Government Executive - Authors - Erin Heath

New NASA focus unlikely given pull of space station, shuttle programs

Neil Munro and Erin Heath — Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0500

NASA's greatest natural obstacle is Earth's gravity. Gravity clutches at its spaceships and space stations, and it compresses air into a thick barrier against returning spacecraft. It rarely forgives an error by managers or engineers.

But there's another force that rivals the power of Earth's gravity: the pull of existing programs, such as the $92 billion International Space Station and the $3.5 billion-per-year space shuttle program. This colossal force clutches at legislators' hearts, managers' calculations, and the public's dreams-and it hinders NASA from redesigning its manned space programs for greater efficiency and productivity.

This force is demonstrated by NASA's total reliance on the shuttle to build and service the space station. With the three remaining shuttles temporarily grounded after Columbia's demise, completion of the space station is on hold while NASA relies on Russia's rockets to ferry astronauts and their victuals to and from the 200-ton, three-person station. Without the shuttle, no vehicles are available to haul the station's remaining heavy pieces.

But NASA can't do without the partially built station, say its advocates, because it provides the only way to learn how to keep people in space for the long periods that would be needed to fly to and from Mars-a longtime NASA ambition.

That means NASA, the space station, and the shuttle need one another-at least for the next several years. "I don't think there's any option of going in a new direction, at least with human space flight," said John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University. "There is no viable replacement for the shuttle in a six-, eight-, 10-year time frame."

The only homegrown alternative is still a paper airplane, the so-called Orbital Space Plane, which was sketched out last fall by NASA in a budget amendment. This passenger-carrying spacecraft may be ready in 2010-or several years later. It won't be ready much sooner, because NASA officials canceled a variety of alternative space-plane projects over the last 20 years. Even if the space plane is ready in 2010, the only rockets likely to be able to carry it into space are being developed by private companies with money from the U.S. Air Force, not from NASA. The new rockets-one developed by Boeing, the other by Lockheed Martin, mostly for the disappointing commercial-satellite marketplace-are scheduled to carry their first military satellite into space this month at a cost of less than $100 million per shot, far less than the amount it takes to launch each shuttle.

NASA's space plane, say its advocates, holds much promise because it is modest in design and would carry only a few passengers. The plane, as a result, would be smaller, lighter, and simpler than the shuttle, which was designed to lug large cargos and several astronauts into orbit. The shuttle's bulk-even when the cargo bay is empty-has boosted its cost per launch to more than $500 million and heightened the risks to astronauts' lives. That enormous cost, most of which is paid to contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, has sucked money away from other projects. The space plane is "relatively low-risk" and could replace the shuttle as a passenger vehicle, an industry official said. Cargo, meanwhile, could be sent up on other low-cost rockets, he added.

The space plane's other allure is its development cost of $2.4 billion over the next four years. That money is far less than the planned expenditure of $16.6 billion on the shuttle fleet over the next five years; yet the amount is large enough to give politicians and contractors a stake in the program, because the armies of contractors and support personnel form a significant constituency in several states. "Can you get a space plane before 2008? If you pour a lot more money into it, probably," said former Rep. Robert Walker, who is now chairman of Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates. Last year, Walker chaired the Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry, which urged increased federal support for space programs.

Although the space plane is designed for efficiency, "it is not sexy" enough for NASA engineers, the industry official said. Many NASA engineers dislike expendable rockets, preferring NASA's long-held vision of replacing the shuttle with a completely reusable spaceship, he said. That vision, said the official, won't die easily because "in some ways, that unfulfilled vision about reuseable vehicles has its own ideology" with its own clutch on NASA's engineers. Hopes for a fully reuseable spaceship were dashed again late last year, when top NASA officials killed a $35 billion shuttle-replacement plan in favor of the space plane. For the moment, NASA is headed toward embracing the new space plane and abandoning the old vision, he said.

