The mission of the International Space Station (ISS) Program is to build and operate a state-of-the-art orbital research facility some two hundred nautical miles above Earth. The ISS Program stems from a redesign of the Space Station Freedom Program in 1993 that President Clinton had directed NASA to do to lower its cost.('Chabrow Report', Report of the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force on the International Space Station, Jay Chabrow - Chairman, April 21, 1998, NASA)

NASA's space station program began in 1984 (FY1985). In 1988, the program 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 does not have a formal name yet. It is simply referred to as the "International Space Station" (ISS).

Space Station Freedom: 1984-1993

NASA spent $11.4 billion on the Freedom program from FY1985-1993 ($9 billion on research and development, the rest on scientific experiments and civil service salaries). Most of the funding went for designing and redesigning the program over those years; little hardware was built and none was launched. Major redesigns were made in 1986, first in response to cost issues and user requirements and later in the wake of the space shuttle Challenger tragedy; in 1987 due to rising costs, which led NASA to split the program into two phases, the second of which ultimately disappeared; in 1989 due to rising costs and expected future budget constraints; and in 1990-1991 due to congressional concerns over rising costs, higher than expected requirements for astronauts to perform extravehicular activity (EVA, or spacewalks) to assemble and maintain the station, and other issues.

The 1991 restructuring evoked concerns in the scientific community about the amount of science that could be conducted on the scaled-down space station. The plan was reviewed by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Space Studies Board (SSB) of the National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Sciences). They both asserted 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 type of research. NASA subsequently asserted it would launch a 2.5 meter centrifuge on the first flight after permanent occupancy.

In 1988, after 3 years of negotiations, Japan, Canada and 9 European countries under the aegis of the European Space Agency (ESA) agreed to be partners in the space station program. An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) on a government-to- government level was signed in September, and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between NASA and the other relevant space agencies were signed then or in 1989 (see International Partners). The partners agreed to provide hardware for the space station at their own expense, a total of $8 billion at the time.

Cost estimates for Freedom varied widely depending on when they were made and what was included. Early in 1993, NASA's estimate was $90 billion: $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.

1993 Redesign

As noted, in 1993 President Clinton ordered NASA to redesign the space station again to reduce costs (including reducing the operational period from 30 to 10 years). The White House gave three cost options -- $5 billion, $7 billion or $9 billion over the next 5 years. NASA identified three redesign possibilities, but it soon became clear none could be built for $9 billion. President Clinton eventually chose a combination of two of the options. After another 90-day study, a design called Alpha emerged on September 7 with milestones that were about 2 years later than if Freedom had continued, and a cost of $19.4 billion excluding shuttle launch costs, civil service salaries, operational costs, and the $11.4 billion "sunk costs" in Freedom. The White House asserted that compared with Freedom, this version would save $18 billion over the life of the program and more than $4 billion from FY1994-1998. The design would have used certain Russian hardware bought from Russia under contract, but Russia was not envisioned as a partner.

Five days earlier, however, the White House revealed it had reached preliminary agreement with Russia to build a joint Russian/American space station. Now called the International Space Station (ISS), it superseded the September 7 Alpha design and is the "current program" described in the next section. By adding Russia to the program, NASA asserted that a more capable space station would be ready sooner and 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, accommodate 6 instead of 4 crew members, and have more experimental racks in the zone of the best microgravity conditions for scientific research. ISS will be placed in an orbit at an orbital inclination of 51.6o, the same as that used by Russia for its space stations, rather than the 28.8o degree orbit planned for the September 7 Alpha design. The space shuttle can take 12,000 pounds less payload to the 51.6o orbit. NASA must develop a lighter version of the shuttle's external tank, called the "super lightweight" tank, that will save 8,000 pounds. Other modifications to the shuttle system will account for the rest of the difference.

In June 1993, the President pledged to request $10.5 billion ($2.1 billion a year) for FY1994-1998. While this appears to give level funding for the space station compared with FY1993, the FY1993 figure is only for station development. Beginning in FY1994, other space station costs (scientific experiments and facilities, e.g.) were included, so the amount available for station development was about $200 million less. In FY1996, however, NASA requested and Congress granted authority to transfer money from the space station science accounts into construction.

