GAO report on Constellation program

[Robotbeat]

NASA: Constellation Program Cost and Schedule Will Remain Uncertain Until a Sound Business Case Is Established
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-844

Summary

NASA's Constellation program is developing the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle as the agency's first major efforts in a plan to return to the moon and eventually send humans to Mars. GAO has issued a number of reports and testimonies on various aspects of this program, and made several recommendations. GAO was asked to assess NASA's progress in implementing GAO's recommendations for the Ares I and Orion projects, and identify risks the program faces. GAO analyzed NASA plans and schedules, risk mitigation information, and contract performance data relative to knowledge-based acquisition practices identified in prior GAO reports, and interviewed government officials and contractors.

NASA is still struggling to develop a solid business case--including firm requirements, mature technologies, a knowledge-based acquisition strategy, a realistic cost estimate, and sufficient funding and time--needed to justify moving the Constellation program forward into the implementation phase. Gaps in the business case include significant technical and design challenges for the Orion and Ares I vehicles, such as limiting vibration during launch, eliminating the risk of hitting the launch tower during lift off, and reducing the mass of the Orion vehicle, represent considerable hurdles that must be overcome in order to meet safety and performance requirements; and a poorly phased funding plan that runs the risk of funding shortfalls in fiscal years 2009 through 2012, resulting in planned work not being completed to support schedules and milestones. This approach has limited NASA's ability to mitigate technical risks early in development and precludes the orderly ramp up of workforce and developmental activities. In response to these gaps, NASA delayed the date of its first crewed-flight and changed its acquisition strategy for the Orion project. NASA acknowledges that funding shortfalls reduce the agency's flexibility in resolving technical challenges. The program's risk management system warned of planned work not being completed to support schedules and milestones. Consequently, NASA is now focused on providing the capability to service the International Space Station and has deferred the capabilities needed for flights to the moon. Though these changes to the overarching requirements are likely to increase the confidence level associated with a March 2015 first crewed flight, these actions do not guarantee that the program will successfully meet that deadline. Nevertheless, NASA estimates that Ares I and Orion represent up to $49 billion of the over $97 billion estimated to be spent on the Constellation program through 2020. While the agency has already obligated more than $10 billion in contracts, at this point NASA does not know how much Ares I and Orion will ultimately cost, and will not know until technical and design challenges have been addressed.

[Chris Bergin]

Gaps in the business case include significant technical and design challenges for the Orion and Ares I vehicles, such as limiting vibration during launch, eliminating the risk of hitting the launch tower during lift off, and reducing the mass of the Orion vehicle, represent considerable hurdles that must be overcome in order to meet safety and performance requirements...

Hang on, a number of the issues noted by the GAO were fully denied or heavily played down by Constellation.

Blog (hate that word) rumors used to be the way to deal with such issues being made public in the media.

Looks like they'll have to bring out the Safe, Simple, Soon Mule deny this again

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/kJJA1vvMc4I&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/kJJA1vvMc4I&rel=1</a>

[jkumpire]

Okay,

The GAO says this, can someone else please tell me where in the US Government this standard is used to examine or justify a programs value or even existence? If the GAO would have applied this standard to TARP, the Stimulus Bill, or Health Care, or Cap-and-Tax, or the Auto bailout, or the Farm Bill, or the new Lead-based paint  law, Apollo, or any number of other programs, the government would be different today, would it not?   

This is a research program, an experimental program. It is what it is, and this IMO does not pass the smell test.

This is not to say the program is perfect, or is what it should be, or even the right choice for any future program. I am amazed that it is only NASA who gets this kind of report put out in public on it, and gets beat over the head with it. 

[SpacexULA]

This is not to say the program is perfect, or is what it should be, or even the right choice for any future program. I am amazed that it is only NASA who gets this kind of report put out in public on it, and gets beat over the head with it.

Selective vision is effecting you.  GAO has released reports about TARP, health care reform, and many of the other reforms out there. 

As far as deserving it, NASA has been acting like Apollo will come back every year since it ended.  Every government agency is told "wait till next year, your going to get a big budget increase", and at most every department only gets inflationary increases.  DOD didn't even get a budget increase for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the invasions where funded by emergency budget measures for the last 8 years.

Augustine has said time and again, the POR does not make since without a 3 billion dollar infusion, and even then it only makes a little since.

You must ask yourself this question. "Given that NASA is national prestige program purely funded by deficit spending, do you feel a 30% increase in NASA's budget, that itself would come out of further deficit spending, is justifiable?" or "Does the nation that decrys socialism in health care need to embrace socialism in space launch?"

