One of the more troubled military space programs, the Space Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) system, appeared to get back on track earlier this after problems got so severe the number of satellites the Air Force planned to procure was cut and the military started studies of alternative approaches. Well, so much for that process. Space News reported online late yesterday [subscription required] that SBIRS is facing a delay of up to one year and additional costs of up to $1 billion because of problems with a similar satellite. The details are a bit vague: the article cites a memo from Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne to John Young, acting undersecretary of defense for acquisition, logistics and technology, issued last week announcing the impending delay and cost increase. “The problem is a safe hold that did not work on a current satellite, causing mission termination; and the design similarity to the [geosynchronous] satellites, which caused a no fly condition,” Wynne said in the memo, not identifying the satellite that failed. That satellite has a similar design to the SBIRS geosynchronous satellites, according to the report, requiring an as-yet undefined effort to correct the problem; a plan is expected to be completed late this month by prime contractor Lockheed Martin.
Expect some more scrutiny in the months to come of SBIRS; the Alternative Infrared Satellite System (AIRSS), a potential replacement concept whose future had appeared uncertain once SBIRS appeared to be on track; and milspace procurement in general.
I probably shouldn’t bring NASA into this thread, but the first thing that strikes me is that there are a whole lot of things they could be doing, or doing more of, than they are to make it easier to get things like SBIRS done right, on time, and on budget. Unfortunately building Ares I/V and Orion don’t strike me as being useful in that regard – and they take up the funds that could be helping. It would be nice if that ESAS stuff could be delayed until Shuttle retirement. They could go ahead after Shuttle retirement, restricting themselves to Shuttle retirement funds, and pick a Shuttle-derived architecture do go to the Moon – or whatever. For the Moon, they might have to make some decisions they’re so against now – 2 crew instead of 4, commercial components in the architecture, international components in the architecture (mercy! none of those!) … but I think they’d get it done anyway. In fact I think they’d have a better chance that way. If not … well, I’d place my priorities on helping DOD, NOAA, etc ahead of the Moon program anyway.
In the meantime, they could be investing seriously in flying small suborbital missions with existing launchers, and giving incentives for new, cheap (and lower altitude) launchers to be offered. This would give lots (I mean LOTS) of chances to fly small missions, which would give university students and new aerospace employees experience with the full mission cycle. That’s key to developing the engineering, systems engineering, and procurement expertise that allows bigger missions like SBIRS to succeed.
They could also be doing much more COTS to make sure cheaper launchers are developed that DOD could also benefit from. In the meantime they could be using EELVs for satellites and probes – again helping DOD (and NOAA, even non-satellite agencies that need commercial satellite technology like FEMA, etc).
They could also be launching more satellites with payloads with communication and remote sensing instruments of the sort other agencies use – sharing costs with, or improving, the same satellite technologies that the DOD (and NOAA, etc) need. If they emphasized smaller missions, they could give those industry systems engineers and procurement people another step in the ladder (after suborbital) to being able to handle the big “life or death of the country” missions like SBIRS.
I don’t see much need at these other agencies with critical missions for Ares V … DOD even got rid of Titan. I don’t see much need there for Orion either.
With increasing labor costs, here is a product that can reduce your maintenance costs and offer a safe alternative to out sourced scaffolding.
it is used by EADS and NASA for satellite production.