NASA OIG is Not Pleased With ZeroG

My understanding is Zero G is actually more expensive than the C-9 NASA plane and has resulted in an overall reduction of NASA supported education and research flights as a result - since the same amount of funding now supports fewer flights. That suprised me when I heard that through the rumor mill, but no data to confirm it..

Editor's note: But NASA (the government) had to buy the C-9, outfit it, etc. it was not free. Someone (you and I) paid for the plane. The plane's purchase costs never figure in what it takes NASA to operate it. NASA only leases ZeroG's plane on an as-needed basis. I wonder how much NASA would get if they sold the C-9? I'd be willing to bet that there'd be a lot of money left over after they paid ZeroG's invoices - perhaps enough to pay for more flights ...

The report *does* state that the NASA C-9 micro-gravity performance exceeded 90% acceptance when it flew, so that's pretty good.

It's not like ZeroG violated any of the terms of the contract, so I thought the report's bottom line is that NASA should negotiate a better contract next time.

Speaking of contractors, I've been watching video streams on youtube and it hasn't been a hassle, so I think it is time NASA got a new stream host

A few comments regarding the cost of the program.

First off, if NASA sold the C-9 the best they could get out of it is scrap unless a foreign carrier wanted to pay pennies on the dollar. Nobody would spend the money for the mods needed for that aircraft to meet FAA Airworthiness Certification requirements. If they sold the C-9 they'd lose even more money.

Secondly, NASA does not have to meet FAA regs, only their own more stringent safety standards that NASA applies to their entire fleet of specially modified aircraft. ZERO-G on the other hand must meet FAA requirements on all hardware permanently mounted to the airframe.

To add to the bureaucracy, ZERO-G pays a wet-lease for their 727, N794AJ to Amerijet International. To meet NASA requirements, ZERO-G must compromise and find a middle ground that modifies Amerijet's maintenance and tool control programs, compromises that cost time & money.

Same is true for the pilots, NASA has a small crew of highly experienced & trained pilots. ZERO-G's pilots are employed by Amerijet, most of whom went on strike in 2009. Because of this, Amerijet pilots have a high rotation and DO NOT GET SUFFICIENT TRAINING. ZERO-G cannot fly parabolic training missions on NASA priced Av-Gas, therefore training flights can only be had on more expensive market gas prices. Take a guess how many of those have happened!

ZERO-G pilot training flights only happen during ZERO-G's public customer paid flights. An educated eye looking at some YouTube videos from ZERO-G $5k public seats will quickly demonstrate the parabolic quality concerns brought up on the IG's report.

Lastly, nobody on either side of the fence ever claimed ZERO-G would be cheaper: only that NASA was obligated to purchase from an commercial provider per Executive & Legislative mandates.

"But NASA (the government) had to buy the C-9, outfit it, etc. it was not free. Someone (you and I) paid for the plane. The plane's purchase costs never figure in what it takes NASA to operate it"

And, correctly, they shouldn't figure into operations cost; operations cost and purchase cost are different things. The purchase cost has already been paid. Scrapping the C-9 would lower operations cost, but it wouldn't get you back money already paid.

If you play poker, you have to understand the rule: it doesn't matter what you put into the pot already, that's already gone.-- one dollar or a million dollars, it doesn't make any difference.

I second Matthew,

I agree with everything he said,

Plus, the ability and opportunity for a contracted zero g flight company to compete against a NASA owned/operated aircraft in regards to quality flights and data harvested from those flights is almost impossible to do.

Yeah, when Zero G takes up a load of paying tourist customers it's all fun and games--but when you are talking flying experiments and trying to take data--you're parabolas have to be spot on!

You only have 20-22 seconds of weightlessness to run your rig and even less if you have a free floating rig--and that is on an optimal maneuver.

Now, toss in all the little things can and will booger up your data, turbulence, flight profile, G-jitters, side slips, pilots skill, aircraft etc.

Just because you have an airplane with a crew and you can fly a parabolic arc doesn't mean they can automatically do what NASA has honed over the course of many years and many many flights.

Not everybody can fly a parabola--and certainly not without constant practice and I believe that a three engined aircraft is a bad choice in regards to quality and data.