[tamarack]

You must ask yourself this question. "Given that NASA is national prestige program purely funded by deficit spending, do you feel a 30% increase in NASA's budget, that itself would come out of further deficit spending, is justifiable?" or "Does the nation that decrys socialism in health care need to embrace socialism in space launch?"

Given that NASA is a national prestige program... -Absolutely incorrect statement used to dismiss a legitimate purpose. NASA, like many other Gov agencies, is driven by research, safety and development.
...purely funded by deficit spending... -More incorrect. Everything our Gov does (schools, roads, socialist services, defense, EPA, etc.) is deficit spending. That's not the fault of the program/agency, it's the fault of poor leadership.
...do you feel a 30% increase in NASA's budget ... is justifiable? -That is the debate, and a just one.
Does the nation that decrys socialism in health care... -We already have socialist health care. It's called Medicare/Medicaid.
...need to embrace socialism in space launch? -Could you explain what's socialist about Constellation?

You need to ask yourself this question. "Do you actually believe all that incorrect, or are you intentionally trying to obscure truth and deceive others?"

[simon-th]

NASA, like many other Gov agencies, is driven by research, safety and development.

Not quite true. The non-HSF part of NASA is driven by research, science and technology development as well as exploration.

The HSF part of NASA is primarily driven by national prestige. Something that has been acknowledged by many officials, most recently in the Norm Augustine hearings on Sept 15/16. Science, technology spin-offs etc. are all nice things to have, but they can't be used to justify HSF. If they could, other countries would equally invest in HSF - but they don't. Russia does HSF because of historical reasons and China purely out of national prestige. CSA, ESA and JAXA are investing 10 times less than the US, despite having a much higher GDP combined than the US.

...purely funded by deficit spending... -More incorrect. Everything our Gov does (schools, roads, socialist services, defense, EPA, etc.) is deficit spending. That's not the fault of the program/agency, it's the fault of poor leadership.

Doesn't change the fact that currently NASA is funded by deficit spending. And like all government programs, the WH and Congress need to ask themselves - "is it worthwhile to increase the national debt for that program"?

Does the nation that decrys socialism in health care... -We already have socialist health care. It's called Medicare/Medicaid.

Just on a side-note - there is no such thing as "socialist health care" anywhere in industrialized countries. That would mean the government would dictate treatments, would primarily employ doctors and people would have no choice whatsoever. Medicaid is a welfare program for the poor. Medicare is a program for the elderly, just as social security - things they have paid for by taxes during their lifetimes. It's partially a welfare program of course.

Still, I think his point was that people decry spending 800 billion for health care reform in the next 10 years - something which is paramount for every single American, and then they say that 250 billion for NASA (that's the plus-up budget until 2020)  is "peanuts". Well, it's not. I am for providing funding for NASA, but we need to stop saying NASA's budget is so small compared to other government projects or major reform costs. It is not. It is a sizable junk of money.

[AlexInOklahoma]

On the "national prestige of HSF" part - I cannot remember ever seeing any 'major' news write-up on HSF rockets/spaceships/tests-of-such that did NOT mention a reference to 'national prestige'.  The recent Ares SRB test had the USA national anthem sung prior to the test and a number of NSF members commented on that, which made me think a bit about this aspect of 'national prestige'.  Its there, and no really denying it, as far as I am concerned.  Non-HSF tests, launches and so forth do not seem to get the same 'national prestige' attention or importance-factor at the Joe-public level. 

Prestige could push the decisions on future HSF from have-not to 'have'.  Push the prestige button if it works, I say, and keep pushing it!  :-)  EDIT: should've said push the prestige part for credible programs/equipment - just want to be more clear on that part...

Alex

[robertross]

Well I hope this report has some weight to it so those in power can realize the pile of manure building at their doorsteps.

[SpacexULA]

-NASA, like many other Gov agencies, is driven by research, safety and development.
-More incorrect. Everything our Gov does (schools, roads, socialist services, defense, EPA, etc.) is deficit spending. That's not the fault of the program/agency, it's the fault of poor leadership.
-Could you explain what's socialist about Constellation?
-"Do you actually believe all that incorrect, or are you intentionally trying to obscure truth and deceive others?"

NASA HSF is not part of the core function of government.  The US chooses to do HSF becasue of national prestige, and a HUGE chunk of NASA's budget get's sucked into it.  The National Aviation and Space Administration is to the point it does VERY little Aviation, and VERY little Space besides HSF.

