Space Transportation System

043s~3 U. S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE STAFF STUDY SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION FEBRUARY 1975 ------a-CONTENTS Page SUMMARY 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 14 Description 14 Y Responslbllltles 16 Restrlctlons on Review 17 Est3mated Costs 18 COST, SCHEDULE AND PERFORMANCE- SPACE SHUTTLE DDT&E 21 OrbIter 27 Space Shuttle Maln Engines 31 External Tank 33 Solid Rocket Boosters 38 COST PER FLIGHT 40 User Charges 41 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 42 Atmospheric Effects 42 Sonic Booms 43 Medical/Ecological 43 5 CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES - COST, SCHEDULE AND PERFORMANCE 47 6 DOD INVOLVEMENT 51 DOD's need for Space Transportation System 51 Scope of DOD Involvement 52 Current Program Status 53 UPPER STAGES 56 Program History 56 Program Status 57 Justiflcatlon of IUS 60 SPACELAB 62 Spacelab Descrlptlon 62 Program Descrlptinn 62 Program Status 63 APPENDIX I Space Shuttle Contract Data 66 II NASA Letter of February 27, 1975 67 ABBREVIATIONS DDT&E Design, Development, Test & Evaluation DOD Department of Defense ESRO European Space Research Organization GAO General Accounting Office MSFC George C. MarshaLl Space Flight Center NASA Natlonal Aeronautics and Space Adminlstratlon OMB Office of Management and Budget SAMSO Space and Missile Systems Organization SRB Solid Rocket Booster STS Space Transportation System USAF Unlted States Air Force SLJMMARY This 1s the second staff study of the Space Transportation System (STS) under development by the National Aeronautics and Space AdmInIs- tration (NASA) The study updates the program's status through September 1974 This study also covers Spacelab status lnformatlon The space shuttle and the space tug are the two maJor components of the STS Addltlonally, the Spacelab, being developed under a cooperative program with European countries, 1s a reusable shuttle payload designed to support a large number of sclentlfzc experiments. The space shuttle will consist of a manned reusable orblter, which looks llhe a delta-wlnged alrplane, an expendable, llquld propellant tank, and two reusdble solld rocket boosters. The space tug 1s an upper stage that places payloads In higher orblts than those achievable by the orblter alone During the 1980-83 period, an Interim tug known as the lnterlm upper stage will be used but ~111 have llmited capabllltles. RESPONSIBILITIES While the overall program dlrection 1s the responsibility of the Program Director m Washmgton, day-to-day management of the shuttle and tug program has been delegated to the Johnson Space Center and Marshall Space Flight Center, respectively. Separate space shuttle project managers have been designated for the orbiter, solld rocket booster, space shuttle main engines, external tank and launch and landing systems. These managers report to the Space Shuttle Program Manager at the Johnson Space Center on program management matters. The United States Air Force 1s responsible for assuring that Department of Defense (DOD) interests in the STS are considered and for making provisions for the DOD STS program, ESTIMATED___- COST OF THE SPACL TRANSPOR~A~IOI\I SYSTEM NASA has not developed a cost estimate for the total cost of the development and operation of the STS but has establlshed basellne cost estimates for four STS elements. These estrmates in 1971 dollars are (1) $5.15 bllllon for space shuttle design, development, test and evaluation (DDTGrE) (2) $300 mllllon for NASA's space shuttle facllltles, (3) $ 1 bllllon for production of 3 orbiters and refurbishment of two development orbiters, and (4) an average cost per flight of $10 45 mllllon In 1971 . dollars When the present shuttle conflguratlon was approved in March 1972, NASA presented to the Congress the results of an analysis of the development and operations of the STS from 1972 through 1990 based on a mission model of 58lL' fllphtL s The purpose of the analysis was to compare the economics of the pro-jected space effort for NASA, DOD, and others, using the STS and alternate programs of exlstlng and/or new expendable launch systems The analysis included a $16 1 bilkon cost estimate, including DOD costs and STS operating costs from 1979 through 1990 Certain costs such as Government lnstltutlonal costs paid through NASA's Research and Program Management (R&PM) Approprlatlon and Research and Development (R&D) technology costs were excluded from the economic analysis because they were considered applicable to all competing transportation systems. L/ NASA has updated Its mlsslon model throughout the program. Therefore, matters presented In the staff study involve 439, 581, or 782 flight mlsslon models -2- NASA advised the Congress that the total in-house costs which could be related or pro-rated to design, development, test, and evaluation of the space shuttle were estimated at about $2.049 bllllon (1975 dollars) through fiscal year 1981 NASA has characterlzcd the mlsslon model used for the economic analysis as a representative set of candidate space mlsslons rather than an approved program plan Also, the $16.1 bllllon estimate was m 1971 dollars, therefore It did not consider lnflatlon over the life of the program NASA offlclals stated that they have confidence 1n the estimates for deflncd program elements ldentlfled as basellnes, whereas, other estl- mates are considered prellmlnary or planning estimates which are llhely to change when the flnal conflguratlons have been establlshed. STATUS OF SPACE, SHUTTLE DEVELOPMENT NASA's commitment dates to Congress for completion of space shuttle development have been extended 13 to 15 months and cost estimates have been increased by $50 mllllon in 1971 dollars because of budget constraints placed on fiscal years 1973, 1974 and 1975. NASA's posltlon 1s that $5.2 billIon in 1971 dollars ~111 be sufflclent to meet Its revised commitment dates of June 1979 for the First Manned Orbital Flight and June 1980 for the Initial Operational CapabIlity unless maJor problems are encountered Including provlsron for Inflatron, the $5 2 bllllon DDT&E cost estimate equates to about $7 bllllon in expenditure year dollars according to NASA -3- In our opinion, the risk of encountering cost overruns on the space shuttle development program has been Increased. At the trme of our review, realistic internal NASA proJections of expected run-out costs for individual prolects and related reserves were not avallable because NASA management limits cost estimates to predetermined annual celllngs during their budgeting process. This 1s partially because of an agreement between NASA and OMB for funding llmltatlons through fiscal year. 1977. At the same time, prime contractors were proJectlng cost Increases, some known technical problems were not resolved, and NASA personnel believed Inflation was eroding the buying power of the budget. In August 1974, the Space Shuttle Program Manager expressed his concern by statmng that, "Overall, we feel that the funding avallable for Shuttle ProJects for fiscal years 1975 through 1977 is verv marginal since there are no funds available for growth or change allowances? AdJustmerts had been made to delete, defer or reprogram work to aI.lgn the development program wlthln the predetermined cost celllngs. However, some adJustmeWs Increased the rusks to overall program cost, schedule, and performance targets. Other adJustments moved funding problems into the future or out of the DDT&E budget into other budgets-where potential cost growth w111 not be readily zdentiflable. This sltuatlon suggested that, If cost overruns are encountered, they will either not be recognized and/or not be Identified until the latter stages of the program. NASA top management was concerned about this sltuatlon and in December 1974, after we had completed our field work, NASA concluded an in-depth requirements review designed to realign the program with the mid-year -4- budget lmz&atlons. In the process, a number of work tasks, test articles, and test programs were ellrmnated, delayed, and/or consolidated to the extent NASA believes feasrble. As a result, NASA now believes that it 1s back on track with adequate reserves for contlngencles through the balance of the DDT&E program. We are still concerned that the budget and schedule goals may be overly optimlst1c. For example, the adJustments made to realign costs may have further Increased the risk ofencounterlng cost growth later in the program. Approximately 40 percent of the adjustments Involved the reduction in scope of test articles and programs. In the coming year we plan to review and evaluate the adequacy of the newly revised program costs and schedule goals. COST PER FLIGHT NASA's use of $10.45 mllllon in news releases and con- gressional testimony as cost per flight 1s mrsleadlng and may create con- fusion outside the agency. Internally, NASA uses cost per flight to evaluate decisions concerning system trade-offs between initial Investment and recurring operating costs. It 1s the average recurrlng costs for a stated traffic model for operating the space shuttle only. The confuslon occurs because the $10.45 mllllon is not the total cost of space shuttle or STS operations* It =y not be the cost which ~~11 be charged to space shuttle users. A user charge policy for the space shuttle has not been formulated although NASA currently has this under study. The $10.45 mllllon does not include all costs which would be recovered under NASA's present user charge policy for non-Government users. For example, NASA policy would require a percentage surcharge of NASA overhead and adminlstratlve expenses, depreclatlon expenses on facilities and ground support equipment, and tracking and data acquisttions services. In addition, it does not include provision for inflation or the recurring cost of the tug for the payloads which require its use. -5- The current user charge policy may not be appropriate for the space shuttle. The STS 1s being developed to lower space transportatzon cost for all users. Approximately 50 percent of the proJected payloads ~111 be non- NASA payloads of which approxunately 12 percent are non-government users.

Load more