To Boldly Go Where Nasa Has Failed Before
By: Steve • Research Paper • 2,191 Words • February 6, 2010 • 822 Views
Join now to read essay To Boldly Go Where Nasa Has Failed Before
To Boldly Go Where NASA Has Failed Before
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, was established in 1958 under the Eisenhower administration. Its main purpose was to act as an independent agency to direct the nation’s space missions and research programs. Over the past 45 years, since its inception, NASA has experienced many problems and has received recent negative publicity. NASA has had longstanding managerial problems on the inside and with outside contractors. They have also failed to estimate costs and have conducted projects well beyond what their budget dictates. An example of that would be with the failed X-33 project, among others. This analysis will explore these areas of NASA and provide preliminary recommendations as to how the program can better itself, from management to new vehicles.
Although research of National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) government contractors over the last thirty years did not uncover any major allegations of shoddy workmanship or under spec deliverables, it did reveal serious issues with regard to billing fraud and huge bonuses paid out on over budget projects. Over the years there have been numerous allegations of fraud and abuse by NASA contractors. Finally in November 2000 the government was able to win a settlement against the Boeing Company of Seattle and the Houston-based United Space Alliance for a total of $825,000. In addition to the money that was awarded, these two companies agreed to forfeit any rights they have to collect on $1.2 million in unpaid invoices. This settlement was related to allegations that false claims had been submitted for work supposedly performed between 1986 and 1992 under the NASA Space Shuttle and Space Station Freedom programs. Originally, the Rockwell Space Operations Company (RSOC) was the contractor who was hired to manage the two programs. An RSOC sub-contractor, Omniplan Corporation, is accused of being involved in numerous fraudulent billing activities. The result of this fraud was that the United States was overcharged millions of dollars. The Boeing Company acquired RSOC in 1996 and at that time United Space Alliance took over the management of the two space programs. The government tried to sue Omniplan in 1993, but the company went bankrupt. In January 2000 the government then filed suit against RSOC claiming that they had submitted Omniplan’s false invoices. It is the government’s contention that a company is responsible for the billing accuracy of its sub-contractors and RSOC should have been validating that all costs submitted by Omniplan were legitimate. Invoices submitted included personal costs related to private homes, jewelry, and vacations abroad. It was also uncovered that Omniplan was leasing buildings and equipment to itself by setting up phony companies. The outrageousness of the fraud in the programs is only matched by the huge bonuses that have been paid out to contractors for projects that have been grossly over budget. An example would be the Gamma Ray Observatory, which came in at forty million dollars over budget in 1993, and NASA gave them a five million dollar bonus just because it was a “huge technical feat”. Although the space program has many benefits for our society, past history tells us that serious controls need to be put in place to monitor the programs financials. The amount of waste that has occurred and potentially could occur in the future is unacceptable and puts the future of the program in jeopardy.
Publicity surrounding the fraud and waste in the NASA programs has forced the government to step back and revalidate the value of the space program. In 2001 the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 established the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry. Their task was to assess the future of the U.S. aerospace industry and to recommend actions to be taken by the Federal Government to support the ability of the U.S. aerospace industry to remain robust in the future. The Commission was given a broad mandate by the Congress and it contained a number of key items such as “the adequacy of the current acquisition process of federal departments and agencies; the procedures for developing and fielding aerospace systems incorporating new technology in a timely fashion; and the policies, procedures, and methods for the financing and payment of government contracts” (Commission of the Future, 2001). At the time this commission was formed, Vice President Dick Cheney issued the following statement, “The United States aerospace industry plays a major role in our national defense, economic growth, scientific advancement, and quality of life” (Commission of the Future, 2001). This statement mirrors how most Americans feel, but it is imperative that this commission takes steps to eliminate the