Unaffordable and Unsustainable, NASA’s failing Earth-to-orbit Transportation Strategy Options

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

The Space Frontier Foundation has gotten a lot of attention from the mainstream press with their latest Whitepaper.

They advocate a more extensive support fo free enterprise and entrepreneurship in the American space program. They suggest that NASA should no longer be allowed to develop and own new launch vehicles, and that CEV and CLV development should be cancelled. They also advise that NASA rely on Altas 5 and Delta 4 rockets, and transfer more funding to the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program.

I cannot find the actual white paper on the SFF website. I don't know if SFF is particularly professional (certainly their gaudy website doesn't look it), but I have to agree with some of their points.

[Littlebit]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=23230

NASA OIG Report: NASA's Plan for Space Shuttle Transition Could Be Improved by Following Project Management Guidelines

Our evaluation of NASA's "Human Space Flight Transition Plan" found that it did not comprehensively address certain elements that we believe are essential to management and high-level oversight of an activity of the transition's scope and importance.

Specifically, the transition plan did not comprehensively address the following elements:

A work breakdown structure that divides the transition activities into manageable segments.

Detailed cost estimates to support the budget preparation process and facilitate cost control.

Metrics for measuring transition progress and success.

Periodic milestone reviews.

Internal and external communication plans to facilitate an efficient flow of information to the stakeholders.

Asset end-state requirements and security provisions for Space Shuttle Program property.

A centralized data management system to document transition-related recommendations and decisions.

Clearly defined responsibilities for the components of the transition governance structure and designation of the component responsible for post-2010 decisions.

Two comments:

1) It is surprising that this project-level planning is not in place.

2) This assessment is buzzword loaded, and could have been written by any audit of any type of enterprise anywhere. Perhaps technical expertise is not required in the OIG; or they may be taking a first-things-first approach.