-
On Mars:
Exploration of the Red Planet. 1958-1978
-
-
-
- REORGANIZATIONS AND ADDITIONAL
CUTBACKS
-
-
-
- [268] During the remaining year and a
half before the Viking launches, a number of changes were made in
the top management structure at NASA. The first of these was
announced by Administrator Fletcher on 5 March 1974. Rocco A.
Petrone, director of the Marshall Space Flight Center, was
appointed NASA associate administrator, the number three position
at headquarters, replacing Homer Newell who retired in late 1973.
John E. Naugle, named Petrone's deputy, continued to act as
associate administrator for space science until Noel W. Hinners,
director of lunar programs in the Office of Space Science,
* was selected in June to fill the space science
slot. When Petrone left NASA for a job in industry in April 1975,
Naugle assumed his duties on an acting basis until 23 November,
when he was appointed to that position.
-
- Fletcher in March 1974 also announced a
headquarters reorganization, with two primary objectives. First,
he sought to consolidate under one senior official, the associate
administrator, the planning and direction of all NASA's research
and development programs. And second, by creating a new
position-associate administrator for center operations, to whom
the center directors would report-the administrator funneled the
responsibility for the field centers to one office. George Low,
deputy administrator, temporarily took on this new task until
Edwin C. Kilgore was appointed in May 1974.
-
- Fletcher stressed that the changes were
necessary in this era of consolidation, an era of tightening
budgets and reducing manpower levels.
-
- As we approach the time when the Space
Shuttle becomes operational, there needs to be a mechanism for the
orderly phaseover from conventional launch vehicles to the
shuttle: at the same time we need to take an innovative and
coordinated approach in planning and developing all of our future
payloads-manned and unmanned, science, applications, and
technology. Our aim is to achieve this consolidation of all
Aeronautics and Space Activities through the office of the
Associate Administrator.
-
- NASA's administrator believed that the
future of the agency's activities depended entirely upon the
strength "of NASA's most important resource-the 25,000 people
located primarily at our field centers." This figure was down from
a peak of nearly 36000 in fiscal year 1967. 31
-
- Petrone and Hinners had the unenviable
task of keeping Viking project costs from escalating further. When
Petrone assumed his responsibilities [269] as associate
administrator in March 1974, the projected completion cost of
Viking had risen to $927.5 million, and nearly all of the cost
problem was associated with the lander-the biology instrument, the
gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer, and the guidance, control,
and sequencing computer were among the leading troublemakers. As
table 46 illustrates, the price of the orbiter was repeatedly
pared to help pay for the lander. Money for support activities was
held relatively constant. Actual costs for the orbiter and support
activities were below the June-July 1970 estimates, but the lander
was costing nearly $200 million more than it was projected to in
l970. 32
-
-
Table 46
|
Viking Cost Projections,
1974 (in millions)
|
|
Date
|
Lander
|
Orbiter
|
Support
|
- Total Estimated Cost at
Completion
- (Estimated Total + APA
a)
|
Cumulative Total
|
|
July 1970
baseline
|
$359.8
|
$256.0
|
$134.2
|
$750.0 + $80.0 =
$830.0
|
$ 51.0
|
Dec. 1970
|
359.8
|
256.0
|
134.2
|
750.0 + 80.0 =
830.0
|
54.5
|
June 1971
|
358.0
|
256.3
|
135.7
|
750.0 + 80.0 =
830.0
|
81.8
|
Jan. 1972
|
384.6
|
256.7
|
143.7
|
785.0 + 44.7 =
829.7
|
150.6
|
June 1972
|
414.4
|
252.3
|
134.5
|
801.2 + 28.2 =
829.4
|
223.8
|
Dec. 1972
|
426.1
|
251.3
|
132.2
|
809.6 + 19.8 =
829.4
|
366.6
|
June 1973
|
436.2
|
247.5
|
143.0
|
826.7 + 11.3 =
838.0
|
466.5
|
Dec. 1973
|
456.7
|
241.0
|
140.3
|
838.0 + 0.0 =
838.0
|
595.2
|
Mar. 1974
|
511.9
|
242.4
|
140.2
|
894.5 + 33.0 =
927.5
|
646.7
|
Apr. 1974
|
518.2
|
242.8
|
140.2
|
901.2 + 18.8 =
920.0
|
667.9
|
Dec. 1974
|
545.2
|
242.1
|
139.1
|
926.4 + 3.6 =
930.0
|
805.2
|
July 1975
|
548.7
|
243.0
|
138.0
|
926.2 + 3.5 =
929.7
|
855.2
|
July 1976
|
558.2
|
243.0
|
134.1
|
935.3 + 0.3 =
935.6
|
898.9
|
Jan. 1977
actual costs
|
558.2
|
240.5
|
115.8
|
972.4
b
|
914.5
|
a
AIIowance for program adjustment (APA), or reserve funds.
