Up in the Air : Southland in Limbo as NASA Retools Space Station

Days after the Clinton Administration’s scaled-back space station plan survived a bruising attack in the House, a new dispute over the program’s future is brewing inside the polished headquarters of the space agency.

At stake is control of the $25-billion program, the future of billions of dollars in space station contracts and the future of the hundreds of Southern California aerospace workers assigned to the project.

Caught in the middle are the space station’s three major contractors: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace in Huntington Beach, the Rocketdyne division of Rockwell International in Canoga Park and Boeing Co.’s missile and space division in Huntsville, Ala.

The companies, which together hold contracts worth nearly $9 billion, are scrapping to hang on to their business as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration develops a final design for the space station and chooses a single prime contractor to take charge.

Under direction from the White House, Daniel S. Goldin, administrator of the space agency, plans to slash the contractor work force of 11,000 by about 30%. The company selected as prime contractor is certain to retain a far larger share of its workers.

The new struggle pits Goldin against the senior NASA managers who had been running the old space station program before President Clinton ordered a cost-cutting redesign.

Whoever makes up the new management team will play central roles in developing the final design and choosing the prime contractor and the NASA center that will oversee the project.

According to NASA sources, Goldin wants to purge the managers of the old program, many of whom voiced reservations about the redesign efforts, and replace them with younger NASA officials.

Goldin has said privately that he needs “new thinkers” who are not tied to the program’s past management problems. Critics suggest that Goldin’s main objective is to install managers who will be less willing to challenge his vision of a new NASA.

The uncertainty over who will run the program comes at a time when the project faces a fight for its life on Capitol Hill. In a pair of close votes, the House decided to go ahead with the new program. The Senate has yet to consider the space station, which is intended to provide an orbiting platform to conduct research in a weightless environment.

Supporters worry that controversy over the station management team and the lack of a final design may hurt the program as it moves through Congress. And White House concern over congressional reaction to a wholesale management shake-up may prompt Goldin to move more slowly than he would like, several sources said.

In an interview this week, Goldin said he is developing a formal process for choosing the new management team and refining the space station design. He said he has not yet made any decisions, but added that “NASA is going to look a lot different when we get done with the reforms. . . .”

Among Goldin’s targets, NASA sources said, is Robert W. Moorehead, deputy director of the old space station program. Moorehead wrote a scathing June 15 memorandum describing the space station redesign report submitted to Clinton as “inconsistent, self-contradictory, superficial and inaccurate.”

Moorehead was unavailable for comment. Goldin refused to discuss the memo.

“I think there’s an overall frustration that people with the knowledge and the experience aren’t being fully incorporated into this (new) program,” said one NASA official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The space station has faced rough going since it was proposed in 1984 at an estimated cost of $8 billion. By last February, NASA’s estimate of the money needed had grown to $31.3 billion.

Rather than cancel the program, Clinton ordered Goldin to slash costs. A team of NASA engineers recommended three cheaper options. Two weeks ago, Clinton ordered NASA to build a space station that would combine elements of two of the three plans. Both were derived largely from the earlier space station design.

But the President’s order left many design questions unanswered. For example, NASA has not yet determined whether it will rely on a propulsion and guidance system developed by Lockheed Corp. for a military satellite, as proposed under one redesign option, or use the system McDonnell developed for the earlier version of the space station. And the space agency must make a host of other decisions.

“No one knows what the final design is,” said a NASA official. “The message right now is that to make this program happen, you have to solidify the design and get the whole NASA team working on it. You’re not going to pull this off with 10 energetic people.”

So far, former astronaut Bryan O’Connor, who led the NASA redesign team, continues to head the group refining the space station blueprints. Not one of the 300 or so NASA managers working on the old space station program has been assigned to the new team.

It is unlikely that NASA will choose a new prime contractor until that work is completed. McDonnell has already submitted a proposal under which it would assume the prime contractor’s responsibility, The Times has learned. But Goldin is said to be cool to the company, which was involved in cost disputes with NASA earlier in the program.

McDonnell currently has a $4.3-billion contract to build the aluminum spar that would form the backbone of the station, as well as its guidance, propulsion and data management systems.

Boeing, which holds contracts valued at $2.6 billion, is scheduled to build the pressurized modules that will serve as laboratory and dormitory for the permanent crew of four astronauts. Rocketdyne is under contract to build the electrical system.

New Space Station

President Clinton last month approved a vastly scaled-down version of NASA’s space station, cutting billions from its original budget. The station, which is the largest multinational space project ever undertaken, is a cooperative effort among the United States, Canada, Japan, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway and Denmark. The station, which will be used to conduct various research projects, expects the station to be fully operational by 2000.

* More Economical Design

The revised design of the space station will cost taxpayers $46.4 billion, about one-third less than the $67.9 billion price tag of the original structure.

* Cost: $46.4 billion Assembly: 16 space shuttle flights required Safety equipment: 2 emergency return vehicles Crew: 4 Power: 60 kilowatts

* The Bottom Line

The incurred and projected costs to date to build, operate and service the space station, in billions of dollars:

* Item: Cost Spent to date: $11.2 Needed to build: 16.5 Operating cost: 13.5 Shuttle Cost: 5.2 Total: 46.4

* Major Contractors

Contractors will lose money and jobs if the project is scrapped. The House has approved the space station but Senate Approval is also required. Contract values in billions of dollars:

* Company: Value McDonnell Douglas: $4.3 Boeing: $2.6 Rockwell International: $2.4

Source: NASA; Times reports Researched by ADAM S. BAUMAN / Los Angeles Times