Telecommunications Network: NASA Could Better Manage Its Planned
Consolidation (Letter Report, 04/09/96, GAO/AIMD-96-33).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) plan to consolidate the
management and operations of its wide area telecommunications networks.
GAO found that: (1) NASA has 5 existing or planned wide area networks
that provide a variety of communications services; (2) prompted by
improvements in communications technology and the need to control costs,
NASA intends to consolidate the networks; (3) in August 1995, NASA
implemented a plan expected to save $236 million over the next 6 years
that will consolidate all of its telecommunications services at the
Marshall Space Flight Center; and (4) the adopted plan does not seek
near term cost savings as aggressively as other existing proposals.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: AIMD-96-33
TITLE: Telecommunications Network: NASA Could Better Manage Its
Planned Consolidation
DATE: 04/09/96
SUBJECT: Computer networks
Cost control
Aerospace research
Telecommunications equipment
Telecommunications operations
Wide area networks
Data transmission operations
Centralization
IDENTIFIER: FTS 2000
NASA Communications Network
NASA Program Support Communications Network
Federal Telecommunications System 2000
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** <info@www.gao.gov> **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security,
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight
April 1996
TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK - NASA
COULD BETTER MANAGE ITS PLANNED
CONSOLIDATION
GAO/AIMD-96-33
NASA Network Consolidation
(511341)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AEROnet - Aeronautic Network
ATM - Asynchronous Transfer Mode
EBnet - Earth Observing System Backbone Network
EOS - Earth Observing System
NASCOM - NASA Communications
NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NSI - NASA Science Internet
PSCN - Program Support Communications Network
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-270527
April 9, 1996
The Honorable William H. Zeliff, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on National
Security, International Affairs,
and Criminal Justice
Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In September 1995, you asked us to assess the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration's (NASA) plans to consolidate the management
and operations of its wide area telecommunications networks.
Specifically, you requested that we assess whether the consolidation
would result in savings and whether NASA had considered a full range
of approaches to the consolidation to ensure that savings are
maximized. The network consolidation effort is part of NASA's
overall strategy to reduce agencywide spending by $5 billion by the
end of the decade.
To assess NASA's plans to consolidate its networks, we reviewed
reports prepared by NASA teams responsible for evaluating the
agency's activities and recommending ways to save money. We
interviewed selected members of the teams, officials from the Office
of Space Communications at NASA headquarters, and officials from
NASA's five networks at three NASA centers. We discussed alternative
network consolidation proposals with NASA officials but, because of
time and resource constraints, did not independently verify the cost
savings estimates presented in these proposals or their technical
feasibility. We requested comments on a draft of this report from
the Administrator of NASA or his designee. The Acting Deputy
Administrator of NASA provided us with written comments, which are
discussed in the "Agency Comments and Our Evaluation" section and are
reprinted in appendix II.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
While NASA has not yet finalized its strategy for consolidating
networks, it has made some important decisions. NASA plans to begin
consolidating its networks immediately at the Marshall Space Flight
Center and procuring services from commercial providers in fiscal
year 1998. NASA's decision to consolidate its networks offers the
potential for savings. Nevertheless, in adopting its current
strategy, NASA neither considered alternatives suggested by officials
at centers other than Marshall nor attempted to conduct a complete
review of its networking needs and how best to satisfy them
independent of its ongoing networking activities.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
NASA currently has five wide area networks in operation or under
development. Three different NASA centers manage these networks,
which provide a variety of communications services among
headquarters, the field centers, major contractors, affiliated
academic institutions, and international partners. NASA's budget for
the networks during fiscal year 1995 was $147 million.
The agency uses its NASA Communications (NASCOM) Network for all
high-priority, mission-critical communications, such as controlling
and communicating with the space shuttle and other spacecraft. When
NASCOM was introduced in 1964, network technology was just
developing, and few services were available commercially. NASA
developed the technology for NASCOM to meet its specific needs,
including unique requirements for reliability and security to
safeguard against the loss of a spacecraft or harm to astronauts.