There's little chance that the shuttle and space station will be sidelined in favor of something else, such as a mission to Mars, said Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., a member of the House Appropriations Committee. "If you are seriously going to talk about changing direction and talk about going back to the moon or to Mars, it would require a lot more money," he said. That's more money, not money freed by the retirement of the 30-year-old space shuttles.

]]>

Commercial efforts could reshape future of NASA

Erin Heath — Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:00:00 -0500

A new leader has been named to reform the beleaguered space agency: Sean O'Keefe, the Office of Management and Budget's deputy director. O'Keefe is faced with the daunting task of getting NASA's budget back on track while maintaining the agency's vision. Among his assignments: finding ways to reconcile the roughly $5 billion in cost overruns for the International Space Station.

But while Washington policy makers focus on (or, as some space aficionados lament since the war began, ignore) NASA's new head and the agency's ailing finances, less-conspicuous changes are also in store for the U.S. space program. NASA leaders are busy trying to devise a broad new commercialization policy.

The new strategy seeks to create more and stronger partnerships with the private sector, including collaborations with the entertainment and advertising industries.

"My hope is that this commercial space policy will provide an environment where the future Wright Brothers won't feel inhibited," said NASA Chief of Staff and White House Liaison Courtney Stadd in an interview with National Journal.

Stadd, who joined the agency in January, is overseeing the report on NASA's new commercial aims. He envisions a future in which business leaders--representing, for example, pharmaceutical companies--would sponsor experiments using NASA expertise and would also take on the financial risks involved. Stadd's report was expected this fall, but after some in the industry criticized the draft policy, NASA pushed back the release date to early next year.

Pat Dasch, the executive director of the National Space Society, was briefed on the draft in September. She applauded the agency for "trying to come to grips with a very difficult topic," but said that parts of the policy "needed some further thinking."

"One of the big drawbacks of the draft we saw was that NASA was not creating an environment for the conduct of commercial business in space but was still in the role of being a commercial player," she said. "That's not the role of a government agency, and I doubt they'd ever succeed at it."

Rick Tumlinson, the president of the Space Frontier Foundation, was similarly critical of the policy. NASA's job is to "enhance and enable companies to use space, not the other way around," he said. "True commercialization is about industries and businesses operating in space, with the government as one of their customers."

But Stadd maintains that NASA views itself as an "enabler," giving companies a chance to test products in space and, if the tests are successful, allowing commercial space ventures to spin off into their own enterprises.

Other sticking points in the policy involve sponsorship and space tourism. The draft included statements on widening the invitation to entertainers and advertisers looking to do business, but Stadd maintained that the NASA logo would not be offered up to the highest bidder. Space enthusiasts such as Dasch are also hoping that NASA might become more receptive to creating ways for non-astronauts to experience the final frontier.

Even after the policy is released, it will likely be a work in progress, Stadd said. "I've been in the commercial space arena, and I know what it's like to deal with NASA from an outsider-entrepreneurial state," he said. "I'm trying to take that experience--and admittedly, that frustration with bureaucracy--and use that."

]]>

Environmental Protection Agency

Margaret Kriz and Erin Heath — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:00:00 -0400

Established: 1970
Address: 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-2090
2001 Budget: $7.6 billion
Employment: 18,657
Web Site: www.epa.gov
Function: The EPA conducts environmental research and enforces federal laws aimed at protecting human health and the environment. The agency regulates air and water pollution, hazardous-waste disposal and cleanup, pesticides, toxic substances, drinking water, noise pollution, and radiation. It also issues statements on the impact of operations of other federal agencies on the environment. Christie Whitman
Administrator
202-564-4700
Whitman took Washington by storm when she joined the Administration in early 2001 after her unanimous confirmation by the Senate. In her first days on the job, Whitman aggressively promoted Bush's campaign promise to curb U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from coal-fired power plants. But her star quickly plunged when Bush reversed his decision to regulate carbon dioxide, which causes global warming. Whitman took it on the chin again in early May, when she suggested that the Administration might back away from its support for new oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, only to have the White House contradict her. Little wonder, then, that both environmentalists and conservatives now say that Whitman, who is a moderate, is not among Bush's most plugged-in advisers. She came to the EPA after serving seven years as the governor of New Jersey, where she was known for cutting taxes, toughening state laws on crime, and preserving open space. Whitman, 55, grew up in Oldwick, N.J., in a staunchly Republican family and graduated from Wheaton College in Norton, Mass. She has served as president of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, as a member of the Somerset County Board of Freeholders, and on the staff of the Republican National Committee. In 1990, Whitman came close to defeating then-Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., in his bid for re-election. At the EPA, Whitman oversees a mosaic of environmental laws governing air and water pollution, toxic chemicals, pesticides, and hazardous-waste disposal and cleanup. She's a firm advocate of Bush's proposals to give state governments more control over environmental programs. Linda J. Fisher
Deputy Administrator
202-564-4711
Bush filled the EPA's No. 2 slot with a politically savvy former chemical-industry executive. Fisher, 48, served five years as Monsanto Co.'s point person in Washington on genetically modified foods. Her ties to industry have drawn criticism from some environmental activists, who contend that she'll bring a pro-industry bias to her new post. In response to those concerns, Fisher has agreed to recuse herself from issues dealing with Monsanto and with biotechnology products. Before joining the chemical industry, Fisher worked for the Washington law firm of Latham and Watkins. More important, she also spent 10 years at the EPA during the Reagan and first Bush Administrations, rising from within the ranks to become the assistant administrator for pollution prevention, pesticides, and toxic substances. In the 1970s, she served as a staff member to two House Republicans. A native of Saginaw, Mich., Fisher has a bachelor's degree from Miami University of Ohio, an MBA from George Washington University, and a law degree from Ohio State University.

Return to Main Story

]]>

NASA

Erin Heath — Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:00:00 -0400

Established: 1958
Address: 300 E St. SW, Washington, DC 20546
Phone: 202-358-0000
2001 Budget: $14.3 billion
Employment: 18,884
Web Site: www.nasa.gov
Function: NASA conducts research and develops operational programs in the areas of aeronautics, space exploration, artificial satellites, and rocketry in an effort to advance space flight, aeronautics, space science, and space applications. NASA operates the space shuttle, administers all space science programs, and launches approximately half of all military space missions. Daniel S. Goldin
Administrator
202-358-1010
"I am in terrible shape," Goldin said one recent morning. A nasty encounter with poison oak during a mountain hike had forced him to veto his normal cowboy boots that day in favor of sandals that were easier on his damaged feet. "I feel like a hippie," he chuckled, in his native Bronx accent. Goldin, 60, calls himself a risk taker, a description that's appropriate for NASA's longest-serving administrator. He is widely credited with pulling the agency out of a bureaucratic black hole and is probably best known for his "faster, better, cheaper" mantra, a philosophy that has defined the agency over much of Goldin's nine years there. Along the way he has dealt with stagnant budgets, failed Mars missions, and the politics surrounding the International Space Station. Goldin, a City College of New York graduate who spent 25 years as a TRW space executive, is often portrayed as a brilliant yet volatile leader. Whether he'll continue to lead NASA is still up in the air; Goldin will say only, "I serve at the pleasure of the President." But as long as he stays at the helm, Goldin will follow certain traditions; such as putting on an old Bronx hat just before every launch. "I feel it makes the launch safe," he says. He ranks "putting a contact lens on the Hubble" as his proudest accomplishment, referring to the 1993 space walk mission that fixed the foggy images from the space telescope. His biggest disappointment: Not sending people to Mars. Goldin comes alive when discussing his goal of seeing a manned Mars mission in his lifetime. "In no less than 10 and no more than 20 years, we are going to see an American space suit with an American flag step down on Mars," he said. "And my life will be complete." Jerry Brown
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
202-358-1898
Like a rocket, Brown has ascended to the top post at NASA's Office of Public Affairs, and in two and a half months on the job, he's already had to deal with project cancellations, cost overruns, and space station tourism. But Brown, 49, is no novice: He has more than 20 years of communications experience, most recently as a vice president of Washington-based Walls Communications. He worked for the George H.W. Bush Administration, first as the Federal Transit Administration's director of public affairs, and then as the deputy director of the Office of External Affairs in the U.S. Agency for International Development. In the mid-1980s, Brown lived in Saudi Arabia for four years, doing public relations for three firms, including Tihama, one of the largest PR companies in the Middle East. He also met his wife there. "It was an extremely unique experience," he said. "What surprised me [about Saudi Arabia] was how much Saudis know and understand about our culture and how little we know and understand theirs." Brown, a native of Kansas City, Mo., earned a B.A. in communications from the University of Houston.

