From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSF Progress 1 of 2 (Was: One small step Space Activist)
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:24:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: iti.1992Dec14.182423.8889
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow

In article <n116bt@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>>... Four years later, as a result of cost
>>overruns, Work Package 02 now weighs in at $4.9 billion -- A 250%...

>   Hmm.... I'm not going to dispute these numbers, but there's a
>distinct difference between "cost overruns" and "customer directed
>changes".   

Not from my point of view. Most of this happened AFTER the redesign.
Wether it is the result of NASA changing its mind or MD not up to the
task we have a project out of control.

Either way we have a station which is taking longer and longer to build
and costing more and more. The process being used simply doesn't work.

>Furthermore, a large chunk of these overrun costs seem
>to be in General & Administrative cost categories (G&A), not in the
>technical work performed.

So what?

>   Now, funding and design for the SSF has not been rock stable
>either for the past 4 years.  I seem to remember at least 3 of the 4
>budget requests being cut, funding restrictions placed on a couple,
>and a major Congressional-directed redesign of the SSF.  

Cuts have been minor and shouldn't have resulted in these sort of
increases and delays. Also, the redesign was well over two years
ago. Plenty of time to produce a good schedule.

>   I'm not apologising for MD, but I would like to present some data
>from the other side of the story.

Fair enough but I should point out that the SN article was not the
only source I used. A source at NASA provided the rest.

>    What Allen didn't report, and what I see just as significant,
>was that SN reported the NASA Inspector General had started a
>separate audit to see if the restructuring of the Work Package 2
>contract was done properly by NASA JSC.

Also, so what? This problem has been brewing for years. It looks like
this audit only began when SN started looking around. Why the delay?

Also, the real problems aren't going to appear in any audit. The NASA
auditor will consider $10,000 to deliver a pound to LEO a fair price.
He won't blink at overhead rates which would give most CEO's a heart
attack. He won't give a second thought to the effort and cost associated
with a 1,000 page proposal when the equivaltnt commercial proposal would
be 60 pages.

Auditors audit the process. When it is the process which doesn't work,
they won't find it.

>>Worse yet, Work Package 02 is as much as 18 months behind schedule...

>   "The company informed NASA earlier this year that it could
>    provide 700 drawings before a design review begins next year,
>    but under NASA pressure agreed to provide 2700, NASA officials
>    said.  Only 1100 are needed for the design review, according to
>    Parkinson [The MD general manager for space station project
>    control], so MD will exceed that target."

They provide 700 drawings where 1100 is the minimum and they agreed
to 2700. How can that be said to exceed any target?

>    "Aaron [The space station program manager at JSC] said that some
>     aspects of the work package are about a month behind, but
>     denied there is any lag on the order of 18 months in his
>     portion of the program. 

Sources have confirmed the 18 month behind schedule number. I stand by it.
I believe their status on drawings (see above) also tends to confirm that
they are a lot more than a month behind schedule.

>   In my opinion the real make or break for MD will be how MD
>conducts itself at the work package 2 Critical Design Review (CDR)
>this coming year.  

Except that under the JVIT system it will be much easier for the people
responsible (JSC and MD) to cover up lack of progress since there will
be no independent program office.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------131 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space