhere, say for instance in public housing programs or community development block grants.
Indeed, rather than taking it away entirely, the amendment puts its trust in Congress not to spend the money, a situation I personally do not find very comforting.
Make no mistake. I am going to cast my vote against the space station. But I want my vote to be for deficit reduction, not for taking money away from science only to further pad wasteful spending programs.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL
YEARS 1994 AND 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 193 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2200.
(End Congressional Record)
Notes: The debate over funding for the space station in June 1993 consumed a great deal of the House time, and on the 23rd, with respect to H.R. 2200. there were nearly 600 references to the search term “space station,” by various speakers, both pro and con.
On 21 September, the debate was taken up again.
(Begin Congressional Record)
Pending:
Bumpers Amendment No. 905, to reduce funding for the implementation of the space station program for the purposes of reducing the deficit in the Federal budget. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill. (Dale Bumpers, Senator, Arkansas, Democrat)
AMENDMENT NO. 905
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will note the Bumpers amendment, amendment No. 905, is the pending amendment. (Page 21859)
“President Reagan put the space station on the national credit card. President Bush put the space station on the national credit card. And, I say to my friends, the time has come to pay the bills. We are $11 billion in the hole on this program and the financial bleeding has not stopped. This year’s request is for $2.1 billion and $2.1 billion for each of the next 4 years.” (Dennis Deconcini, Senator, Arizona, Democrat, Page 21886)
(End Congressional Record)
Notes
The role of the space shuttle was inherently linked to the early platform Skylab, and the outcome of any number of similar projects which led to the development of the ISS all were drawn into the Fiscal Black Hole, its origin traced to SS Freedom. What’s important now is how all of this fits into the scheme of things post-ISS deorbit, since resupply of it is/was linked not to the shuttle in the end but to private enterprise and SpaceX.
In conclusion, the fate of any projects on the solar system horizon, such as manned missions to the moon and on to Mars need to, and should have, the same scrutiny in Congress, where page after page, and speaker after speaker praise the merits of exploration of outer space at the expense of more practical programs on earth, and those who want the people taken care of first.