b
Estimate through end of prime mission.
-
-
- In October 1974, Petrone and Hinners
tightened the purse strings considerably. Viking budget ceilings
were established for fiscal 1975 and 1976, and deviation from
these amounts required Petrone's personal approval. Before any
increase in the budget would be permitted, Petrone wanted to see
documented evidence of steps taken to squeeze the dollars from
else- where in the Viking budget. The reserve funds (allowance for
program adjustments) were directly controlled by Petrone. Hinner's
staff provided Petrone with weekly status reports on project costs
and manpower levels for Martin Marietta, JPL, TRW, and Honeywell
throughout the winter of 1974. 33
-
- [270] Two important management
changes also took place at the centers during the summer of 1975.
At Langley in September, Ed Cortright, after 27 years of
government service, retired and entered private industry and also
served as president of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. He was replaced by Donald P. Hearth, who since
leaving the Lunar and Planetary Programs Office at NASA
Headquarters in 1970 had been deputy director of the Goddard Space
Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. On the West Coast at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, Bruce Murray had been appointed in April to
succeed William Pickering, who was retiring after having led the
laboratory since 1954. Hearth and Murray were old Mars program
men. Occasionally they had disagreed over budget, manpower, and
managerial issues during Mariner and the early years of Viking,
but they would cooperate on the team that would launch, fly, and
land the Viking spacecraft. Present from nearly the beginning of
the search for life on Mars, Hearth and Murray would see the
fruition of years of work from the inner NASA circle.
34
-
- In September 1974 when the second flight
orbiter was canceled and the proof-test orbiter converted to a
flight article, the third lander, the backup, was also terminated.
By this move, Petrone and Hinners hoped to save an additional $9
million. As the project moved closer and closer to the billion-
dollar mark, members of Congress had told NASA that no further
reprogramming of funds, like shifting $40 million of the fiscal
1974 budget to Viking, would be allowed. In an across-the-board
cost-reduction exercise, Jim Martin's project office searched for
ways to save dollars to cover the expense of such items as the
biology instrument and the GCMS. 35
-
- Three landers had been planned originally
to ensure that at least two would he ready for launch. Had one of
the prime landers suffered a last minute problem that required a
violation of sterilization procedures and then reassembly and
resterilization, the backup could have been used. With this third
lander gone, only parts would be available for substitution should
either flight lander have preflight troubles. The need for a
backup orbiter had never been as critical as for the lander, since
the orbiters did not have to go through the subassembly and
completed assembly rigors of sterilization. Resterilization of
either lander would have required precious time during the 65-day
Viking launch window. The process at the Cape would require about
5 days, although only about 48 hours would actually be spent in
the oven at microbe-killing temperatures.
-
- If the first lander should fail at the
time of launch, the second lander could replace the first with a
minimum of lost time. If difficulties occurred during the second
launch, however, it could take up to 27 days to remove the lander
from its sterile capsule, disassemble it, find the malfunction,
repair it, reassemble the lander, and then resterilize it. Under
such a contingency, Martin and his people believed that they could
carry out the work and still launch the second craft it, time; it
would be tight, but if the lander was repairable they thought they
could get it on its way. 36
-
-
* In December
1971, a reorganization set up an Office of Space Science and an
Office of Applications, replacing the Office of Space Science and
Applications.
-
-
-