CAPE CANAVERAL - NASA is considering a fundamental overhaul for its shuttle program by turning it over to a private company, according to a preliminary report now being discussed inside the agency.
Any changes are not anticipated until 2004 at the earliest, agency spokesman Dwayne Brown said. Even that is an ambitious schedule. That is the only tangible date NASA cites for the plan.
Facing rising costs and flat funding, NASA cannot afford business-as-usual for its prized shuttle program. As a NASA Administrator, Dan Goldin called for the agency to look at new ways to shift more control of the shuttle to the private sector. But the idea has some supporters and detractors.
"Of all the times for this to come up, this is the worst," said U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Melbourne.
But for NASA managers, time is of the essence: NASA faces a $1 billion shortfall in the shuttle program during the next five years, and President Bush has made it clear that the agency must live within its means.
Shuttle Program Manager Ron Dittemore led a team of NASA and industry officials through a concept plan for handing control of the $3.1 billion-a-year project over to the private sector.
Under the plan publicly released by NASA:
The space agency would be a customer for the orbiter fleet. A private company or organization would operate the spacecraft, potentially selling its services for non-NASA missions.
| Astronauts, flight directors and launch controllers would work for the new company instead of under NASA auspices. |
NASA would employ a small group of safety officers for the program.
As many as 900 civil servants would move out from NASA.
"A more strategic approach is needed for the next 20 years," Brown said. "Something of this magnitude, you need to look at all of the options."
The closest NASA has come to relinquishing control of its orbiters was the creation of United Space Alliance to handle shuttle launch preparations.
The move put scores of NASA employees under company control and streamlined paperwork. However, NASA maintains vigorous oversight and still commands a shuttle at launch and in flight.
The company is a joint venture between The Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin. It was formed to eventually place all of the shuttle preparation contracts under one company.
USA has saved NASA $1.2 billion since October 1996, according to spokesman Jack King.
The team that drafted the plan has taken it to NASA centers for critiques during the past month and refuses to speak about the paper.
"Because it's an internal discussion right now, (Dittemore) does not want to talk about it at length," Johnson Space Center spokesman James Hartsfield said. "Right now its almost kind of a brainstorming session."
United Space Alliance officials were equally silent, saying it was NASA's prerogative to decide how it wants to operate the shuttles.
"We contributed our expertise," King said.
NASA may have a hard time figuring out how much it can save since the agency does not have an accurate price for the program to begin with, the NASA Inspector General said in a report last year.
Nelson said privatization is an option that should not be considered for the shuttle fleet since it serves as a back-up satellite launcher.
He compared it to the Pentagon handing over control of its forces to an outside company to fight a war, with the Pentagon merely sending in target lists and mission objectives.
"It's our means of assured access to space," Nelson said. "It is vital to putting up signals . . . intelligence satellites should the other rockets fail."
The space agency pursued privatization under orders from the White House.
Instead of sending NASA on a chase to find a way to give the shuttles to a private company, Nelson said the White House should establish increased budgets for NASA to cover higher costs, and Congress should approve those increases.
"It's hard for Congress to do it unless the Administration is supporting us," Nelson said.
Tom Young, chairman of the International Space Station Management and Cost Evaluation Task Force, said fundamental management practices have to be changed in the space program whether the government runs it, or the private sector.
"I think if you are managing a program where the metrics you are managing to are not consistent with what others are measuring the performance against, you're probably going to have problems whether you are in the public or private sector," he said.
Such inconsistent management helped produce a $4.8 billion cost overrun in the station project that Florida Today revealed in an investigation of the space station last summer.
Published under license from FLORIDA TODAY. Copyright © 2001 FLORIDA TODAY. No portion of this material may be reproduced in any way without the written consent of