When a more routine administrative support network was needed, NASA
first considered extending NASCOM. However, NASA decided that a
separate network was needed because NASCOM's operational mission
communications were considered too critical to dilute with
administrative support, which could be accomplished more cheaply
outside of the high-performance NASCOM regime. Thus, the Program
Support Communications Network (PSCN) was implemented as a separate
network in 1986. Since then, three other networks have also been set
up to address specialized needs and clienteles. Appendix I describes
NASA's five wide area telecommunications networks in more detail.
NASA's approach to wide area networking has been to lease
telecommunications lines from commercial providers but to operate its
own control centers to retain control over the services provided.
NASA and its support contractors independently design, operate, and
maintain the five networks providing telecommunications services over
commercially leased lines.
CONSOLIDATION IS EXPECTED TO
ACHIEVE SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
In recent years, communications technology has greatly advanced,
reducing the need to operate separate networks. It is now therefore
feasible for NASA to consolidate its networks.
Currently, several NASA centers are providing similar network
services. For example, multiple transmission lines connecting NASA's
centers are being procured separately by both Goddard Space Flight
Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Marshall Space Flight Center in
Huntsville, Alabama. In addition, Goddard, Marshall, and Ames
Research Center at Moffett Field, California, all operate network
control centers staffed for continuous operations. Multiple
contractors perform similar network functions at each of these
centers. A variety of NASA review teams have independently reported
that significant savings could be achieved by consolidating these
resources and functions.\1 We did not, however, verify their
findings.
NASA evaluations indicate that consolidating network infrastructure
will achieve significant savings. As a result of consolidation, NASA
expects to be able to consolidate its transmission requirements,
buying in larger units of bandwidth, which would result in
significant economies of scale. NASA also expects to dramatically
reduce the numbers of both NASA and contractor personnel required to
support operational and administrative services and to eliminate the
overhead associated with multiple facilities and support contracts.
--------------------
\1 Reviews recommending consolidation include (1) the Information
Systems Cross-Cutting Team review to assess ways to decrease the
human factor costs of providing information technology services, (2)
the Zero-Base Review to assess streamlining functions across NASA
centers, and (3) the Space Operations Streamlining Team Review to
study possible privatization and commercialization of space
operations across NASA.
POTENTIAL COST-SAVING
ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
In August 1995, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space
Communications made a decision to begin network consolidation by
following a plan proposed by Marshall. Under Marshall's plan, NASA
would consolidate the management, engineering, and operations of its
networks under an existing support contractor at Marshall starting in
1996 and begin using commercial providers for network services in
1998. The Administrator estimated that this strategy would save $236
million over the next 6 years.
We are concerned that in deciding to consolidate at Marshall, NASA
did not consider other existing proposals that could result in
potentially greater savings. Moreover, NASA has embarked on its
present course of action in an ad hoc manner, without taking a
comprehensive and objective look at its overall communications
requirements independent of the approaches championed by officials
who are currently managing NASA's networks.
Rather than taking the extra time to analyze a full range of
alternatives and possibly delaying the start of consolidation, NASA's
Associate Administrator for Space Communications decided to act
quickly so that some budget savings could be realized in 1997.
However, the adopted plan does not seek cost savings in the near term
as aggressively as other existing proposals. For example, network
officials at Goddard have proposed a more accelerated approach, with
potentially greater savings. The Goddard approach would immediately
procure services from AT&T under the agency's FTS 2000 contract
rather than waiting until 1998. Goddard estimates that outsourcing
immediately could save an additional $94.5 million over the next 6
years. We did not verify their estimated savings, but we believe
these potential savings warrant further analysis.
Other existing proposals support the notion that NASA's strategy
could be modified and that more savings may be possible. Examples
include the following:
The Zero-Base Review Team recommended that NASA first run a
competition to determine which center could consolidate the
networks most cost effectively, after which services would be
procured from commercial providers. This alternative would
ensure that the choice of the lead center is based on the
approach that offered the greatest cost savings.