Do I need to even speak about the trust and integrity that is involved while flying zero g?

Trust between the researchers, crew, pilots, mechanics--it is something that all goes unsaid but is a very important and appreciated element.

I have flown many zero-g flights and I for one will not even consider getting on board someone else's aircraft-especially when I do not personally know who's driving the bus.

This is one service that should have stayed and needs again to be an In-house service.

I think it's great that the public finally gets to experience zero-g and I continue to wish zero-g well.

Spiff Out.................

Matthew.

If NASA sold the C-9 they would recover (or someone would) a reasonable amount of cash from parting it out (far more then scrap). That is what happens to most of the old generation airplanes. Many parts on the 9 are for instance MD-80 capable.

One other point
"NASA does not have to meet FAA regs, only their own more stringent safety"

No public use airplane has to meet FAA regs (not even the FAA's) , since the sovereign is exempt and most of the FAA regs/certification issues are not compatible with the missions of these planes. However, the implication that NASA "standards" are more "stringent" then FAA regs is not correct. For instance the T-38's are maintained to USAF standards (although at a far higher cost then the USAF does it).

NASA maintains its civil fleet airplanes much along the same lines as commercial equivalents (ABCD checks) and most of the heavy checks are done "someplace else". There is little "unique" about the microgravity mission in terms of the airframe, the parameters are well within transport category limits, the airplanes will do them "stock". Some mods (to Boeings the hydraulic systems) are useful. It is always odd to see engine oil pressure go to zero but not a big deal!

As for the quality of the micro gee. I have 10 year old strips from KC 135, LeRC's LRJet, DC-9, and T-34, as well as some Chinese flights in the B-737 that they use (or used 10 years ago) for micro gee flight. Nothing I am seeing in the report is that far off from what is "nominal" for NASA airplanes.

The parabola does put a premium on pilot skill using the guidance that was used 10 years ago (I dont know what is in use now)...when I left interest in the effort both the Chinese and Europeans were moving toward GPS flight director guidance to define the parabola. That along with EFIS indications of trends should make it "easy".

Robert G. Oler

Robert,

Having worked in the trenches on both side of this fence, I am quite comfortable saying that WRT parabolic flight, NASA's safety standards are FAR, FAR more stringent than the FAA's. Moreover I have never met anyone---on either side of the fence---who ever suggested otherwise. And I'm not sure why you're bringing up public use because N794AJ is NOT a public use aircraft.

Your rebuttal of my use of the word 'scrap' is fine, but it doesn't address my point: selling the C9's parts (at a reduced rate w/o the airworthiness certs mind you) will not win Keith's bet that there would be "a lot of money left over after they paid ZeroG's invoices - perhaps enough to pay for more flights". Like I said, pennies on the dollar in comparison.

As for your decade old strip-charts, I'm sorry you had such inconsistent flights! Ken pointed out this statistic in the report: the KC-135 & C9 exceeded 90% parabola quality where the best ZERO-G got was 83%. Anecdotally, having flown countless public and private parabolas within THIS decade, I do agree with the bunches of researchers whom have also flown both NASA & ZERO-G parabolic flight: NASA flights are superior.

Additionally Robert, I don't know what kinds of planes you've piloted or worked on, but obviously you've never worked with the FAA or a DER on basic hydraulic systems as I have.

Engine oil pressure never goes to zero, and that's not even the issue. The NECESSARY mods to the Boeing hydraulic system is to keep air bubbles out of your hydraulic fluid that powers the aircraft's control surfaces. Same reason why you have to bleed the brakes of air bubbles after changing the fluid.

Maybe you're good enough to fly a 100 ton aircraft with spongy rudder & ailerons, but I'll watch you from the ground.

Matthew. this will be my last pass on this.

"(at a reduced rate w/o the airworthiness certs mind you) will not win Keith's bet that there would be "a lot of money left over after they paid ZeroG's invoices - perhaps enough to pay for more flights"

It would be about 1 million dollars if the engines are run out, more if they are not. C-9's are particularly "moveable" on the market. The lack of an airworthiness certificate is meaningless. I could get a ferry permit in oh 30 minutes from the local FSDO. It would be taken apart but if it could be sold overseas it would fetch more. I own a company that ferries planes to various redistribution (part out) centers sort of the final voyage so I know those numbers pretty well..