Return to Main Story

]]>

Agencies work to keep mad-cow disease out of U.S. pastures

Erin Heath — Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:00:00 -0400

Mad cows, however, are no laughing matter for the U.S. officials who are charged with maintaining animal health and food safety. Their job is to keep out the disease that has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of European cows and, scientists believe, almost a hundred people.

Indeed, U.S. officials have their work cut out for them. In January, about 1,000 Texas cows were quarantined after officials discovered they might have eaten animal feed banned because of its links to mad-cow. And in March, federal agents seized a flock of sheep in Vermont that had been quarantined for two and a half years because some of the sheep showed signs of having a brain disease related to mad-cow.

Here's some background: The technical name for mad-cow disease is bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. It's part of a little-understood group of diseases called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, or TSEs, which are characterized by the way they create spongelike holes in the brain. TSEs are rare, but they are found in a number of species.

Scientists discovered mad-cow 15 years ago in Britain. The number of affected cattle grew, peaking in 1993 at 1,000 new diagnoses a week. The outbreak, of course, wreaked havoc on the beef industry. But the real problems for beef producers didn't start until 1996, when the British government released a report linking mad-cow to 10 human deaths.

Scientists compared the symptoms of these 10 people with those caused by Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a rare human TSE that occurs in one in a million people a year worldwide. But unlike Creutzfeldt-Jakob victims, who usually are age 55 or older, these 10 were much younger, some even in their teens.

Scientists decided their illness was a new, separate TSE they dubbed "new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob" disease, or vCJD for short. Like the classic Creutzfeldt-Jakob, vCJD destroys the brain and is invariably fatal. It has an exceptionally long incubation period, lasting from five to 20 years.

Researchers soon found evidence that those who died of vCJD had gotten it by eating beef tainted by mad-cow disease. The European Union banned British beef exports for three years. The market for beef plummeted.

The majority of cattle that have succumbed to mad-cow have been from Britain, but cases have also cropped up in about a dozen other European countries. As of early February, 98 people have been diagnosed with vCJD-94 from Britain, three from France, and one from Ireland.

How does mad-cow spread, and how did it get into the meat sold in grocery stores and restaurants? The most likely explanation isn't for the faint of stomach. After cows are sent to slaughter, the meat is removed and the leftover scraps, such as bones, hooves, and organs, are cooked and melted in a process called rendering. This stew is then added to animal feed. Issues of cow cannibalism aside, proponents of rendering call it an efficient way to give cattle protein and to use all of the leftover bits from a slaughtered cow.

The mad-cow agent (it's not exactly a virus or bacterium) is thought to reside mainly in the bovine brain or spinal cord. Researchers believe that the brains and spinal cords of infected cows were mixed into feed given to other cows, thereby spreading the disease. Parts of the infected cows could also have made their way into the human food chain, causing vCJD.

Mad-cow disease and vCJD have never been found in the United States. The Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration--as well as officials from U.S. Customs, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other agencies--have teamed up to try to keep the disease out.