Ames proposed that savings could be increased by using a broader
range of management and technical approaches, including not only
consolidation and the use of advanced communications technology,
but also methods that provide new incentives for validating user
requirements and more accountability in service delivery. Ames
could not perform a detailed analysis of cost savings under this
approach because it was unable to acquire detailed budget
information for network operations not under its control.
These proposals offer specific examples of alternatives that may
result in greater overall savings. However, we believe that NASA
should not limit itself to considering proposals made by officials
who may be biased by a vested interest in preserving ongoing
telecommunications programs. An objective assessment of NASA's
telecommunications needs and how best to satisfy them, made by a team
independent of any of the NASA organizations currently providing
telecommunications services, might identify opportunities for even
greater savings.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
NASA's goal in consolidating its networks was to achieve cost savings
as part of its effort to cut overall spending by $5 billion by the
end of the decade. Network consolidation is a step in the right
direction and should result in significant cost savings. We believe,
however, that NASA's quick decision to adopt Marshall's approach to
network consolidation may not result in the greatest possible
savings. Proposals made by Goddard, Ames, and the Zero Base Review
team offer specific alternatives that have the potential to realize
greater savings. However, none of these proposals can take the place
of an objective and independent review in ensuring that consolidation
savings are being maximized.
RECOMMENDATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
We recommend that the NASA Administrator direct a team of agency
officials, which includes team members not affiliated with any of the
competing centers, to conduct an objective review of NASA's
telecommunications needs and how best to satisfy them. This review
should examine a broad range of alternatives, including but not
limited to the existing proposals from the different centers and
review team studies. Following this review, the most cost-effective
approach should be implemented.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
In its written comments on a draft of our report, NASA generally
agreed with the report and discussed measures it is taking to ensure
that its network consolidation achieves what it referred to as "an
optimum Agencywide implementation." NASA, however, did not clearly
state whether or not it planned to conduct the objective review we
recommended. It did state that it would not delay progress on
consolidation until an objective review is completed. Our
recommendation does not state, nor does it intend to imply, that
ongoing consolidation activities must be suspended until the
objective review is complete. Our concern with current consolidation
activities is not that they may be counterproductive and need to be
reversed but rather that they simply may not go far enough in
identifying and capturing potential savings. After conducting an
independent review, NASA may well be able to make adjustments to its
ongoing consolidation program that would realize additional savings.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
We conducted our review between September 1995 and December 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this letter to the NASA Administrator and
appropriate congressional committees. We will also make copies
available to interested parties on request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-6240 or John de Ferrari, Assistant
Director, at (202) 512-6335 if you or your staff have any questions
concerning this letter. Major contributors are listed in appendix
III.
Sincerely yours,
Jack L. Brock, Jr.
Director, Defense Information
and Financial Management Systems
NASA'S WIDE AREA NETWORKS
=========================================================== Appendix I
The following chart shows the baseline budgets for NASA's wide area
networks in fiscal year 1995. The networks are discussed in more
detail in this appendix.
Figure 1: NASA Wide Area
Network Budgets for Fiscal Year
1995
(Dollars in millions)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Legend
AEROnet = Aeronautic Network
EBnet = Earth Observing System Backbone Network
NASCOM = NASA Communications Network
NSI = NASA Science Internet
PSCN = Program Support Communications Network
AERONAUTIC NETWORK (AERONET)
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
AEROnet is a high-capacity network that enables the nationwide
aerospace research and technology community to access NASA's
Numerical Aerodynamics Simulation supercomputing facility, located at
Ames. This facility allows scientists to address complex aerodynamic
problems that, due to their size, cannot be handled on less than
state-of-the-art supercomputer systems. In addition, AEROnet
provides access to the High Performance Computing and Communications
Program testbeds and the Aeronautics Consolidated Supercomputer
facility.