The Freedom program was criticized for its complex management structure. As part of the 1993 redesign, NASA simplified it so that a single company, Boeing, is the prime contractor, with McDonnell Douglas and Rockwell as subcontractors. (Boeing recently announced that it would buy Rockwell's space and defense business.) NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) near Houston, TX was designated the "host" center for the program in 1993. An integrated product team management approach is used where each "product" is managed by a team of government, contractor and international partner personnel. In a major NASA management reorganization in early 1996 intended to shift program responsibilities out of NASA Headquarters and to the various NASA field centers, JSC was named "lead" center and given "all program implementation responsibilities" for space station.

On September 2, 1993, the White House announced that preliminary agreement had been reached to merge the Russian and American space station programs. This program, the International Space Station (ISS), is the one currently being built. NASA says it will cost $17.4 billion for FY1994-2002 ($206 million was carried over from the Freedom program, for a total program cost through FY2002 of $17.6 billion). NASA said in 1993 that the total space station program cost from FY1985-FY2002, including sunk costs in the earlier Freedom design, launch costs, etc., is $72.3 billion. GAO said in 1995 that it is $94 billion (GAO/NSIAD-95-163).

The September 2 announcement followed 2 days of meetings between Vice President Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin in Washington, D.C. On December 16, 1993, a second Gore-Chernomyrdin meeting was held (in Moscow) where a letter contract was signed to bring Russia into the space station program. A third meeting was held June 22-23, 1994 (in Washington, D.C.) where a "definitized" version of the contract was signed, along with an interim memorandum of understanding between NASA and the Russian space agency making Russia a full-fledged partner. At the July 1996 Gore-Chernomyrdin semi-annual meeting, the two sides reached "ad referendum" agreement on the MOU, but it has not yet been finalized.

These agreements established three phases of cooperation (see below) and the payment to Russia, originally, of $400 million ($100 million per year for FY1994-1997). The money comes from the NASA budget, but not the space station budget. Of that $400 million, $335 million is for Phase I (using Russia's existing space station, Mir), and $65 million for "selected Phase II" activities (to begin building ISS).

('Chabrow Report', Report of the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force on the International Space Station, Jay Chabrow - Chairman, April 21, 1998, NASA)

Schedule and Cost Commitments

On March 10, 1993, NASA established a Station Redesign Team to consider viable space station options that would continue to accommodate the International Partners within specific funding constraints and first-level goals established by the Clinton Administration. The redesign team developed three basic options, all of which required funding in excess of target budget guidelines and, in particular, above the $2.1 billion annual cap that the Clinton Administration proposed, and NASA accepted, at the culmination of the redesign activity.

The President's Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station judged two of NASA's options to be roughly comparable and satisfactory for meeting the Administration's objectives, excepting those of cost, which all options exceeded. That Committee, chaired by Dr. Charles M. Vest, assessed NASA's cost projections to be realistic, but recognized that the space station should be considered as an ongoing, evolving program of scientific and technological research.

The Advisory Committee further recommended that NASA and the Administration pursue increased levels of cooperation with Russia as a means of enhancing the capability of the Station, reducing costs, accelerating schedule, providing alternative access to the Station, and increasing research opportunities. It also recommended that the Space Station Program reorganize, reconfirming NASA's redesign team's recommendation to have one Prime contractor responsible for development and integration. These findings were published in June 1993.

The Station concept that NASA selected from this redesign activity was called Space Station Alpha. It was a downsized representation of Space Station Freedom with the capability for a crew of only four, and it was totally reliant on the Shuttle for transportation and supply. The original redesign options had projected Permanent Human Capability (PHC) in 2001 or 2002. But these scenarios also required peak annual funding levels of at least $2.8 billion. In June 1993, the Administration provided guidance to keep the Program within an annual expenditure level of $2.1 billion. NASA reassessed the assembly plans given this constraint and revised the schedule for achieving PHC, deferring it to September 2003. The cost for Space Station Alpha was assessed at $19.4 billion.

