From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: SSF Progress 2 of 2 (Was: One small step Space Activist)
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 13 Dec 92  21:23:28

>The second problem looming is more ominous and insidious. For a
>long time the Johnson Spaceflight Center (JSC) has been trying to
>shut down the Reston Virginia Space Station Program Office and move
>it to Houston. The recent creation of a contractor-led integration
>team at Johnson called the Joint Vehicle Integration Team (we never
>knew Freedom was a vehicle - did you?) may accomplish keeping the
>Reston office in existence, but doing nothing, and moving all other
>space station efforts to Johnson.
> 
>JVIT, like many things, sounds like a great idea -- at first. It
>would make the contractors responsible for the overall space
>station project which is something many space activists have always
>felt was needed. It would also tie fees to contractor performance,
>which is also something desperately needed inside NASA. On the
>other hand, is it appropriate for THIS project? The last time the
>integration task was moved (for the creation of the Reston office)
>it resulted in massive program slips. How can moving the
>integration task to Johnson be anything but disruptive? Can the
>program afford disruption now?
  
    One of the problems in the SSF program has been a lack of
centralized coordination between the work packages.  Reston was
supposed to have accomplished that job, but has never been able to
pull it off, for whatever reason.  I've seen several press reports
that NASA/Reston and their contractor Grumman have been chewed out
several times over the past several years for not being able to do
their job.
   Now, it appears that NASA has given up on Reston, and is moving
the integration responsibilities directly to the folks doing the
work -- the contractors -- rather than having integration and
verification activities be funnelled through NASA contracts and
centers up to Reston, and then back down to another NASA center and
contractor.  In general, this is the way it should have been done in
the first place -- through a prime contractor or industrial
consortium.
   Is it appropriate for this project?  Hell yes.  The only
alternative was Reston, and they've shown they couldn't hack the
job.  Among other things, the SN article Allen was using said some
amount of the MD Work Package 2 overrun was due to setting up a WP2
facility for verifying hardware.  With a joint vehicle integration
team, one of the things that can be reduced is the need for every
workpackage to set up integration and verification facilities for
each separate workpackage. That should reduce cost and help control
some of these overruns by eliminating duplication of effort and help
produce a better product.
  Is this joint integration and verification activity a disruption?
Heck no.  What is the alternative?  Having separate pieces not be
put together and not verified or integrated until they get on orbit?
THAT is a recipe for disaster.
   Will the integration and verification team find problems?  Yes,
undoubtedly -- that's their job to find where hardware, software,
and procedures don't match, and to try to figure out the best way
the program parts will come together before launch, and to make sure
they continue to work once launched.
  
   I think I ought to end this by pointing out that the management
model used for SSF was the Hubble Space Telescope program.  Besides
problems with the mirror verification tests, there were serious
integration problems between the GSFC and the MSFC work packages.
I've also thought that the work package structure for SSF was a
recipe for technical disaster.  The JVIT is a step in the right
direction.  I just hope it's enough to prevent a piece of hardware
from one work package showing up on orbit, and then not finding it
works with a piece of hardware already on orbit from another work
package.  I would have preferred a single prime contractor and a
single prime lead center.  I was hoping this would be Reston, but
that didn't happen.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: sci.space