Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

June 4, 1993 (Phone: 202/358-1776) RELEASE: 93-104 STATION REDESIGN TEAM TO SUBMIT FINAL REPORT The Space Station Redesign Team, comprised of representatives from NASA and the international partners, will submit its final report on three space station options to the White House Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station on Monday, June 7, at the Stouffer Hotel in Crystal City, Va. The three options, the results of nearly 3 months of intensive research and analysis, include a modular concept that would use existing flight-proven hardware, a derivative of the current Space Station Freedom design and a space station that could be placed into orbit with a single launch of a Shuttle-derived vehicle. "The Team has done a tremendous job," said NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin. "They have developed 3 technically viable space stations. Each provides for international cooperation, establishes a fully-capable space research center in orbit that will enable high priority science, technology and engineering research and in every case, do it for significantly less money than the current Space Station Freedom baseline." "The cost estimates provided by the Redesign Team reflect complete and accurate costs of each option and the current Space Station Freedom design, " Goldin said. The baseline Freedom cost numbers were subjected to rigorous review by an expert NASA team working apart from the Freedom program. Those results, plus the costs of the three space station options, are being reviewed by an experienced, independent cost analysis team created by the White House advisory committee.

"The estimates are honest and defensible. They provide a solid basis for decision because they are comprehensive and compare all options on an apples-to-apples basis," Goldin said. "Our books are open and will withstand the closest scrutiny." -more-2President Directs Redesign An assessment early in 1993 by the incoming Administration determined the increases in the Space Station Freedom budget in the outyears would not fit within the expected NASA budget, which the Administration planned to cut by about 15 percent over the next 5 years in the interest of federal deficit reduction. The White House also wanted to place increased emphasis on other NASA programs such as aeronautics and science. Rather than cancel the program, President Clinton directed NASA to redesign the space station and produce a configuration that would significantly reduce development, operations and utilization costs, while at the same time honor the United States' commitments to the international partners and provide the essential resources to advance the nation's scientific and technology development capabilities in space. The Station Redesign Team also was charged with recommending new and streamlined management structures and acquisition strategies and to develop operational concepts that would cut operations costs in half. Monday's meeting will be the third and final public meeting with the Advisory Committee. Chaired by MIT President Dr. Charles Vest, the 16-member Advisory Committee will provide an independent assessment of the designs, cost, proposed management structure and the operations plan, and forward that assessment to the President on or about June 10. "The objective of the redesign team was to develop options for a redesigned space station," said Goldin. "The team was not asked to recommend one option over the others but rather to characterize each design's strengths and weaknesses in an unbiased manner."

Directed by Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Flight and former astronaut Bryan O'Connor, the NASA team was led by a core group of about 36 people. The diversified team had at least one representative from each NASA center, several scientists and engineers with backgrounds that ranged from program managers to spacecraft designers. Ten representatives from the international partners - the European Space Agency, Japan and Canada - and from Italy formed the remainder of the core team. Consultants from other government agencies and from industry served as advisors to the group. The core team, working in Crystal City, Va., received technical support on each of the options by people from across NASA. -more-3Station Objectives Outlined Goldin provided specific objectives and constraints, reflecting guidance from the Administration, to the team in an implementation letter of March 9, 1993. In the letter, Goldin stressed that the redesigned space station must: ù Provide a cost effective solution to basic and applied research challenges whose merit is clearly indicated by scientific peer review, significant industrial cost sharing or other widely accepted method; ù Provide the capability for significant long-duration space research in materials and life sciences during this decade; ù Bring both near-term and long-term annual funding requirements within the constraints of the budget; ù Continue to accommodate and encourage international participation; and ù Reduce technical and programmatic risk to acceptable levels. Other directions to the team from Goldin included constraints or objectives of greatly reducing on-orbit assembly and checkout;

planning for a shorter on-orbit lifetime (e.g., 10 years extendible to 15 years); greatly reducing the number of Shuttle launches and extravehicular requirements for deployment; advancing the permanently manned capability date; and reestablishing national leadership in space. In addition, the team was directed to give consideration to greater use of Shuttle and Spacelab capabilities (which may be modified to allow longer stays in orbit) and the Russian Mir space station. Budget Guidelines Set In addition, Dr. John Gibbons, the President's Science Advisor, provided budget guidance for the Advisory Committee to use in their deliberations. For the 5-year period from Fiscal Years 1994 to 1998, NASA was to assume a low option of $5 billion, a mid-range option of $7 billion and a high option of $9 billion. Activities which were to be paid for within the $5 billion, $7 billion and $9 billion accounts included: space station development, operations, utilization (including building science experiments and other payloads for the station and for Spacelab as well as the ground infrastructure to manage and deliver data to the users), Shuttle integration, facilities, research operations support, termination costs, transition costs and an appropriate level of reserves. -more-4Three Main Options Evolve Option A is a modular build-up configuration which uses a combination of Space Station Freedom hardware and flight-qualified space systems from other sources, including the potential use of a self-contained DoD spacecraft called "Bus-1" to provide propulsion, guidance, navigation and control. Option A includes a "Bus-1" configuration and a configuration without "Bus-1." Option A has four distinct phases of buildup including: Power Station (1 photovoltaic(PV) array on-orbit for increased power to a docked orbiter/Spacelab); Human Tended Capability (adds U.S. laboratory); International Human Tended (adds an additional PV array and international elements); and Permanent Human Capability (adds third PV array, the U.S. habitat module and two Russian Soyuz

ACRVs). Option B is derived from mature Space Station Freedom designs. It makes maximum use of current systems and hardware to provide an incrementally increasing capability, emphasizing accommodations for users, adherence to international partner commitments, flexibility and growth potential, and recommends some system changes to save money. Like Option A, the Freedom-derived option is built up over 4 stages. From an assembly sequence standpoint, the primary difference between the Option A and B is that the Freedom-derived configuration adds the third PV array before the international partner elements are added. Option C is a single-launch space station. This configuration features a 92-foot-long, 23-foot-diameter core module launched as part of a Space Shuttle vehicle and uses an existing external tank, solid rocket boosters and Shuttle main engines. The module would provide 26,000 cubic feet of pressurized volume, separated into 7 "decks" connected by a centralized passageway. Seven berthing ports would be located on the circumference of the module to place the international modules and other elements. "Each option is capable of accomplishing the mission of the space station," said Goldin. "All of them offer significant scientific and engineering research capabilities, especially in their permanently human presence stages." Goldin said all the options also would: ù make maximum use of Space Station Freedom systems and components, which have completed a rigorous critical design review, where it is both cost effective and schedule enhancing, thus benefiting from the nation's investment to date in the Freedom program; ù incorporate changes that would reduce complexity and increase the probability for meeting cost and schedule; -more-5ù achieve substantial savings through a streamlined management structure that provides clear lines of authority, reduces overlap and gives accountability and authority to the lowest level to get the job done; and

ù benefit from a new operations approach that would significantly reduce operational costs. Goldin said Russian hardware alternatives, where it could benefit the redesigned space station program, also were investigated. In all three options, the Soyuz crew return vehicle has been baselined as the assured crew return vehicle. Launch capability and other systems developed and in operation in the Russian space program are described in the report and will be considered for use in the redesigned space station or in future improvements. -end-