In December 1993, Russia was invited to join the partnership. It was thought that the Russian participation in the ISS Program would accelerate the assembly timetable and avoid substantial development costs in the areas of propulsion and navigation. It was also estimated that Russian contributions would nearly double the Station's on-orbit volume, allow an increase in crew size to six, and provide an earlier crew presence. After Russia agreed to participate, geographic constraints of launching elements from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan necessitated a change of launch inclination from 28.5 degrees to one of 51.6 degrees. While this change negatively impacted the Shuttle's cargo carrying capacity for transport of elements and supplies to the Station by over 12,000 pounds per flight, the capability reduction was offset by the addition of 13 planned Russian assembly flights. Russian participation also allowed completion of ISS assembly to be accelerated from September 2003 to June 2002, a projected cost savings of $1.5 billion. The Russian provision of the Functional Cargo Block and an Assured Crew Return Vehicle were estimated to save another $1.0 billion. These savings were partially offset by new U.S. costs identified to integrate Russia into the Program. In total, a net estimated cost savings of $2 billion was projected from Russian involvement. Beyond that, Russia's involvement advanced foreign policy objectives such as demilitarization, privatization, and integration of Russia into the international community.

NASA stated at the time that it could develop the Space Station Alpha design within an annual fiscal constraint of $2.1 billion per year, and with Russian participation it could complete assembly of what had become known as the International Space Station for a total of $17.4 billion. These self-imposed funding constraints were established prior to the FY 1995 Congressional budget submission. The Program was carrying approximately $2.0 billion in reserves with approximately $500 million allocated primarily for unresolved management challenges. NASA's schedule and cost commitments were definitely success-oriented, especially considering the new realigned contracting approach with a single Prime contractor and that the specifics of Russia's involvement were just being definitized.

From: Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Report on redesign team
Followup-To: sci.space
Date: 27 Apr 1993 14:30:35 GMT

Redesign Activities Update -- Following is the weekly status on redesign, based on information provided by NASA headquarters.

The station Redesign Team (SRT) provided a detailed status report to the Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station on April 22. The
day-long meeting was held in ANSER facilities in Crystal City, VA; topics covered by the SRT included a preliminary mission and goals statement for
the space station; science, technology and engineering research; the assessment process; and the design approach. Discussions on management options and operations concepts also were held.

The Design Teams then presented the three options under study:

· Option A - Modular Buildup -- Pete Priest presented the A option. Priest said the team is working to define a station that meets cost goals and has
identified three distinct phases of evolution - power station, human tended and permanent presence. The team will define the minimum capability needed to achieve each phase, the total cost of each phase and the achievable capability for budget levels. The A option uses current or simplified
Freedom hardware where cost effective and is considering other existing systems such as the so-called "Bus-1 spacecraft," the orbiter and Spacelab.

The Power Station Capability could be achieved in 3 flights with Freedom photo voltaic modules providing 20 kW of power. 30-day Shuttle/Spacelab
missions docked to the power station are assumed for this phase.

Human Tended Capability would be provided by the addition of the U.S. Common Module Module which adds subsystems and 9 payload racks and docking ports for ESA and Japanese laboratories. 60-day missions with the orbiter docked to the station are assumed for this phase. Different
operation/utilization modes are being studied for this phase.

· Option B - Freedom Derived -- Mike Griffin presented the status of Option B activities. Griffin detailed the evolution of the Freedom-derived option, from initial Research Capability, to Human-Tended Capability, to Permanent Human Presence Capability, to Two Fault Tolerance, and finally Permanent Human Capability. Griffin also outlined proposed systems changes to the baseline program, with minor changes to the Communications and Tracking system, Crew Health Care System and ECLSS, and a major change to the Data Management System.

Initial Research Capability would be achieved with 2 flights to 28.5 degree inclination (3 flights to 51.6 degrees) and consist of an extended duration
orbiter-Spacelab combination docked to a truss segment with 2 photo voltaic arrays providing 18.75 kW of power.

Human-Tended Capability would be achieved in 6 flights and add truss segments and the U.S. lab.

Permanent Human Presence Capability would be achieved in 8 flights with two orbiters providing habitation and assured crew return.

Two Fault Tolerance, achieved in 11 flights, would build out the other section of truss with another set of PV modules, thermal control and propulsion systems.

The freedom derived configuration could achieve an International Complete state with 16 flights. Three more flights, to bring up the habitat module,
a third PV array and two Assured Crew Return Vehicles (ACRV) would complete the Permanent Human Capability with International stage.

