Space ‘Poster Child’ For Cost Increases

Space ‘Poster Child’ For Cost Increases

ORLANDO–Tougher contracts, less ambitious and more flexible requirements must be pursued if the Air Force and the US military are to get the space systems they need, says the head of Air Force Space Command.

“We have to get control of the cost of space programs. We’ve become the poster child for things that are late and expensive. We’ve got to develop better requirements and trade requirements. We’ve got to be willing to say good enough is good enough,” Gen. William Shelton said in a presentation to the Air Force Association conference. How to do that? “If it’s good enough to win, we need to build good enough to win… We’ve got to write better contracts contracts that hold contractors accountable.”

One of the poster children for better contracts is the Advanced Extremely High Frequency communications satellite that has been ever so slowly climbing into orbit recently. While Shelton made it clear he thinks that the spacecraft will make it to orbit, it will have cost the American taxpayer a considerable amount of cash. Reports indicate that the problem lies in a fuel line that was not correctly cleared before launch. So fuel is not making it to the spacecraft’s engines. Shelton would not confirm the cause but did say it “was a quality issue.” The Air Force is in negotiations with AEFH builder Lockheed Martin to recoup much of the “considerable cost” of the technical teams that have struggled to come up with ways to get the spacecraft to orbit and ensure its service life does not shorten. Shelton said he believed the AEHF bird would make it to orbit and would remain operational as long as previously planned. But the Air Force has incurred the opportunity costs due to the late arrival on orbit, plus the cost of the technical teams, Shelton said.


To ensure contractors are held responsible in future he wants contracts to be rewritten so they are much clearer about who is liable for what when problems occur once the satellite leaves the ground.

In addition to his worries about contracts, costs and requirements, Shelton said he is closely watching the space industrial base, especially in light of Ash Carter’s recent comments about encouraging mergers among the second and third tier companies.

“Most of my concern is at the sub level,” he said, noting some smaller companies “have been driven out of business” due to lack of consistent work. The areas he is watching most closely: solid rocket motors and makers of electronic parts, especially those involving radiation hardening.

Join the Conversation

With EMD cost increase of around $30B and total program acquisition cost increases approaching $200B how can the F-35 not be the poster child of cost increases?

Oh, missed that “Space” word.

Why are you putting a picture of AEHF, ya jerk? You should have put up WGS! ;)

I absolutely agree. The first step in getting cost and schedule increases under control is to write contracts that prevent the DoD customer from changing system requirements after the contract is issued. Scope creep is the primary reason for cost increases IMHO.

Good Morning Folks,

I’ll let Charles Houston and Colin fight this one out. Although the Hubble Space Telescope has reinvented science and has been in my opinion some of the best money spent by human kind, I also realize that NASA is a big time waste and inefficiency rat hole and is the budgetary curr tied to a post out back that always get whipped every time the Republicans get control of the House.

To Colin. I hope that the events of the past 48 hours on South Island at Christchurch have not effected you family or friends. Living in Southern California we know a bit about earthquakes.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I may be wrong, but I don’t think there is a textbook or a Lessons Learned library that doesn’ reflect on the fact “requirements” are the driver. If they “change,” almost always “scope” changes. The waterfall of cost and schedule are a given. So the General needs to grasp what “good enough” means, and figure out if he can measure what it looks like. Maybe then he’ll have a “good enough” Request for Proposal that he might get some answers that make sense. When the contractor comes to the “baseline review” without a clear test plan, you can bet he doesn’t plan on delivering what was requested.

Yeah, you dimwits, the defense contractors are going to tell you how to stop them from making record profits. Clearly it is requirements creep, for the defense establishment has spoken. You deserve to have your money taken from you because you’re too stupid to keep it. Stupid people should be separated from their money.

Clearly the problem is not that we pay contractors profit on development. Clearly it is not the fact that we incentivise them to drag weapon development out and escalate the development costs. If it was that, the defense contractors themselves would have told you so, right? Unbelievable.

Yep it is always the industry’s fault and never the governments… Yep, the Pentagon runs everything as smooth and efficient as humanly possible. Surely they would never have a hand in screwing up a major acquisitions program.

The truth is that blame needs to be spread across the board, for the government does many things that do lead to cost-increases, delays, reduced buys, and so forth. You can’t hope to fix the problem’s on the industry’s end without addressing problem’s on the government’s end either.