You are right all government spending in a nation that borrows 20-30% of it's national budget every year is deficient spending.  Unfortunately you act as if paying the house payment is equal to paying for the Ferrari in the drive way.  I would say the house payment (core national functions, schools, roads, defense, etc), can not be compared to the Ferrari in the front yard (NASA, National Parks service, the extra 50% the US pays to have unique world military projection)

No other federal program has has spent as large of portion of it's budget on failed, or failing programs as NASA has.  DOD has had many failed programs, but DOD has never let 1 single program dominate it's budget as much as NASA has allowed Saturn,then STS, and now Constellation dominate it's spending. 

The Government Accountability Office calls out government programs that are not acting as good stewards of our federal tax dollars.  NASA with it's "any problem can be fixed with proper funding" attitude has time and again proven itself to the the antithesis of the good steward.

[spacebound]

Unfortunately, I think our 'representatives' will resort to the often-used-in-the-past "give 'em more money" technique (applied to everything from farm subsidies to 'missile defense') rather than attempting a robust discovery of how the money that'd been provided has been spent and what for.  Our credit is running dry and *all* Fed programs have to be scrutinized 10 fold more for every penny spent.

Nasa wants 3bil more *per year* to finish the Ares 'technology demonstrator'?  I don't see how it can have the cheek to ask for it.  It's like giving an irresponsible teenager more 'lunch' money, you know *where* it's going to be spent.

[93143]

NASA with it's "any problem can be fixed with proper funding" attitude has time and again proven itself to the the antithesis of the good steward.

How do you figure?  Has anyone ever actually tried giving NASA the funding they ask for?

Oh, right - Apollo.  They accomplished exactly what they were supposed to, on deadline.

Ever since then, any time NASA tries something halfway grand, they know going in that they won't have enough money to do it right.  If we're lucky, we get an STS or an ISS.  If we're not, we get a VentureStar or a JIMO.  NASA currently seems to get just enough money to keep doing what they're doing, which is a terrible position for an agency primarily dedicated to the advance of science and technology to be in.  Naturally this sort of stress has contributed to structural and cultural problems in the agency.  More money won't fix these, but it can go a long way toward not making matters worse.

[spacebound]

No launch vehicle (especially as primitive as the Ares-1) development costs the ridiculous amounts of money and time as the Ares does.  End of.  This is mismanagement, and covering incompetence with dollar bills.

[93143]

No launch vehicle (especially as primitive as the Ares-1) development costs the ridiculous amounts of money and time as the Ares does.  End of.  This is mismanagement, and covering incompetence with dollar bills.

I'm not arguing that.  I'm just saying that this mismanagement is not the whole story.  Bad management is not the single root cause of all of NASA's problems, and it's definitely not helpful to use it as an excuse to cut their budget further.

[SpacexULA]

NASA with it's "any problem can be fixed with proper funding" attitude has time and again proven itself to the the antithesis of the good steward.

How do you figure?  Has anyone ever actually tried giving NASA the funding they ask for?
Oh, right - Apollo.  They accomplished exactly what they were supposed to, on deadline.

Being a good steward of the funds is a different idea than accomplishing the goal set out for you.  You can accomplish a goal in a very unsustainable way (Apollo), or fail at goals in a very sustainable way (DARPA).

When given 5% of the federal budget, NASA built a single booster than consumed half it's budget.  When given 1-.5% of the federal budget NASA built a single booster that consumed half it's budget.

No other space program, whether it is ESA, RSA, JAXA, CSA, or the US DOD spends HALF their budget on just a launch vehicle system.  Politically this is a shrewd move by NASA because it makes it VERY hard to actually cut their budget, any budget cut in NASA means they will have to cut science programs, or ground the launcher, both of which usually scare Congress away.

Even though it is Politically prudent, it is not fiscally responsible.  There where cheaper ways to do Apollo, that would have created a system that didn't take half their budget, but it would have took longer.

The simple truth is payloads are easy to cancel for Congress, but launchers are hard.

GAO only looks at the fiscal realities, not the political.  GAO would rate a fiscally responsible, but politically unsustainable program as "good".  NASA from the very beginning has been the poster child  of the politically astute and fiscally wasteful program. 

[93143]

I think your view is still a bit skewed.

When given 5% of the federal budget, NASA built a single booster than consumed half it's budget...  There where cheaper ways to do Apollo, that would have created a system that didn't take half their budget, but it would have took longer.

If it had "took longer" it would have failed its mission.  End of decade, remember?  NASA wasn't the originator of that mission; it was imposed from above.

When given 1-.5% of the federal budget NASA built a single booster that consumed half it's budget.

STS was supposed to be safe and cheap to operate, but the budgetary environment dictated a half-assed design that was neither.  It also dictated a massive gap between Saturn and Shuttle, which...  you know the rest.

You can't infer anything statistically from two examples.  The devil is in the details.  Neither of the abovementioned situations was NASA's fault.