The USDA has been relatively ahead of the game on imports. In 1989, the United States became the first country to ban the importations of live ruminant animals--those that chew a cud, such as cows, goats, and sheep--and ruminant products from countries where mad-cow had been discovered. The department expanded the ban in 1997 to include all European countries, regardless of whether they had the disease.

The FDA also did away with cow cannibalism in 1997, banning farmers from feeding to ruminants animal protein that is derived from ruminants and most mammals. In December, the USDA prohibited the import of all rendered protein from all European countries. And the FDA has forbidden blood donations from anyone who spent six months in Britain between 1980 and 1996.

Three studies--one done by the USDA in the early 1990s, one done last year by the European Union, and one to be released in June by Harvard University--predict that the risk of mad-cow showing up in the United States is slight. But because so little is known about the disease, it can't be written off, said Linda Detwiler, a senior staff veterinarian at USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

The USDA performed 11,954 cattle inspections from 1990-2000. (Officials must euthanize the cows to check their brains for BSE.) But critics say this number is not enough. "We do think that the government could do more," said Peter Lurie, deputy director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. The USDA's goal is to increase the number to 5,000 cattle inspections annually, and to do them at more locations.

Lurie estimates that less than 1 percent of products subject to FDA rules are physically inspected at U.S. borders. Stephen Sundlof, the director of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, acknowledged that only a small percentage of imported products are physically inspected, but he said that records of all products that can contain material related to mad-cow, such as live animals, animal feed, and food products, are checked. Problems can arise, however, "if a substance is misdeclared, either accidentally or intentionally. Then the chance of it being picked up in a routine inspection is relatively rare," he said.

The FDA plans to increase the number of inspectors at the ports and at feed mills, Sundlof said. In January, the FDA revealed that in a two-year inspection of more than 9,100 feed firms, close to 1,700 firms were not even aware of the 1997 feed ban. Of the firms that handled prohibited material, 28 percent did not include a label on their products cautioning that the feed should not be given to cows or other ruminants. Since then, more firms have been inspected and more have complied with the rules.

Lurie and others have also questioned certain meat-processing methods and practices that could cause brain and spinal cord tissue to enter the meat supply. One practice that has already been reformed is the use of pneumatic stun guns.

Researchers found that the guns, which beef producers use to put down cattle before slaughter, sometimes caused bovine brain matter to go into other parts of the cow's body. This happened less than 2 percent of the time, according to a study funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the American Meat Institute. But the risk was enough to cause beef producers to reconsider using the stun guns, said Gary Weber, the beef association's executive director of regulatory affairs. "In a very short amount of time, the [beef] companies stopped using them, and the manufacturers stopped making them and offered alternative products," he said.

Cow parts aren't used only in animal feed. They're found in more places than people realize, from soap to sweets to sporting goods. A small number of dietary supplements use cow brain and glandular material, Lurie said. But the FDA hasn't been able to regulate them since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act became law in 1994. "Dietary supplements are the Wild West out there at this point," he said.

Some vaccines--such as polio and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP), which are required for children to enter many public schools--also use bovine material such as cow blood. Since 1993, the FDA has issued a couple of guidance letters asking vaccine companies not to use material from cattle raised in countries at risk of mad-cow disease. But the FDA found out last year that at least five companies had not complied.

Still, government officials decided not to pull the vaccines off the market because the chances of anyone getting a mad-cow-related disease are "remote and theoretical." Lurie concurred, but said the Bush Administration should take a stricter, better-safe-than-sorry approach.

Europe's mad-cow crisis hasn't lowered demand for beef in this country. But the impact would be devastating if mad-cow were to be discovered in American cattle, Weber said. "It only takes one case," he said. "Beef purchases would probably go down between 30 and 50 percent." Think of it this way, he said: Every 1 percent of consumer demand equates to about $350 million a year just in farm and ranch income. A 30 percent decline in demand would mean a loss of $10.5 billion to the beef industry.

Because of the level of uncertainty surrounding mad-cow, and because of the 100 percent fatality rate of its human counterpart, vCJD, mad-cow disease will continue to be a hot-button issue. Federal officials, meanwhile, will continue to judge their success on the number of mad cows found in the United States: zero.

]]>

NASA drafting rules for space tourists

Erin Heath — Mon, 07 May 2001 00:00:00 -0400

Last week, 60-year-old California millionaire Dennis Tito became the first paying vacationer to blast off from Earth for a 10-day holiday aboard the International Space Station. He reportedly spent up to $20 million for a ticket to join Russian cosmonauts Yuri Baturin and Talgat Musabayev in the Russian Soyuz spacecraft headed for the space station. On April 28, he was greeted by space station crew members Yury Usachev, the Russian commander, and Americans Susan Helms and Jim Voss.

Although Tito's ascension through the Earth's atmosphere was smooth, his dealings with NASA were rocky. Tito had trained with the Russian cosmonauts for eight months, but when he showed up with the Soyuz crew at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, he was initially turned away.

NASA officials were concerned he would jeopardize crew safety. Some also objected to the notion that rich people could buy space rides and jump ahead of the queue of astronaut hopefuls who have spent years in training. This started a flurry of negotiations among the Russian Space Agency, NASA, and the other space station partners. In the end, Russia prevailed, and Tito got his wish.

Now that the space tourist portal has been opened, courtesy of a cash-starved Russia, NASA is scrambling to hash out the criteria under which future nonprofessionals can visit the space station. And because the station is a joint venture with Russia and 16 other nations--including Japan, Canada, and members of the European Space Agency--achieving consensus will not be easy.

The space station could prove to be a popular destination. Before the demise of the Russian space station Mir earlier this year, Mark Burnett, the executive producer of last summer's television hit "Survivor," had expressed interest in doing a "Destination Mir" TV show. The premise: A group of strangers go through cosmonaut training in Russia and, as on "Survivor," people get booted off the show until the group has been whittled down to one lucky person who would get to fly to Mir. The fact that the prize is no longer available hasn't stopped the discussions.

"We're still talking with him about doing a show with the International Space Station," said Jeffrey Lenorovitz, spokesman for MirCorp, an Amsterdam company that had sought to lease the Mir space station from Russia for commercial purposes. MirCorp helped arrange Tito's trip.

But American officials and experts are wary of space tourism, at least right now. John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, said the current transportation system is still not adequate for taking untrained civilians into space. "Basically, I don't think it should start on anything approaching a regular basis until we have more reliable, more user-friendly accommodations. Opening [the space station] up to frequent space travel is at least 10 years away, probably more," he said.

Charles Vick, acting chief of space policy for the Federation of American Scientists, said that he thinks the space station is more likely to draw interest from corporations that want to do research in space rather than from travel agents selling tickets for a great view. Many companies, especially those in the biomedical field, would pay to conduct experiments in space, he said.

"The medical community really screamed when Skylab was ended, because we were learning so very much at that time," he said. Skylab was the American space station that spent six years in orbit before coming down in 1979.

But Lenorovitz, of MirCorp, says the market for tourism may develop sooner than that for commercial ventures. Commercial research can take three to five years before it's ready for space; a millionaire with cash could be ready in less than a year.

For now, however, it looks like space tourists with big bank accounts may have to cool their, uh, rockets, a little. Members of the International Space Station's Multilateral Coordination Board, which cleared Tito for flight just four days before his launch, agreed that no member nation would launch another nonprofessional until the partners adopted criteria for sending tourists to the station. Those criteria will be developed no later than June, said board Chairman W. Michael Hawes, who is NASA's deputy associate administrator for the space station.

Even after criteria are set, it is unlikely that another tourist would go up within the next year, and probably not before 2006, when the space station will be completely assembled, said Michael Greenfield, NASA's deputy associate administrator for safety and mission assurance.

The way the Russians handled the Tito trip has left a bad taste in the mouths of the other space station member nations. "It's certainly within Russia's rights," to send tourists up to the station without the other partners' blessings, Logsdon said. "But it's certainly not in the spirit of the partnership."

Tom Stafford, former astronaut and chairman of a NASA advisory task force on space station operational readiness, agreed. The Russian Space Agency should ensure that "this kind of unilateral decision never happens again. A process must be agreed to by all partners," he said.

The issue for Russia, of course, is money. The Russians need Tito's millions. Russia's space budget for the year is just $145 million, a fraction of NASA's $14 billion. Since Boris Yeltsin signed on to the $60 billion space station project in 1993, financial problems in Russia have caused delays in its construction, and NASA has had to spend millions to bail Moscow out.

"It's a very critical issue that they get this funding, and I think that's why the Russians are being as hardnosed as they are," said Vick, interviewed before Tito's launch. "This is one way that they can pay for one more mission."

The Russians have sold space to the highest bidder before. The Russians got millions for displaying a Pepsi logo outside Mir and for attaching a 30-foot Pizza Hut sign on a booster rocket that sent up part of the new space station.

Despite its protestations about Tito, NASA might not turn its nose up at tourist millions either. It has its own money problems. Under President Bush's budget proposal, NASA funding would go up just 2 percent--that's less than inflation. Congress has limited NASA's spending on space station construction to $25 billion, even though it is expected to cost NASA $29 billion. The $4 billion cost overrun has forced NASA to consider dropping some of its planned additions to the station, including a habitation module that would provide more room for crew members. But a week before Tito's flight, NASA announced that Italy would consider taking on the task of building the habitation module.

Hawes said there has been discussion already at NASA about where the money from future paying tourists might go, but he would not elaborate. Right now, NASA has no plans to fly people commercially on the shuttle, he said.

NASA hasn't always been so squeamish about sending tourists into space. Space shuttle trips were granted to a Saudi Arabian prince and three politicians--Sen. (then-Rep.) Bill Nelson, D-Fla., former Sen. Jake Garn, R-Utah, and, of course, former Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, himself a former astronaut. In early 1986, the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle killed seven crewmembers, including the first American private citizen in space, teacher Christa McAuliffe.

In a lot of ways, Tito's flight will serve as the trial run for future nonprofessionals. Officials are watching closely to see how the millionaire will affect the operational tempo of the space station. Critics of Tito's visit feared that he would jeopardize not only the crew's safety, but also its mission and job duties.

"When you're building an expensive new office building, you don't invite visitors in while you're still putting the pieces together," Logsdon said. "The crew is busy up there all the time. The station is in the process of internal and external assembly and having a visitor around would just be a distraction."

Whether the crew feels comfortable enough to go about its original planned experiments with Tito around will be considered when the 16 partner countries meet to discuss future tourism.

Tito may also set the standard for training and liability. Tito's eight months of training in Russia included hours of daily classes, physical tests, and gravity trials. The training program for future nonprofessionals would likely be similar to Tito's Soyuz training, said Hawes, with two additional components: Nonprofessionals would have to train with the U.S. sections of the space station (and possibly with hardware provided by other nations) and with the specific crew they would be visiting. Tito's lack of experience in those two areas was one of NASA's main concerns, he said.

As for liability, Tito had to sign documents agreeing to follow flight rules and a crew code of conduct, as well as a waiver in which he agreed to pay for any damage he might cause during his visit and hold the partners harmless if anything should happen to him. Space equipment doesn't come cheap, and future waivers like this might ensure that space vacations would be strictly for the mega-moneyed.

Tito won't exactly be loafing in space during his starry holiday. He won't have "unlimited free time to float around" on the space station, according to NASA's Greenfield. He'll perform small tasks, such as unpacking and repacking the Soyuz, and changing seat liners. How well Tito performs may help determine the workload for future nonprofessionals--perhaps the next space station tourist will learn how to clean a space toilet.

]]>