A Conversation With: Dick Covey

Dick Covey is President and Chief Executive Officer of United Space Alliance and is responsible for the direction, development and operations of the company. In this latest conversation with Covey, USA Update talks with him about the opportunities and challenges facing USA as the end of the Space Shuttle Program nears.

UPDATE: What do you see for USA after Shuttle?

COVEY: After Shuttle flights end, whenever that is, USA will be a smaller company. The broad scope of support we now provide to the Space Shuttle Program will not be required for the Constellation Program, limiting the opportunities for post-Shuttle USA.

We should have a good base of business both in Houston and in Florida, and hopefully, we’ll grow our business in Huntsville. A good foundation for post-Shuttle USA has already been set in Houston with the award of two new contracts, IMOC, the Integrated Mission Operations Contract, and FDOC, the Facilities Development and Operations Contract. Both support JSC’s Mission Operations and extend beyond Shuttle to provide support for both Space Station and Constellation. They form the basis for our future operational work at JSC and will be followed by the EGLS, the Exploration Ground Launch Services contract, which will be awarded in the early part of 2010 at KSC.

Now, the other thing that we’ll be doing post-Shuttle is to continue to support the development of the new Constellation systems. We’re already doing that with our subcontract with ATK for the Ares I first stage, with Lockheed Martin for the Orion vehicle and Oceaneering for the new space suit. We hope to have a growing role with Boeing in the upper-stage production and the upper-stage instrumentation unit for the Ares I. And this year, we will begin participating in the study phase of the Ares V systems development. All of this work, however, will not be nearly as expansive as what we do in Shuttle operations, but it will be good business here in Houston, in Florida and in Huntsville.

UPDATE: What is the role of employees in achieving these goals?

COVEY: The main thing that most of our employees can do now is continue their excellent performance for Space Shuttle and Space Station. What most distinguishes United Space Alliance from our competitors and our member companies is what we do today for Space Shuttle and Space Station. Since most of our employees today support those programs, their continued exceptional performance can be their greatest contribution to our capture of future work.

Secondly, our employees need to continue to look at the work they’re doing and find innovative ways to be more effective and efficient. Our ability to compete successfully for future work can be greatly enhanced by demonstrating today that we can implement change that improves our operations.

UPDATE: What is it about the subsidiary approach that makes it right for USA in this environment?

COVEY: The subsidiaries provide a structure that is less costly than the structure we operate under today. We can bid those new structures for future work, be it in the near term, like FDOC, or if it’s after the end of the Space Shuttle Program, like we did on the IMOC, while minimizing the impact on our employees who continue to support Space Shuttle and Space Station under SPOC. Some might ask what’s wrong with the structure that we have. United Space Alliance has a long history of not having to compete for its work. That has been the benefit of having been formed for a specific purpose with the direct cooperation of NASA.

For 12 years, we have performed work that we didn’t have to compete for, and for another two years, we have SPOC work that we have not had to compete for. That has allowed us to develop a structure that has not had to stand the test of competition. Dan Brandenstein and I both have backgrounds in services and support businesses with Lockheed Martin and Boeing. We know from our experience that the cost structure we have today that supports the Space Shuttle and Space Station through SPOC is not competitive for the work that we want to do after Shuttle.

The hard fact is that to be competitive, the new structure has to not only be less expensive from the standpoint of overheads and institutional costs, but less expensive for the benefits we deliver to our employees. We believe that the benefits offered the FDOC employees are very competitive and comparable relative to the other businesses that compete for NASA space operations work, now and post-Shuttle. The choice is to either bid that competitive cost structure or risk losing future work to those lower-cost businesses, in which case, our employees would move into the same or similar benefit structure with another company. That’s the benefit of the subsidiary structure to us now, minimize the impact on those employees who continue to support Shuttle and Station under SPOC until we get to the end of the SPOC program and, at the same time, allow us to be competitive for that new work.

UPDATE: What is USA’s position on extending the Shuttle beyond 2010?

COVEY: It is amazing to me that the Space Shuttle is more capable and safer now than it has ever been in its entire history, and we’re facing an end-of-the-Shuttle deadline in two years. That just flies in the face of reason sometimes, but there is a good reason for it. We have a vision for space exploration in this country. It was enacted into law by our Congress after being proposed by President Bush. The basic tenets of the vision require that we develop a new system that will be able to take us back to the moon and on to Mars, and that new system should be able to support the Space Station. With the current funding levels that NASA is anticipated to have, it’s not possible to continue to fly the Shuttle and continue the development of that new system in parallel, so one drives the end of the other.

Now, I don’t like that, and I would like to see more budget for NASA that would allow the continued development of Constellation as planned but also allow the continued flight of the Shuttle for some period of time. Not forever, but certainly long enough to close the infamous gap in capabilities. So, fundamentally, I’d love to see the Space Shuttle fly longer, but it has to be in the context of an overall vision for space exploration that can be supported by the Congress and by the new president with appropriate funding.

I’m hopeful that there will be some extension of Shuttle flights. It may be difficult for us to fly the remaining flights by the end of September 2010 due to unknown or unplanned operational impacts: a hurricane, a Space Station system problem, etc. Those things will complicate manifesting and scheduling and probably require flying past September 2010. How much longer will depend upon the administration and its chosen course for human space flight.

It bothers me that recently there have been media reports that point at safety as the reason to stop flying the Space Shuttle. Well, there are good reasons to stop flying the Space Shuttle, but I don’t believe that safety is one of them. We know more about Space Shuttle safety now than we ever have. We know more about the risks involved, and we manage those risks better. We can fly the Space Shuttle safely beyond 2010 if national policies, priorities and funding will support it.

UPDATE: What are your top three priorities going forward in 2009?

COVEY: My first priority for 2009 is to make sure we, as a company, continue the extraordinary performance that we’ve shown over the last several years in supporting the Shuttle and Space Station. Mission Complete still is what will define USA for the future. So, our number one priority is to safely fly the Space Shuttle and complete the Space Station; there’s no question about that. That will continue to be our number one focus this year.

Second priority is to help in whatever ways we can to support the new administration in establishing their human space flight vision and policy, hopefully achieving additional funding to support space exploration. Now, that’s a more difficult task for us, but we need to make sure that we are a part of that process. And, if additional funding is available, making sure that Shuttle extension is given proper consideration, not ruled out by inappropriate fear of safe Shuttle operations. 

The third priority would probably fall in the area of continuing to position the company for the post-Shuttle era. We started to do that in 2008 with the operations contracts here at JSC. The Kennedy Space Center is embarking upon an acquisition they call Exploration Ground Launch Services (EGLS). EGLS will be the defining piece of work for us at Kennedy like IMOC and FDOC are in Houston. EGLS is the core business of what we do at KSC in operations and services. USA must win it. We expect the EGLS competition will be full blown in 2009 with a start sometime in 2010. Our business development and Florida site leadership resources will focus heavily on making sure we are the EGLS winner. Along with that, we’ll continue to establish our role on Ares V through the study contracts. So, those are the three priorities: safe operations, support the new administration and continue to define our post-Shuttle work.

Read more from this issue

Go to Previous Company Newsletters

Terms & Conditions
Privacy Statement
Site Map
Home

©2010 United Space Alliance, LLC.
All rights reserved.