Despite initial approval by President Ronald Reagan and a public announcement in the 1984 State of the Union Address, the ambitious project faced significant budget cuts and delays.

Ultimately, a scaled-down version of Freedom evolved into the US Orbital Segment (USOS) of the International Space Station (ISS).

By the time the project was canceled, NASA had already invested approximately $11 billion into Space Station Freedom, however some of that work would benefit the ISS.

As originally envisioned, the station would have been collaborative project involving four participating space agencies: NASA (United States), NASDA (Japan), ESA (Europe), and CSA (Canada).

In the early 1970s, Spiro Agnew took these general plans to President Nixon, who was battling with a major federal budget deficit.

Following the presidential announcement, NASA began a set of studies to determine the potential uses for the space station, both in research and in industry, in the U.S. or overseas.

This arrangement would provide enough gravity gradient stability to keep the station aligned with the keel pointed towards the Earth, reducing the need for thruster firings.

The study concluded that the project was viable, reducing development costs while minimizing negative impacts, and it was designated the Revised Baseline Configuration.

[5] Cost escalation of the project and financial difficulties in Russia led to a briefing between NASA and NPO Energia on Mir-2 that same year, resulting in an option known briefly as the Russian Alpha (RAlpha).

[7] In July 1995, the International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995 House report to U.S.Congress was released and the names Freedom, Alpha, and ISSA were no more.

[8] By this time, the hardware meant for Space Station Freedom, then Alpha, that had already been designed and built or was in development, around 10 percent, became part of the ISS.

In June 1993, an amendment to remove space station funding from NASA's appropriations bill failed by one vote in the House of Representatives.

The merger of the project faced opposition by representatives such as Tim Roemer who feared Russia would break the Missile Technology Control Regime agreement and felt the program was far too costly.