He said that it “was a quality issue.” on the AEFH bird. These types of defects can not be across the board. The damn government didn’t build the spacecraft. But I’ll bet that the local DCMA is being tasked to find out who inspected or had oversight of that fuel line. According to the “CONTRACTUAL” FAR, it is “ALWAYS” the Contractor
that “SHALL” render to the Government, a serviceable/workable item. You don’t build quality or inspect quality into
a system. I met an LM employee the other day and they have no clue why the Air Force, is upset with their Company. If that person, had any idea of the cost of that Bird & of the Launch Fees/Cost maybe they would understand.

Having served in the Air Force for 28 years, (active and reserve) and 32 years with a major aerospace company I can say that there is plenty of responsibility on both sides for scope creep and budget over runs. My biggest concern is that we have to rediscover this on every major program. And as for small businesses going under because of a lack of a sustained order base that has also always been a problem. You only have to do business with the government once to see how unreasonable some of the requirements are. The worst part of all this is that after all the finger pointing and rhetoric nothing changes. The F-35 is turning into another F-111 debacle for those who remember it. We don’t learn from our own history.

Uh, it was Obama who cut the NASA budget in favor of a fictional “Mars Race” program (that we’re unprepared for) at some nebulous point in the future. Not the Republicans.

This would be the same USAF that took over the Navy FENCE, cancelled the $220M replacement (incurring cancellation fees) which would have been operational now, gave 3 contractors $100M to “study” and make proposals for basically producing the same bids on the same frequency radar they did for the Navy, and upped the cost to ~$1B and delivery at the end of the decade…that USAF?

Yeah, very serious about cost containment.

so the PRODUCT has a problem ? Who cares ? Management doesn’t !

All our Govt and Contractor organizations related to acquisition care 88 percent about PROCESS and only a tiny fraction about PRODUCT. In fact, there are so many mandated govt acquisition courses, processes, reports, etc. that here’s a proposed Motto for all US Government acquisition programs:

PROCESS is our most important PRODUCT.

ISO 9001 and CMM Level 4 certified ? Everyone completed Level III certification courses in the past 3 years ? OK, we are good to go. Seriously, our govt has tilted way off center towards PROCESS control to the detriment of PRODUCTS: Aircraft, missiles, ships, satellites, etc.

LOL sounds like the General is trying to deflect some heat off the F-35 program. Maybe the General should spend more time managing the portfolio of programs by terminating the bad ones vs stating the obvious: “We have to get control of the cost of space programs” YA THINK dick tracy??
we need engineer leaders — not industry cheer leaders
maybe he is being misquoted/misrepresented and this is poor journalism “he wants contracts to be rewritten”. Just want to point out the “rewriting” contracts will cost lots and lots of money and increases risks to programs as well. People still need to learn the hard way that many programs that go bad are simply unrecoverable. they don’t need ‘cost containment’ or control or rewritten contracts or — it’s too late for that. they need TERMINATION.

I say the contractor is responsible.….this is an incredible craft. Need I say more?

What are you reading? I didn’t blame the contractors or the government for the screwed up system we have in place now. The defense contractors are making record profits, so clearly they are looking out for their best interests. The DoD employes record numbers of people and their bureacracy is larger and more wasteful than ever, and their bureacrats don’t have to fight, so they are looking out for their best interests with the current system too. The only ones who are getting screwed by this system are you people. You are the ones who lose. Stay ignorant and keep losing, losers! Or learn from what I say and fix the problem if you’re not losers. The choice is yours.

It is a shame so few get it. We pay for process, and get lots of process. Then we whine and complain because we get few products and those we get are crap! You pay for what you want, and get what you pay for. It’s about time Americans woke up to the fact that Capitalism works. It can either work for you or against you, but it always works. If you provide an incentive for process, you get process. If you provide an incentive for good products, then that’s what you get, good products. It’s your money, it’s your choice. Quit whining and choose.

If you bid on a project with a SOW that is really a concept because the hard detailed engineering has yet to be done the contractor must manage his risk with higher pricing. Scope creep (which may be necessary) increases the cost exponential. The system is highly flawed but better than all alternatives IMHO.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement