GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Auditors voice concern about NASA launch vehicle program

• 39337
  

  The problem is that Congress and NASA have havn't learned the lessons of the Shuttle and Space Station programs. Investing money up front during development will save you money in the long run. The Shuttle was originally to cost $10 billion to develop, congress gave NASA $6 billion. The shuttle had to be re-designed, re-scoped, re-configured loosing many of the capabilities that justified it in the first place. As a result the operation of the Shuttle has cost $10's of billions more over the life of the program. The space station was originally estimated to cost $14 billion ($21 billion in today's dollars), but was cut, re-desgined, re-scoped, re-configured, re-partnered, until we now have a space station that has cost $30 billion (plus the more expensive Shuttle flights to launch it), is 15 years late, and has a small portion of the capabilities of the original concept.

  We're going down the same road with Constellation. Capabilities are being deleted, elements re-designed, all becasue we're unwilling to fund it at the levels required. If we keep going this way Orion will fly sometime in the early 2020's, with a moon landing in the mid 2020's carrying only 2 astronauts for a day or two with no capacity to establish any sort of permanent presence. Essentually no better than Apollo 35 years ago

  Kelly McDonald Posted December 10, 2007 10:13 AM
• 39297
  

  Maybe they need to follow a system engineering process we use in DOD! We work jointly between NAVAIR and AFRL and have been using it sucessfully to develop turbine engine technologies (IHPTET and VAATE programs) and are using the this processs to sucessfully bridge the gap and mature the technologies for major aircraft programs.I believe the NASA administrator (Dr. G.) is familar with the process while hewas at JHU/APL.

  chris georgiou Posted December 9, 2007 5:08 PM
• 39214
  

  Tip, I reaize you have to keep peace in the family but your wife must either be a bean counter, lawyer or HR. In the most successful companies Toyota, Sony, Dell Microsoft those 3 entities I mentioned above have limited roles and minimal funding. The companies that are struggling today Ford, IBM etc all have 1 problem, bean counters lawyers and HR run the company. When have you ever seen a positative report from GAO, these are folks who at home in a partion with minimal light hammering aawat at their laptops

  dan ketter Posted December 7, 2007 12:15 PM
• 38939
  

  We used older ICBM technology to build the Saturn V vehicle to get to the moon. Even though experts of the day laid out a plan to build a space station and make our presence in space permanent, the politicos used the "rocket to the moon" concept to get the Apollo bounced off the moon in the time-frame laid out by Kennedy. In the decade following Apollo (which the Congress short-funded so we didn't even do several of the missions AND so that we lost the first space station, "Space Lab"), we went to a lot of trouble and fortune to build the Space Shuttle -- a craft that could make multiple trips to and from orbit. Among the things that happened is that we learned huge amounts about how such a ship can be built, maintained, and operated; and how to go about building a second generation that will do the job even better. We also put up a functional space station with the Shuttle. And, tragically, we learned the consequences of letting a publicity-hungry careerist make decisions about whether to launch instead of real, concerned engineers. So now we have a new, exciting mission to the moon AND to Mars (btw, Mars = Ares). And what do we do? "I know," you will say, "we capitalize on all that knowledge, experience, evolving technology, and ,yes, tragedy, and build the really advanced Shuttle II to take up our nation's growing space mission and requirements." No, you are wrong. Instead, we return to the 1960s to build another "rocket to the moon." Why? Because, even though we are smart as individuals, our institutions remain unbelievably short-sighted, self-serving, and just plain stupid. We waited too long to start on Shuttle II, we obfuscated the whole idea of manned space flight and getting to planetary bodies, and once the decision was made, we demanded instant gratification. The Saturn V as not a very good idea (great technology, but), and Aries is not a very good idea. BUT you know what they say, "You can't fix stupid." Do you think our current set of publicity-hungry careerists can at least be persuaded to start on Shuttle II? Probably not -- maybe we should talk to the Chinese.

  Richard Wright Posted December 5, 2007 12:29 PM
• 38898
  

  Dan, I can almost agree with you on this one. Diary moment? Being in my impressionable years during the "Camelot" administration, the folks with "the right stuff" were my idols; blossoming my imagination, admittedly, along with the comic books and sci-fi novels.

  For the uninitiated, I can hear the questions already. "What's this business plan stuff other than additional overhead?" And I can commiserate. These are (hopefully) scientists of high caliber and varied fields of focus; geeks after my own heart. Why burden them in such an administrative morass?

  Well, while most of my civilian education was in business, but it was my lovely spouse who clued me in on the importance and functions of business cases analyses (BCA's) and the impact of business plans in what we might consider non-traditional areas.

  In a financial and political environment such as we have today, funds come dribbling in at different rates; particularly for what some may consider non-essential spending. Changes in political administrations also mean changes in emphasis and support. Since this field is not profit oriented, please consider that it still deals with a product, a plan, people, knowledge, services, and the gathering of multitudes of machinations and minutiae; all the components of high level business. Stewardship of such a massive project requires the ultimate in planning. The plan which the article discusses is supposed to enable us to receive the maximum bang for our buck, bringing the myriad components, people, and skills together in a timely manner. Yes, you can plan something to death but, often, a little planning can also make dreams come true.

  Personally, I'm ecstatic that we are finally returning to space in such a grand fashion. This is one of the few times I agree with George. My only concern on this project so far, hinges on the name Ares. Why would we name a space program after the god of war? Might that not be a tad provocative for an endeavor we wish to be above reproach? Does that not seem contrary to our avowed maintenance of space as a non-military pursuit?

  Tip off Posted December 5, 2007 8:53 AM
• 38817
  

  Now just what can the GAO add to this equation Nothing, just a waste of money. If ever there was an activity that needs to be reduced in size these guys are at the top of the list

  dan ketter Posted December 4, 2007 12:16 PM