WASHINGTON (States News Service) -- A new government study of failures in the commercial launch industry found that the nation's rocket makers are focusing too many resources on the next generation of launch vehicles, and not enough on the ones currently in service.
President Clinton asked the Defense Department last week to implement changes called for in the Space Broad Area Review, or Space BAR. The report's goal was "To provide a final report on the causes of recent space launch failures and the actions required to ensure our future access to space," and was meant to examine the five Titan and Delta failures since August 1998.
Specific reasons for the failures ranged from purely technical problems, such as faulty wiring, to human error, such as the misapplication of thermal tape on an upper stage.
In the case of problems with the Titan rocket and its upper stages, the Air Force report said that manufacturer Lockheed Martin "exhibit a premature 'going out of business' mindset" and "the potential for cost savings is minimal when compared with the value of the assets at risk."
In general, the country's two major aerospace companies have given over too much time, money, and experienced staff to developing the next generation of rockets, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, rather than the aging fleet of rocket designs originally phased-out in the 1970s.
The Air Force review also incorporated comments from the manufacturers' own internal reviews. In general, Lockheed and Boeing seemed to agree with the Air Force, and in some cases seemed even harsher.
Lockheed's review concluded that "Cost reduction emphasis created pressures on staffing and mission success on Titan IV," and, "A significant loss of key people on launch programs has created a loss of experience and knowledge."
Boeing asserted that "Delta II is a world-class, reliable product. Major changes to its processes and operations are not required," but noted, "Boeing underestimated the design challenge of the change to Delta III from the mature Delta II. Delta IV is more complex than Delta III. This coupled with the transition from a single product line to a multi-product line will require an increasing emphasis on design engineering oversight, testing, supplier quality, and enhanced Independent Mission Assurance activities."
advertisement
