Forward Into The Past

Mimicking an old line from a Firesign Theater skit, NASA awarded a contract to Lockheed-Martin to build the next space capsule to hopefully go to the moon. The problem is, it is a huge step backward to the capsule concept and basically looks like the Apollo capsule with a hefty dose of steroids. Compound that by the fact that Lockheed-Martin has never built a manned system and I foresee some problems down the line.

The nation's space agency plans to use the Orion crew exploration vehicle to replace the space shuttle fleet, take astronauts to the moon and perhaps to Mars. Reusable and like Apollo and earlier spacecraft, it is perched atop the rocket.

The last time NASA awarded a manned spaceship contract to Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, Md., was in 1996 for a spaceplane that was supposed to replace the space shuttle. NASA spent $912 million and the ship, called X-33, never got built because of technical problems.

The only other competitors for the contract were a team made up of Northrop Grumman Corp., the world's largest shipbuilder and third-largest military contractor, and Boeing Co.

"We feel we have an achievable design," said Doug Cooke, a deputy associate administrator when asked why Lockheed Martin was chosen over the competing team. "This is a design that is based on known capabilities. We know that this can be built so there are some differences there, perhaps."

While I am very glad to see the space program get off of top dead center, I am not at all sure this was a good move. The General Accounting Office also warned about this.

Orion is just part of an exploration program called Constellation that includes the Ares I and V rockets that will power the Orion capsule and a cargo vehicle into orbit and beyond.

The program will reduce the risk of a fatal accident to astronauts from 1-in-200 currently for the shuttle to 1-in-2000 for the new Constellation program, Orion project manager Skip Hatfield said last week.

In July, the GAO warned that NASA was heading down the wrong path in choosing an Orion-builder by late August or early September. The auditors said the space agency would be choosing a contractor before it had "well-defined requirements, a preliminary design, mature technology and firm cost estimates for the project."

"This approach increases the risk that the project will encounter significant cost overruns, schedule delays and decreased capability," the GAO warned.

The competition involved the three largest aerospace companies in the United States.

Northrop Grumman's proposal to NASA appeared to be far more detailed in technical choices than the Lockheed Martin version, which left key decisions such as reusability and landing sites up to NASA.

But others see no difference between the two.

"It's between tweedledum and tweedledee," said American University public policy professor Howard McCurdy, author of several books about the American space program. "They're both using the same management systems and the same technical systems that got us to the moon the first time."

McCurdy is quite harsh in his assessment, frankly. He sees both of these contractors as innovation averse and imbued with a cost-overrun mindset. We'll see. NASA has got to be on top of whoever is building the next generation.