The wide-ranging RAND study urges the White House to become more engaged in scripting how best to use the ISS, tagging the Earth-circling complex as a $70 billion national investment.

Budget busting

The report, RAND Perspectives on ISS Budget Issues was done by RAND's Science and Technology Policy Institute in Arlington, Virginia and has been briefed to NASA, the White House, the space station's international partners, and other power brokers in Washington, D.C.

Major conclusions reached by RAND, include:

• The ISS is arguably more technically and programmatically complex than any previous NASA undertaking. Technical implementation of the mega-project has been remarkable;
• The current $8.3 billion "budget blueprint" will not be sufficient to reach the 'assembly complete' milestone for the space station, despite reserves in excess of $1 billion;
• The International Space Station program suffers from NASA's reluctance to integrate independent cost estimation and control practices that are sufficiently robust to yield confidence in budget estimates;
• When the station was restructured in the early 1990s to reduce costs, additional requirements, including Russian participation, were placed on the program that added appreciably to cost and schedule;
• While the magnitude of space station cost growth is large, it is not unexpected when compared to past major Department of Defense programs and other large NASA programs.

White House attention needed

A troublesome aspect to the RAND study, SPACE.com sources said, is the "optimistic" figure of $5.5 billion a year needed to just maintain and operate even a curtailed station. Therefore, one facility, one program, is going to occupy one-third of NASA's resources.

One cost-saving measure is creation of a non-governmental organization (NGO) to run the ISS. The NGO idea could save some money, and does offer a chance of developing a broader base of ISS utilization. This effort should be accelerated, the RAND study suggests.

In this area, RAND recommends that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) establish a short-term Interagency Working Group, acting under the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council to guide future ISS utilization and operations.

Axe rather than scalpel

RAND took issue with Young's IMCE cost savings recommendation of reducing the space shuttle flight rate to ISS to only four times a year. No cost-savings can be realized, they found, because the shuttle is a fixed-cost program.

Moreover, the RAND review observes that White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials have used an axe rather than a scalpel in outlining cost-cutting steps within the ISS program. While money savings can be had given those measures, it comes at the expense of eventually upgrading the station to handle a larger crew.

Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of decisions must be made within the next few months to retain any option to grow the ISS in future years, the RAND study explains. One example of this is upgrading the life support system to handle more than a trio of live-in station staff. Moreover, having a larger crew is important as the station ages and becomes increasingly cranky to operate.

More research time needed

Regarding productivity using today's three-person ISS crew, the RAND group notes that more attention must be paid to automating station functions. That includes how best to conduct research onboard the outpost and boost the amount of actual science time spent per day by ISS crews.

This can be done by using an extended duration orbiter hooked to the station; let visiting shuttle crews carry out non-critical maintenance of the ISS; and ensure that one ISS crew person is trained and dedicated to full-time science research for each 3-person tour-of-duty.

A top recommendation by RAND to NASA is complete a plan for substantial reduction of the space agency's total cost for sustained ISS utilization and operations. Independent cost and risk assessment, and full-cost management must be a permanent part of the International Space Station program, the think tank reports.

Buy the numbers?

Work is underway to address program organization and ISS costs, said Michael Hawes, deputy associate administrator for the space station at NASA Headquarters.

The RAND study's view that space station performance is in the middle of the pack for big complicated programs, Hawes said, is a "reasonable analysis." However, cost control of the project remains an issue that must be watched and is one that the agency remains concerned with, he told SPACE.com.

Hawes said an issue is portraying total space station costs inclusive of space shuttle flights. "Even in cost estimates we're doing now, shuttle flights are not counted in," he said. "You can look at it two ways. You can view it as the space station is responsible for this much of the NASA budget. Or, you can say the human spaceflight program is responsible for this much of the NASA budget," Hawes said.

Hawes faulted the RAND study for not understanding the balance of human spaceflight and the science programs across NASA. "What they did not portray was the shift over the last 10 years, that the aggregate science has now passed human spaceflightin terms of cost to the agency," he said.

"I think they were reasonable in accounting for what the human spaceflight program will continue to cost," Hawes said. NASA is "aggressively pursuing" cost saving measures in this area, he added.

A series of ISS action items by NASA are now being shaped, Hawes said.