WASHINGTON Poorly managed and in financial hot water, the International Space Station (ISS) program is under scrutiny today by the U.S. Congress. The Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives is being briefed on the ISS, with lawmakers wrestling with ways to put the orbiting international project on firm ground, in terms of its overall cost and scientific usefulness.

In prepared testimony provided to SPACE.com, Sean OKeefe, Deputy Director for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the White House, is slated today to tip his hat to the "nearly flawless" integration of hardware and software in orbit from numerous nations and cultures around the world. But the high-ranking official labels the ISS a "program at a crossroads."

OKeefe points out that, in January 2001, NASA informed the OMB that the estimated cost of the ISS program had grown by roughly $4 billion over the next five years. That represented a 50 percent increase over what was projected about six months prior.

"This continued a history of cost growth that saw nearly $4 billion added to the cost of completing assembly of the Space Station over the last three years. What made this latest projected overrun particularly troubling is that it came with little warning and it was so much larger than what was projected only a little while ago," OKeefe says.

"With numbers that large, and no certainty that even this additional $5 billion would be sufficient, there was no doubt that this was a program facing a management and financial crisis," he notes.

In dealing with ISS problems, the White House supports the "U.S. core complete" solution, OKeefe explains, based on the principles of establishing permanent human presence in orbit; conducting world-class research; and accommodating the international elements.

The core complete station addressed about $2 billion of the cost growth by redirecting funding from three elements with significant high-cost and high-risk development remaining -- the habitation module, crew return vehicle, and propulsion module. Reducing the planned budget for research equipment and utilization doing science onboard the complex -- offset about a billion dollars of the cost growth in development and operations. This left about a billion dollars to go, which would be addressed by NASA with further cost scrubs and management reforms.

Early in the year, an estimated $484 million was yet to be resolved in the fiscal year 2004-2006 time period.

The White House and OMB, OKeefe says, also recognized that there was "no real precision to that estimate and it would take more than money and design changes to complete the Station and get cost growth under control."

That is why the Bush Administration has charged NASA with undertaking whatever management reforms are necessary to get the program back on track.

Last weeks release of the ISS Management and Cost Evaluation Task Force (IMCE), chaired by Thomas Young, OKeefe says, helps provide a plan of action. Now being put in place is a strategy that places the "burden of proof on NASA performance" to ensure that NASA fully implements the needed reforms.

The OMB official notes that, at NASA, cultural change is essential, making the following points:

• Even with the content removed for the U.S. core complete Station, it could cost as much as a billion or two more, unless what the task force called "radical" reforms are achieved. It would be a big mistake to begin adding content back to the program now, when there is no confidence that NASA can manage to finish the core complete station and operate it within the available budget;
• Research is the appropriate and necessary focus of the ISS program. However, there is a further need to clearly prioritize the research objectives to be achieved by the station and, as required, shift resources within NASAs Human Space Flight program and associated Biological and Physical Research activities to realize those priorities;
• In response to those who say that a three-person station does not provide useful science. Conducting good science with a three-person station has always been a program requirement. Prior to the $5 billion overrun, the plan had assumed a three-person crew through at least fiscal year 2006. So what we are really discussing is what level of scientific productivity might we accomplish for later this decade. There are already "seeds of innovation" beginning to sprout as new ideas are being explored to improve ISS scientific productivity. This is something that would not have happened previously, as some would have assumed that additional funding would always be the solution; and
• Initiation of a non-government organization (NGO) to manage Space Station research is critical during the next two years. Such an organization would improve the quality and productivity of the research results we can expect from the ISS. Another priority reform is continued privatization of the Space Shuttle. This would free NASA from the burden of operating infrastructure that, in the long run, is the purview of the private sector from which NASA will ultimately procure services.

OKeefe says that NASA is being provided important tools to cope with the ISS headache.

For example, there is a proposed Freedom to Manage Act and the Management Flexibility Act would. If passed by Congress, the Act would give NASA and other federal agencies increased discretion and flexibility in attracting, managing, and retaining a high quality workforce. These proposals would give NASA more flexibility needed to compete with the private sector, fill skill gaps, and hire the needed financial, engineering and management experts needed to pursue state-of-the-art management and financial information systems.

NASA has been well served by Daniel Goldin, the outgoing NASA Administrator, OKeefe says. "New leadership is now necessary to continue moving the ball down the field with the goal line in sight. The [Bush] Administration recognizes the importance of getting the right leaders in place as soon as possible, and I am personally engaged in making sure that this happens," he explains.

As for the long-term future, should NASA implement the needed reforms and achieve significant efficiencies, the Bush White House is committed to "reinvesting those savings back into NASA to begin developing the capabilities necessary for a future of science-driven human exploration," OKeefe noted.