Proposed Bill May Bolster Industry : Legislation: The Space Launch Services Act, introduced by Rep. Ron Packard (R-Carlsbad), would require the government to buy launch services on a commercial basis.

A white-haired former dentist whose hallmark is the calm, quiet manner of a Marcus Welby, Rep. Ron Packard, at first blush, hardly seems like the sort of man to take on career bureaucrats at NASA and the Air Force.

But that is just what Packard, who represents southern Orange County, is doing.

His Space Launch Services Act, portions of which have been included in this year’s NASA funding authorization bill, is an attempt to force the government to hew more closely to private-sector policies and procedures when it puts its satellites into orbit.

“The government is the largest consumer of launch services, so U.S. companies must build and operate their vehicles as the government requires,” said Packard (R-Carlsbad).

The problem, he said, is that the Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the two principal government purchasers of rockets and rocket launch services, impose on rocket builders rigid government construction specifications and complex requirements for cost certification. Both drive up the cost of rocket production, Packard contends.

Because the major companies build essentially the same rockets for the government and their commercial customers, those extra costs in the government work carry over to the commercial side and make the industry less competitive worldwide, Packard argues.

“Requiring the U.S. government to buy launch services on a commercial basis--that is, allowing the launch company to carry out the launch as it wishes, so long as the spacecraft arrives at its specified destination and on time--would solve much of the problem,” Packard said.

Packard and his staff note that the Navy and the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization already use the “commercial model” for their satellite procurement policies.

The Navy, in fact, does not deal at all with the rocket manufacturer.

Instead, the Navy has contracted with Hughes Aircraft Co. to build and deliver into orbit 10 communications satellites. Hughes then contracted commercially with General Dynamics to launch the Navy payloads.

A subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology already has included a key element of Packard’s bill in the new authorization bill for NASA. The full committee has yet to consider the measure.

Provisions that would apply to the Air Force so far have not been included in Department of Defense authorizing legislation.

Packard’s measure is viewed with skepticism by NASA and the Air Force, which fear it may reduce their ability to closely monitor and control the launches of important, expensive, one-of-a kind payloads, such as the Mars Observer satellite.

“If your payload is unique, one-of-a-kind, can you afford to have (the launch rocket) fail?” asked Col. Dominic Martinelli, acting program director of Air Force launch programs.

“Just because it’s commercial doesn’t magically make it better,” added William Maikisch, deputy chief of staff program management for launch programs.

Nevertheless, Air Force and NASA officials said they have been moving forcefully to commercially procure launch services whenever possible.

At NASA, Walker Lee Evey of the office of procurement and Charles R. Gunn of the office of space flight noted that NASA’s request last year for bids for a medium expendable launch vehicle contained no formal military or federal construction specifications.

“A lot of the words we hear are solving yesterday’s problem,” Evey said. “Specifications and standards, for instance. They ain’t there.”

However, a Packard staff member said NASA, in many cases, continues to require complex cost certification, which adds costs to procurement.

Gunn said the Packard bill “could be constricting and constraining in the future. . . . My personal view is that it would be just as well if it got under the table and stayed there forever.”