Griffin told the Redesign Advisory Committee that eliminating hardware would not, by itself, meet budget guidelines for the Freedom derived
option. Major reductions or deferrals must occur in other areas including program management, contractor non-hardware, early utilization and
operations costs, he said.

· Option C - Singe Launch Core Station -- Chet Vaughn presented Option C, the Single Launch Core Station concept. A Shuttle external tank and solid rocket boosters would be used to launch the station into orbit. Shuttle main engines would be mounted to the tail of the station module for launch
and jettisoned after ET separation.

The module, 23 feet in diameter and 92 feet long, would provide 26,000 cubic feet of pressured volume, separated into 7 "decks" connected by a
centralized passageway. Seven berthing ports would be located at various places on the circumference of the module to place the international
modules, and other elements. This "can" would have two fixed photo voltaic arrays producing approximately 40 kW of power flying in a solar interial
attitude.

In his closing comments to the Redesign Advisory Committee, Bryan O'Connor said a design freeze would be established for the 3 options on April 26 so that detailed costing of the options can begin. The next meeting with the Redesign Advisory Committee will be May 3.

Russian Consultants Arrive in U.S. -- A delegation of 16 Russian space experts arrived in the U.S. on April 21 and briefings to the SRT by members
of the Russian team began on the 22nd. The group includes Russian Space Agency General Director Y. M. Koptev, and V. A. Yatsenko, also of the RSA. Others on the team include representatives from the Ministry of Defense, the Design Bureau SALYUT, the Institute of Biomedical Problems, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NPO Energia and TsNIJMASH. The Russian team briefed the SRT on environmental control and life support system, docking systems, the Proton launch vehicle, Mir operations and utilization, and the Soyuz TM spacecraft.

The Russian consultants are available to the SRT to assess the capabilities of the Mir space station, and the possible use of Mir and other Russian
capabilities and systems as part of the space station redesign. They will be available to the SRT through May 5.

Management and Operations Review Continues -- Work continued in the SRT subgroups. The Management Group under Dr. Walt Brooks is working to develop a family of options that solve the current problems and build a foundation for the transition to development and operations. Various
management options have been developed including:

· Lead Center with the Center Director in the programmatic chain of command.

· Host Center with the Program Manager reporting directly to an Associate Administrator.

· Skunk Works/Dedicated Program Office with a small dedicated co-located hand-picked program office.

· Combine Space Station with Shuttle, with the space station becoming an element of the current program.

· Major Tune Up to Current Organization, with current contracts and geographical distribution maintained but streamlined.

The Operations Group under Dr. John Cox is building on the work of the Operations Phase Assessment Team lead by Gene Kranz of NASA-JSC, which had already begun a comprehensive review of operations and had concluded in its preliminary results that significant cost reductions are possible.

As part of its work, the Operations Group has identified teams of agency experts to develop detailed evaluations of each design in the areas of
assembly and operations, utilization, maintenance and logistics and testing and ground operations.

What's in the Week Ahead? -- The Design Support Teams will provide a comprehensive status of their option to the Station Redesign Team on Monday and Tuesday at which point the design will be "frozen" to begin the detailed cost assessment. Also this week, the team will begin preparing
for the next round of discussions with the redesign Advisory Committee, to be held May 3.

Dr. Shea Steps Down -- Dr. Joe Shea stepped down as director of the Station Redesign Team on April 22 and Bryan O'Connor will take over the
activities of the team. Dr. Shea submitted his resignation as assistant deputy administrator for space station analysis, but will continue to serve
as a special advisory to NASA Administrator Goldin and be available to consult with the SRT. Mr Goldin accepted the resignation so that a request
from Dr. Shea to reduce his workload could be accommodated.

Key Milestones -- The key dates for the SRT as they are currently being carried on the schedule are:

April 26
Design Freeze on Options for Costing

April 27
Design Support Team Present Selected Options to SRT

May 3
Status report to Redesign Advisory Committee

May 15
Interim report by Redesign Advisory Committee

June 7
Final report to Redesign Advisory Committee

		Details & Order information Sample Pages	Includes over 400 references, 74 pages of text, tables, drawings and photos.
						For Russian space information see: