In keeping with the Bush administration's spending policies, the new space plane must be developed within the confines of NASA's current budget forecast, which is about $14.8 billion a year.

"This entire (proposal) is challenging," said Glenn Mahone, an agency spokesman.

NASA officials would give no cost estimates Friday, but initial funding is likely to come from the Space Launch Initiative, the $5 billion program that was supposed to develop a reusable launch vehicle to replace the shuttle. The NASA release said Huntsville, Ala.-based SLI accomplished its objective of "identifying feasible options for space transportation."

Now, the NASA release said, the Space Launch Initiative will focus on building the orbital space plane and a new research and development effort called Next Generation Launch Technology.

The proposal has not yet been vetted by Congress, which has grown skeptical of NASA after years of annual cost overruns and delays on the space station project. It's part of a proposed amendment to NASA's fiscal 2003 budget, which is pending in Congress.

Lawmakers are likely to approve the agency's budget in a rushed, lame-duck session next week. The Integrated Space Launch Plan could slip through with little scrutiny. Key lawmakers who serve on congressional appropriations and authorizing committees with NASA oversight could not be reached for comment Friday.

"We're just as anxious to see that as you are," said Brian Chase, an aide for U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Melbourne. "The administration has been talking about quite a few interesting things, but we just don't know all of the specifics yet. We expect it to be submitted Tuesday."

Mahone said there is nothing out of the ordinary about the timing or the nature of the funding request.

"It's not curious at all," Mahone said. "It's where we are in our work and what we felt we needed to do."

Civilian space advocates welcomed the news that NASA is moving forward with developing new space hardware.

"This makes a lot of sense to us," said Marc Schlather, president of the Washington-based advocacy group ProSpace. "We're still looking for more details as to how they intend to go about it. But so far, we are cautiously optimistic."

The Bush administration seems to be going about this change in the right way, Schlather said.

The orbital space plane could use launchers already being developed by The Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., which would save money by avoiding the cost of creating an entirely new launch system, as was done for the shuttle fleet. The companies have new launch complexes on NASA and Air Force property at Cape Canaveral.

Boeing and Lockheed executives confirm they have been working with NASA to figure out what it would take to prove the rockets are safe to launch humans.

"We have been working with them to try to look at different alternatives, but we've not been given anything officially as far as funding or a final decision," said Adrian Laffitte, director of launch operations for Lockheed's Atlas 5. "We're interested in exploring all different market possibilities."

In a letter dated Sept. 30, O'Keefe told U.S. Rep. Ralph Hall, D-Texas, the Space Launch Initiative had completed preliminary studies for a crew-transfer vehicle instead of a limited-use crew escape pod for the space station. O'Keefe told the congressman it would be more cost-efficient for NASA to develop a multipurpose ship.

O'Keefe told Hall the earliest such a vehicle, which some are calling a mini-shuttle, could fly is 2010. It's possible that even then, the first versions of the vehicle might be used only as a station-escape craft, O'Keefe said.

The spacecraft would allow the United States to end its reliance on Russian Soyuz spacecraft used for emergency escape by the three-person station crew. It's unclear from NASA's press release whether the ship under consideration would seat three, four or seven people -- all possible crew sizes mentioned by O'Keefe in his September letter to Hall.

The Russians' largest space contractor, Energia, has said money problems could force it to stop building Soyuz. Versions of the venerable Russian three-seater have flown in space since the 1960s. The ships can stay on the station for only six months because their batteries and other systems degrade while docked to the station.

The Russians send a new Soyuz to the station every six months. The Russians are obligated to provide fresh escape pods through the spring of 2006, and NASA is working to extend that deal so Soyuz will be available until a U.S. replacement is space-worthy.

The space plane also opens a new road to orbit and back for astronauts in the event the shuttle fleet is grounded. NASA probably would build several mini-shuttles, although O'Keefe has said he can't specify how many. That could allow the agency to increase the station crew size to six or seven astronauts as once planned.

Cost overruns on the International Space Station had caused the Bush administration to curtail plans for an expensive, six or seven-person crew- return vehicle called the X-38, although research and engineering done on that vehicle and under the SLI project is likely to be used in development of the new space plane.

In addition to the new space vehicle, NASA will invest more money in keeping the shuttle fleet flying safely and efficiently through at least 2015. The shuttles are needed to finish construction of the space station and can be used for other unique missions, such as hauling large science payloads to the station or repairing injured satellites.

However, a special task force made up of experts inside and outside NASA recently reported to O'Keefe that the shuttles had become a financial albatross for the space agency. The report, led by the think tank Rand Corp., recommended NASA hand over most, if not all, of the $3.8-billion-a-year program to a private enterprise.

Chris Kraft, the agency's first flight director and a former director of Johnson Space Center, has long advocated increased investment in the shuttles, saying that if more were spent to improve the vehicle and exploit the vehicle's unique capabilities, NASA could find a way to make the vehicle less of a financial burden.

"Everyone throws mud all over the shuttle, but it is still the only machine that can do what it does," Kraft said. "Given the right leadership, you could bring the cost of it down. An upgraded version of the shuttle could be operated a lot cheaper. I'm hopeful they are going to do that."

Shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore, in Florida for Monday morning's scheduled launch of shuttle Endeavour, said he was aware of the studies about the program's future but did not know about the press release NASA issued. He did not comment on specifics, but said, "I always like investing in upgrades and sustaining the system."

Published under license from FLORIDA TODAY. Copyright © 2002 FLORIDA TODAY. No portion of this material may be reproduced in any way without the written consent of FLORIDA TODAY.