NASA "safety standards". The Russians require parachutes on their microgee as a safety standard. They are like most NASA "standards" useless. .. (or at least they did during my "decade of micro gee" I assume that they still do). Like most of NASA's "safety standards" they contribute almost nothing to safety. They are "just there". But that is the joy of public use airplanes they can be operated to any level that the agency wants to do so.

That doesnt change the technical parameters under which the airplanes are operated under and both operations are perfectly safe.

As for the quality of the microgee...well we can just disagree. My data is old (but I have a lot of it including some I flew!)...As one "drifts" away from the aircraft center of gravity that more or less contributes more then "pilot skill" unless the pilot is very very clumsy. That is one reason the 9 is better then the 727, the tri motor is longer (same with the KC).

I have no stake in Zero G. But there really is no reason NASA operates its own microgee airplanes, at least the 9. The cost are enormous. It is probably the most expensive C-9 operating today.

Robert G. Oler

Robert Oler says that the resale value of the NASA C-9 would be "about 1 million dollars," or a little more if the engines are good.

According to this web site: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/jan/HQ_C0801_Zero_G_contract.html the NASA contract with ZeroG was for five million dollars per year.

So, the sale of the NASA C-9 would pay for about 2 and a half months of parabolic flights from ZeroG. Possibly a little more if the engines are good.

Editor's note: I'd like to get a few more opinions on that resale value. Also, I am certain that the government originally paid a lot more for that aircraft and to outfit it. The government never factors those sunk costs into how they rate the cost of flights. Nor do they every fully cost out what it take to fly their own jet in terms of salaries, infrastructure, etc.

Geoffrey (and KC)

the resale value that I quoted assumed that the engines have not been "stage III" (which when NASA got the plane I know that they were not guess the next time it comes over my house I will look closer!). If the engines have been hush kitted then the numbers would go up. 1 million is the baseline for a plane that is flyable to the junkyard which is where the conversation was.

But there are more cost associated with the plane then just the plane. NASA "NA" airplanes are about the most expensive to operate in The country the ones at JSC the most expensive of the lot. Somehow the T-38's NASA flies cost several a lot more then the USAF's do per hour. The first T-38 that had its cockpit upgraded (did they do more?) cost more to do then an entire USAF squadron T-38 upgrade.

I have no doubt that if the true cost of the airplane were known, the ZeroG option is far cheaper..

Robert G. Oler

As someone who has flown on the ZeroG corp aircraft with a NASA educational program and has talked to many previous participants with experience on other planes, I know that if NASA were still using its own aircraft, it would fly at least 4 times as many student researchers who would experience higher quality microgravity. I can only imagine that other science research has been similarly reduced because of this contract. Why was this contract even initialized? Because of Bush Administration zealousness about the supposed merits of privatization?

Not at all surprised by this.
If you watch the videos from zero-g corp, the people don't move, then they hit the ceiling, then they bounce off the floor, then they all float to the front of the plane, then to the back. Then watch the older nasa vids. Smooth.
When zerog started the hope was that makers of TV shows, movies, commercials, music videos, etc. would line up to utilize them. This has not worked out partly because of the price, partly because it's easier to do thing like that with CG or special effects, and partly because the this inconsistency. You have close to 20 seconds at a time - very difficult to piece together an extended scene using 20 second segments where people are all over the place.

Hi All,

For reference here is the information on the C-9B that NASA uses for its in-house reduced gravity flights.

http://jsc-aircraft-ops.jsc.nasa.gov/Reduced_Gravity/C_9B_history.html

Note all that the craft, a former Navy jet, is used for other missions then reduced gravity.

[[[The aircraft is also utilized for Heavy Aircraft Training (HAT) for astronaut pilots, support the movement of the shuttle from landing sites in California and New Mexico back to Kennedy Space Center, Trans-Atlantic Landing support and the Emergency Mission Control Move mission.]]]

A factor to consider when allocating costs for it.