Services provided include Internet protocol connection to the
supercomputing facility, security protection using network filtering
and firewalls, and interconnection with individual sites
collaborating on research efforts.
The system's architecture consists of routers located at end-user
sites connected to the nearest NASA center. PSCN provides
communication lines from these sites to other NASA centers.
AEROnet is actively pursuing Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)
technology. In the near future, additional bandwidth will be
required to accommodate the next generation of supercomputers as well
as emerging technologies. These include on-line research
collaboration using video links to analyze simulation and wind tunnel
data in real time at remote sites.
AEROnet's estimated cost in fiscal year 1995 was $6 million, which
includes $4.2 million funding currently provided by PSCN for backbone
services and $1.2 million provided by the Office of Aeronautics for
the cost of tail circuits for user connections. AEROnet is currently
staffed at 0.5 civil servants and 4.5 Computer Sciences Corporation
personnel.
EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM BACKBONE
NETWORK (EBNET)
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
EBnet is the project name for the wide area network being developed
to support the requirements of the Earth Observing System (EOS).
Built on a temporary network that interconnects the existing data
systems of the earth science community, EBnet will provide
high-capacity connectivity among the program's distributed data
processing and archive facilities and its international partners.
EBnet will also provide mission support to the Tropical Rainfall
Measuring Mission and other joint programs with Europe, Japan, and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NASA plans to
make the network operational in 1997.
EBnet will transport forward link commands, return link telemetry and
payload science data, and operational data between the EOS spacecraft
and elements of the EOS Data and Information System, including the
EOS Core System, the EOS Data and Operations System, and the EOS
Distributed Active Archive Centers, where the EOS scientists and
researchers are connected to the network.
EBnet's estimated budget in fiscal year 1995 was $18 million. Staff
levels in 1995 for EBnet include 3 civil servants and 30 contractor
personnel.
NASA COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
(NASCOM)
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3
NASCOM provides operational communications for deep space missions,
earth orbiting satellites, manned missions, and aeronautical
activities. NASCOM interconnects NASA's overseas and domestic
tracking and telemetry stations, launch areas, mission and project
operations control centers, science data processing facilities, and
network control centers.
NASCOM provides a range of communications services. These include
analog and digital voice transport, low-speed and high-speed message
switching, wideband packet switching, video transport, and integrated
transmission services.
The Goddard NASCOM Switching Center is the primary switching center
and control point. Additional centers are at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Marshall Space Flight Center, Kennedy Space Center,
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Canberra (Australia), and Madrid (Spain).
NASCOM has terminal equipment at all NASA centers.
NASCOM leases 900 circuits from 30 national and international
carriers and employs both satellite and terrestrial-based transport
services. Most national circuits are provided under a modified FTS
2000 contract.
The NASA Communications Division has been upgrading NASCOM's current
systems as well as developing new network systems. NASCOM has been
using a NASA-unique, 4800-bit block protocol for data transmission,
which the division is replacing with a standard Internet protocol.
It plans to eliminate the need to support the 4800-bit block by no
later than fiscal year 1997. The division has begun implementing a
Common Transmission Infrastructure backbone system with PSCN,
employing both dedicated circuits and ATM services provided by common
carriers. The backbone will provide common nodes, circuits,
management, and service interfaces. Each network will continue to
provide connections to its users via routers and ATM switches.
NASCOM's estimated budget in fiscal year 1995 was $63.0 million.
Staffing for NASCOM in fiscal year 1995 included 21 civil servants
and 210 contractor personnel, provided under two separate contracts.
The Systems, Engineering, and Analysis Support contract, awarded to
Computer Sciences Corporation, is specifically for engineering and
software development. The Network and Missions Operations Support
contract, awarded to Allied Signal Technical Services Corporation,
covers operations and maintenance functions Goddard-wide. Both
contracts expire in September 1997.
