Pessimistic Report on the International Space Station

An independent cost assessment and validation task force released a pessimistic report last week on the International Space Station (ISS). While positive toward completed work, the report warns of major problems ahead that could lead to a $7+ billion increase and three-year delay in completing the station.

Jay Chabrow headed a select group of industrial, federal and military experts with “expertise in program management, cost estimation and formulation, technology development, and cost and schedule risk assessment.” As described in the report, “the main thrust was to identify and evaluate major risk elements that would likely contribute to further cost growth and schedule slip.” The approximately 40-page report was completed in six months, and is available at the following URL: http://www.nasa.gov/cavtf/ The Executive Summary provides sobering reading, sections of which follow below:

“The International Space Station Program has made notable and reasonable progress over the past four years in defining and executing a very challenging and technically complex effort.

“The Program size, complexity, and ambitious schedule goals were beyond that which could be reasonably achieved within the $2.1 billion annual cap or $17.4 billion total cap.

“A number of critical risk elements are likely to have an adverse impact on the International Space Station cost and schedule.

“The schedule uncertainty associated with Russian implementation of joint Partnership agreements is the major threat to the ISS Program.

“The Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 budget submission to Congress is not adequate to execute the baseline ISS Program, cover normal program growth, and address the known critical risks. Additional annual funding of between $130 million and $250 million will be required.

“Completion of ISS assembly is likely to be delayed from one to three years beyond December 2003.”

Writing about the development of the program, the Task Force states, “Although cost and schedule growth have occurred, the magnitude of such growth has not been unusual, even when compared with other developmental programs of lesser complexity.” However, when looking at the annual budget cap, the Task Force concludes, “The $2.1 billion annual funding limitation has resulted in spread-out procurements, deferred and untimely work, and inadequate contingency planning, all of which have induced schedule delays and increased cost.” “Budget and reserve levels have been, and continue to be, inadequate for a program of this size, complexity, and development uncertainty despite NASA’s past contentions that the total funding level is adequate.”

Identified as “Major Development Risk Elements” are Hardware Qualification Testing, On-Orbit Assembly Complexity, Crew Return Vehicle Development, Multi-Element Integrated Testing, U.S. Laboratory Schedule, Training Readiness, Software Development and Integration, and Parts and Spares Shortages. Beyond these problems is another category of “Major International Risk Elements” which include the Russian-Built Service Module and Russian Logistics/Propulsion Support.

Regarding Operations, the Task Force states: “In the operations timeframe, the ISS Program management believes it will be able to meet its $1.3 billion annual operations funding limit. The Task Force believes this level of funding is inadequate to support the total scope of the technical and operational requirements.”

As expected, the Task Force predicts continued problems with Russian participation. They state, “Although there is a funding commitment for the ISS at the highest government level, the funding process is erratic, and it is difficult to assess when the funds will actually be supplied, not to mention the adequacy of those funds.”

The report concludes with the sentence: “For effective program execution, realistic schedule and funding profiles that incorporate contingency planning alternatives need to be developed and maintained.”

No doubt this is what NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin will present to Congress and the Administration within the next six weeks. As he told a Senate subcommittee last week, “we take on really tough stuff.”