WASHINGTON (States News Service) -- A report from the NASA Inspector General gives new ammunition to GOP claims that the Triana satellite isn't as scientifically valuable as NASA has claimed.
"We believe NASA should reassess (and modify if necessary) its current approach to the mission," the report said.
"I hope NASA will take the IG's reassessment recommendation to heart and let science -- not politics -- decide how to spend NASA's scarce budget dollars," said Science Committee Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin).
The satellite, designed to orbit at the L1 point between Earth and Sun, would provide a video image of earth available at all hours on television and the internet. Vice President Al Gore reportedly suggested the project to NASA Administrator Dan Goldin after it came to him in a dream.
NASA's authorizing committees in both chambers of Congress stripped the project of funding this year after NASA reported that costs were elevating. Neither of the spending bills under consideration in Congress contain funding for Triana, derisively nicknamed "Gore-sat" by some Republicans.
In an attempt to scientifically justify the mission, NASA has added research capabilities to Triana during its development. The new report said that has left the program muddled.
"A relatively simple and inexpensive mission focused primarily (though not exclusively) on inspiration and education has evolved into a more complex mission focused primarily on science. The added scientific capabilities will increase the amount of data gathered by the mission, but they will also increase the mission's total cost," the report said.
"When the Triana mission was announced in March 1998, NASA hoped to keep the project's cost close to $20 million and definitely below $50 million," the report said. NASA increased that to $77 million in October 1998 to add more scientific equipment.
But the report pegged the final cost for the planned five-year mission at somewhere between $144 to $220 million, taking into account launch costs, overhead, and using new independent estimates from Goddard Space Flight Center.
However, the report did not expressly advocate canceling the program. It suggested either launching the satellite commercially to reduce cost, reducing its scientific scope, or conducting a "Virtual Triana" mission that would use existing earth-imaging satellites.
NASA's commentary in the report disagreed with all three options.
"The report's recommendation would have us revisit the fundamental design of a project that is far along in its development," the NASA's comments said.
NASA also took issue with some of the cost-estimate methods that the inspector general's office used.
advertisement
