The full Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing Wednesday morning about the status of the space shuttle program. (There was little public notice for this hearing that I was aware of: when I checked the web site of the committee, as well as the Senate’s complete list of upcoming hearings, on Tuesday morning, there was no mention of this hearing.) Sean O’Keefe and Tom Stafford were the witnesses at the hearing, discussing how NASA’s return to flight activities were proceeding. A few notes from the news coverage of this hearing:
- According to the AP, O’Keefe said the total cost of returning the shuttle to flight could reach $2.2 billion, a figure far higher than previously reported. (Interestingly, O’Keefe’s testimony includes costs that total only $1.1 billion.)
- When asked by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) about the chance that cost could increase further, O’Keefe said they NASA was “getting a lot closer” to the final cost, and that they “don’t see any new unknowns coming down the road.” (Of course, if you could see them, then they wouldn’t be unknown. Perhaps O’Keefe was thinking of Rumsfeld’s “known unknowns” versus “unknown unknowns”.)
- Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) blamed some of the damage Hurricane Frances caused at KSC on a lack of money NASA has spent on upkeep of those buildings. “NASA, to try to do everything it wants to do, takes away from… maintenance of facilities,” Reuters quoted him as saying.
- Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) didn’t sound very enthusiastic about the Vision for Space Exploration. “The idea of just going to Mars doesn’t frankly excite a lot of people in my state,” he said, according to Reuters. “They don’t care whether there’s water up there or not; they’d rather have asphalt on the roads.”
So here is a guy (O’Keefe) who was brought in to reign in cost overruns, and now he finds himself in the position of explaining another $1Bn overrun, this time with the Shuttle.
He must have been uncomfortably aware of the irony, and he must really have had his hands tied – this suggests to me that real change in NASA can only be enacted from above him, i.e. from Congress.
“They don’t care whether there’s water up there or not; they’d rather have asphalt on the roads.”
Gee, that’s funny. According to all those scientists who want to shut down human spaceflight, the public doesn’t care about astronauts anymore; they only care about robots and the scientific data that they collect.
But it seems like the public doesn’t care about science, either. Those scientists should be wary about exploiting anti-NASA sentiment. First they’ll go after the human spaceflight program; then they’ll go after them.
I believe in human spaceflight, that’s why Congress should end the shuttle.
“So here is a guy (O’Keefe) who was brought in to reign in cost overruns, and now he finds himself in the position of explaining another $1Bn overrun,”
Not necessarily. The AP story, that’s being reported all over the ‘net in many venues today, states that costs for return to flight have risen to 2.2 billion. But then quotes nothing or no one to support that assertion.
Like Jeff stated there is nothing in O’Keefe’s testimony that supports the 2.2 billion figure.
If there were anything in this article that we space exploration supporters should be up in arms about it would be the fact that the 2.2 billion figure was seemingly pulled out of a hat by someone. A lot like the Trillion dollar mars mission figure.
Unless there’s more to this than currently meets the eye, this simply looks to me like another case of poor reporting or outright sabotage by the media.
The $2.2 billion is not a “return to flight” cost estimate per se but a runout through 2008 or 2009 of the costs associated with complying with all CAIB recommendations and NASA’s so-called “raise the bar” activities. That said, NASA does expect to spend $1.1 billion to $1.45 billion on shuttle improvements through 2005. This is what more accurately can be referred to as true RTF cost. The larger figure cited in Wednesday’s hearing, however, is a pretty good reflection of the growing cost of operating the shuttle fleet post-Columbia.
Good clarification Brian, thanks.
Is there anywhere on the web that I can find a complete transcript, with the Senator’s questions along with O’Keefe and Staffords answers?
I watched the web cast and here is what I caught:
Questions and testimony focused on budget passed by the house, funding that trully is needed, effects of underfunding, asked to lump sum storm damage into getting addition funding by others as well, off loading of shuttle payloads to the ISS to commercial vendors if possible, Heavy lift options for exploration, what heavy exist today only SDV, Delays of technology delivering of new designs to the CEV constellation project with projects of an additional possible delay of 6 years beyound the 2014 timeline worst case.
2008 is unmanned spiral 1 level of constellation cev project. The last portion of testimonies questions sort of hinted at down sizing the number of projects programs in order to concentrate the current funding towards those programs and projects that are a must. I think a lot of this was in regards to the CBO report on NASA exploration plan figures to that of Nasa’s.
The Testimony of The Honorable Sean O’Keefe
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1299&wit_id=1729
Lieutenant General Thomas P. Stafford (Ret.)
Co-Chairman, Return to Flight Task Group
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1299&wit_id=3779
This all that is posted at this time.
Harold:
Did you hear any direct reference by O’Keefe to a 2.2 billion price tag for RTF?
There are supposed to be two test flights of Shuttle to the Station. At $500 million each, this probably is the missing billion bucks.
–mikes shupp
I’ve not heard of any “pure test flights” IE a flight with no purpose but to test the shuttle.
If a shuttle goes to ISS I will bet it’s going there to deliver a new module, supplies etc.
Will the Science subcommittee publish a transcript of the Q & A?
What projects and programs did the subcommittee see as requirements? Does this include pure science projects?
Did O’Keefe offer any suggestions on commercial vendors?
I’ve emailed the Commerce Committee asking for a transcript of the Q/A. We’ll see if that works
dogsbd:
The cost rise was not discused at length but only to indicate that the dollars are more real, than there original estimates because all shuttles are being overhauled causing a front loading of additional costs. Plus this includes other enhancements not part of the caib recommendations.
I know of the return to flight requiring a shake down flight to the Iss for the purpose of patch repair experiment and yes some supply cargo but this is the first that I have heard of a second such mission.
The discusion of missions was more of a pointed questions for focus of Nasa dollars to priorization and not to actual mission names of importance.
The web cast link on the sub committee’s page, I wish had a replay feature, it would make answering all questions much easier.
O’Keefe to Congress: NASA needs full budget
President Bush’s space exploration plan is in jeopardy if Congress refuses to approve NASA’s request for $16.2 billion, the space agency’s top official said Wednesday.
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004b/spacestoryN0909CONGRESS.htm
I wonder if this is where the 2.2 billion was thought of that the AP heard.
Noting that Congress already has passed legislation to provide $2 billion in hurricane relief and is likely to approve another $2.5 billion, Nelson said NASA had better get its request in.
“Strike while the iron is hot (or) you will have to take this out of your budget,” Nelson warned.
Does insurance pay for any of the damage? I understand the shuttles not being covered but the buildings?
“Strike while the iron is hot (or) you will have to take this out of your budget,” Nelson warned.
This is the kind of pressure that causes bad budget projections and shuttle disasters.
“Does insurance pay for any of the damage? I understand the shuttles not being covered but the buildings?”
The government insures itself.
“The government insures itself.”
And so it should. What’s the point in insuring something you can afford to replace?