Space-Lab Budget Battle to Be Monitored in O.C. : Technology: McDonnell Douglas unit in Huntington Beach holds contracts for Space Station Freedom valued at $3.5 billion.

WASHINGTON —  Congressional critics of NASA’s plan to launch a $30-billion space laboratory into Earth orbit by the end of the decade will mount today the most spirited attack yet on the controversial project when the House debates a funding plan for the space agency.

Led by Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), opponents of Space Station Freedom say they will try to strip from the 1993 federal budget virtually all of the $2.25 billion requested for the station project by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The attack will come as an amendment to legislation that would set maximum NASA spending levels over the next three years.

The debate will be watched closely in Huntington Beach, home of McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Co., which holds space station contracts valued at $3.5 billion.

Today’s showdown is the first in what could be a series of bitterly fought congressional battles this year over the station, which is intended to serve as a laboratory for life science and microgravity research, and as a jumping-off point for 21st-Century missions to the moon and to Mars.

The latest attack on NASA’s most cherished project comes at a particularly difficult time for the space agency. Longtime NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly, who was dismissed by President Bush in February, was replaced only recently by Daniel S. Goldin, a former TRW executive from Manhattan Beach who has little experience dealing with Congress.

At the same time, the burgeoning federal budget deficit will force lawmakers to slash or eliminate many pet programs this year. Supporters fear that the space station could fall victim to the budget crisis.

“Good sense and good science tell us the space station is not worth the money,” said Roemer, who has promised to continue his fight to cancel the space station program even if he loses on the House floor today.

Like other critics, Roemer argues that the station, which originally was to cost $8 billion, has been so stripped down as costs escalated that it can no longer achieve its basic scientific mission. Roemer also says that the additional estimated $118 billion that it will cost to operate the station over its 30-year life could be much better spent on social programs at home.

But supporters--who include Rep. George E. Brown Jr. (D-Colton), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, and other California lawmakers--say the station is the key to the future of America’s manned space program. In addition to McDonnell Douglas, California is also home to the Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International, which is to receive about $1.6 billion for its space station work.

Brown said he will address the cost argument by telling his colleagues that “investment in research and development builds economic competitiveness,” and that continued funding for the space station “helps alleviate some of the pain of military cutbacks,” especially in California. Brown predicted that his forces would muster 250 votes to save the station, 32 more than required for House approval.

Last year, the House turned back an attempt to cut station funding by a 240-173 vote.

Under the current schedule, the first component of the space station would be launched aboard a space shuttle in late 1995. The station would be assembled in space using pieces carried aloft by a series of shuttle missions, and would be ready to accommodate a permanent team of four astronauts by the end of 1999. The space agencies of Japan, Canada and Europe also plan to participate in aspects of the program.

Two Orange County congressmen who serve on Brown’s committee said Tuesday that they strongly support the space station.

“All big science is going to require international cooperation,” said Rep. Ron Packard (R-Oceanside), who represents southern Orange County. Eliminating funding for the space station, Packard said, “would send a signal to our international partners that would absolutely dry up any hope of getting international cooperation” in other major science programs.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) said the collapse of the former Soviet Union has provided an opportunity to reduce the space station’s cost by using Russian space technology.

For example, Rohrabacher suggested that the cost of assembling the station in space could be significantly cut by using powerful Russian rockets capable of lifting payloads more than four times heavier than those carried on space shuttles.

“What we have now with the dramatic changes in Russia is an opportunity to truly make this an example of planetary cooperation . . . and in doing so we will keep down the cost of the project,” the congressman added.

Even if space station supporters prevail today, other fights are likely when the Senate votes on the three-year NASA spending authority, and when the House and Senate separately vote on a specific NASA appropriation for the 1993 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.

In a speech delivered Tuesday to members of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, Goldin strongly defended the station.

“The primary purpose of Space Station Freedom is to be the premier outpost in humankind’s effort to learn how to live and work in space,” the NASA administrator said.