NASA SCIENCE INTERNET (NSI)
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4
Managed and operated at Ames, NSI provides connectivity between
NASA's space science community and its computing facilities,
archives, and databases. The NSI Project Office is responsible for
operating and maintaining the network, identifying existing and
future NASA science communications requirements, developing tools to
enhance the usefulness of the network, and providing information on
how to find and use networking services and resources.
NSI delivers operational services via existing network
infrastructure. It allows the user to access remote X.500 services,
data search tools such as Gopher, and World Wide Web applications,
such as Netscape. NSI also offers training and assistance, including
hotline emergency assistance, mid-level user and educational support,
and science conferences and user working groups.
NSI interoperates with several other networks. Within NASA, NSI uses
the PSCN intercenter links. Outside of NASA, NSI interoperates with
other federal networks such as the Department of Energy's Energy
Sciences Network, several thousand regional research and education
networks, and major international networks in Europe, Japan, and
throughout the Pacific to connect investigators, science databases
and archives, computational facilities, universities, industry, and
the global information infrastructure. Over 15,000 scientists and
researchers worldwide exchange ideas and information via NSI.
NSI leases circuits through the FTS 2000 contract. NSI continually
upgrades its circuits and adds new sites in order to meet new
requirements. Upgrades generally have a higher capacity and
increased interoperability with other networks, especially in foreign
countries. NSI is also researching newer, more cost-effective
technologies, such as ATM.
NSI's estimated budget in fiscal year 1995 was $7 million. Staff
levels in 1995 for the NSI Project Office were 5 civil servants and
33 support contractor personnel under a contract with Sterling
Software.
PROGRAM SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK (PSCN)
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5
PSCN provides communications within NASA centers as well as between
centers, contractor locations, and international locations. It
provides a range of communications services to administrative,
scientific, and program users. These services include procurement
and maintenance of FTS 2000 access, facsimiles, voice and video
teleconferencing, messages, packet data, and circuit-switched data.
PSCN is a fully digital network that enables various users to share a
common set of centrally managed communications facilities. The
backbone network consists of transmission and switching equipment and
facilities necessary to provide basic switching and transmission for
both circuit-switched and packet-switched applications. The backbone
network is built in a ring architecture with the capability for
alternate routing of critical traffic when a line fails. Every major
NASA center has two or more connections to the rest of the network.
Most long distance circuits are provided by FTS 2000, although other
long distance carriers provide a limited number of circuits.
Several upgrades to current systems are planned for fiscal year 1996.
These include capacity upgrades to common-user systems, secure access
to PSCN Internet routers, installation of Synchronous Optical Network
gateways to increase alternate access options, and replacement of an
outdated facsimile broadcast system.
Additionally, PSCN is piloting the use of ATM technology. The pilot
was established in August 1994 between the Marshall, Ames, Lewis and
Langley centers. The goals of the pilot are to study the feasibility
of using ATM as a potential replacement for the PSCN backbone in the
future.
PSCN's estimated budget in fiscal year 1995 was $53 million. PSCN
staffing in 1995 included 15 civil servants and 280 contract support
staff. Marshall's Program Information Systems Mission Services
contract with Computer Sciences Corporation supports the design,
installation, and maintenance of network services.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
COMMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
=========================================================== Appendix I
The following are GAO's comments on NASA's letter dated March 13,
1996.
GAO COMMENTS
1. Discussed in "Agency Comments and Our Evaluation" section of the
report.
2. Enclosure not reprinted. Additional changes were incorporated
into the last paragraph of AEROnet section of appendix I.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III
ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
John de Ferrari, Assistant Director
Keith Rhodes, Technical Assistant Director
Elizabeth Johnston, Evaluator-in-Charge
Cristina Chaplain, Communications Analyst
DENVER FIELD OFFICE
Jamelyn A. Smith, Senior Information Systems Analyst
ATLANTA FIELD OFFICE
Reginia S. Grider, Evaluator
*** End of document. ***
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
