Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday October 11 2018, @01:32PM   Printer-friendly
from the missive-on-mismanaged-missiles dept.

There's a New Report on Space Launch System (SLS) Rocket Management, and It's Pretty Brutal:

Boeing has been building the core stage of NASA's Space Launch System rocket for the better part of this decade, and the process has not always gone smoothly, with significant overruns and multiyear delays. A new report from NASA's inspector general makes clear just how badly the development process has gone, laying the blame mostly at the feet of Boeing.

"We found Boeing's poor performance is the main reason for the significant cost increases and schedule delays to developing the SLS core stage," the report, signed by NASA Inspector General Paul Martin, states. "Specifically, the project's cost and schedule issues stem primarily from management, technical, and infrastructure issues directly related to Boeing's performance."

As of August 2018, the report says, NASA has spent a total of $11.9 billion on the SLS. Even so, the rocket's critical core stage will be delivered more than three years later than initially planned—at double the anticipated cost. Overall, there are a number of top-line findings in this report, which cast a mostly if not completely negative light on Boeing and, to a lesser extent, NASA and its most expensive spaceflight project.

Schedule slips

The report found that NASA will need to spend an additional $1.2 billion, on top of its existing $6.2 billion contract for the core stages of the first two SLS rockets, to reach a maiden launch date of June 2020. NASA originally planned to launch the SLS rocket on its maiden flight in November 2017.

However, given all of the development problems that the SLS rocket has seen, the report does not believe a mid-2020 date is likely either. "In light of the project's development delays, we have concluded NASA will be unable to meet its EM-1 launch window currently scheduled between December 2019 and June 2020," the report states.

There are other troubling hints about schedule in this new report, too. One concerns facilities at Stennis Space Center in Southern Mississippi, where NASA will conduct a "green run" test of the core stage of the SLS rocket. This is a critical test that will involve a full-scale firing of the rocket's core stage—four main engines along with liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel tanks—for a simulated launch and ascent into space.

The report found that Boeing's development of "command and control" hardware and software needed to conduct this test is already 18 months behind a schedule established in 2016. This means the Stennis facility won't be ready to accommodate a green run test until at least May 2019, with further delays possible.

This is critical, because often the most serious engineering problems are uncovered during the phase when key rocket components are integrated and tested. The delay in green-run testing means that any problems that crop up during that phase of development will only push the maiden launch of the SLS further into the future.

[...] SpaceX developed the not-quite-as-large-or-complex Falcon Heavy rocket for $500 million.

According to Wikipedia, Launch Prices for the Falcon Heavy (FH) range up to $150 million. Let's assume a very generous extra $100 million per flight for related launch services. That means the $11.9 billion spent so far to develop a disposable SLS could have paid for both the development of the reusable Falcon Heavy, and for 45 flights, with $400 million left over.

Admittedly, the FH cannot lift quite as much as the SLS (63 metric tons to Low Earth Orbit vs 95), but SpaceX's reusable BFR is currently slated to have a 100 metric ton payload to LEO capability.

So, I have to ask: What can the SLS accomplish that one or more FH/BFR launches cannot?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:33PM (21 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:33PM (#747662) Journal

    You will find zero bidders at fixed price for anything even vaguely new. A contractor would have to be out of their mind to take such a deal unless the fixed price was an order of magnitude above the expected actual cost and the contract penalized the government heavily for any delays whatsoever where the ball was in their court.

    By the same token, cost plus needs to share the burden when deadlines slip and carry significant penalties when avoidable delays aren't avoided.

    As others have pointed out, you won't find those controls since the real purpose is pork for the legislature's buddies. That and yet another scheme to provide stimulus by injecting cash at the top designed to keep people from asking awkward questions about why we don't try injecting the stimulus at the bottom for a change.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 12 2018, @09:41PM (20 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 12 2018, @09:41PM (#748059) Journal

    You will find zero bidders at fixed price for anything even vaguely new.

    Not even remotely true. Cutting edge architecture does fixed contract all the time.

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday October 13 2018, @12:25AM (19 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Saturday October 13 2018, @12:25AM (#748129) Journal

      I'm sure NASA will keep that in mind if they need a spiral staircase or something.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 13 2018, @03:24AM (18 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 13 2018, @03:24AM (#748159) Journal
        Point is that fixed price works even for the stuff NASA does. The private sector does this all the time.
        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday October 13 2018, @02:16PM (17 children)

          by sjames (2882) on Saturday October 13 2018, @02:16PM (#748301) Journal

          NASA uses firm/fixed for non-development projects because it works there. That's where the private sector uses them as well.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 13 2018, @05:49PM (16 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 13 2018, @05:49PM (#748353) Journal

            NASA uses firm/fixed for non-development projects because it works there. That's where the private sector uses them as well.

            No, the private sector uses that everywhere including development work. Plus, you'd have a point, if you could actually point to cost plus having a successful record. Instead, NASA's record with this sort of contract is one of the most remarkable failures of modern times. For example, they've put hundreds of billions into launch technologies and all they have to show for it is a development program costing somewhere around $20 billion, which duplicates existing launch infrastructure at about an order of magnitude greater cost.

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday October 13 2018, @07:26PM (15 children)

              by sjames (2882) on Saturday October 13 2018, @07:26PM (#748375) Journal

              So, you mean other than the Apollo program and the Space Shuttle.

              In the private sector, there is a variant. In that one, the contract is fixed/firm on it's face but inevitably as it nears completion, some change becomes necessary so the contract is successively amended until it becomes fixed in name only. That or the project gets abandoned. You haven't done any development contracts, have you?

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 14 2018, @04:41PM (14 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 14 2018, @04:41PM (#748653) Journal

                So, you mean other than the Apollo program and the Space Shuttle.

                You're making my point for me. You won't find those or anything like them outside of a museum.

                In the private sector, there is a variant. In that one, the contract is fixed/firm on it's face but inevitably as it nears completion, some change becomes necessary so the contract is successively amended until it becomes fixed in name only. That or the project gets abandoned.

                That's still not cost plus. The US government has had 50+ years to show it works. They've failed.

                You haven't done any development contracts, have you?

                Yes, I've been on such projects. They didn't need cost plus to get the job done and wouldn't have gotten a cost plus contract, if they had tried for one.

                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 14 2018, @09:35PM (13 children)

                  by sjames (2882) on Sunday October 14 2018, @09:35PM (#748723) Journal

                  You're making my point for me. You won't find those or anything like them outside of a museum.

                  So your point is that when NASA needed to use cost plus, they dis and it worked? What doesn't work is when a fickle Congress keeps jacking the budget around forcing re-designs and multi year slowdowns.

                  Yes, I've been on such projects.

                  Read what I wrote again. They get awarded as fixed and then get amended repeatedly until they are effectively cost plus even while remaining written as fixed. Those change orders do pile up.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @09:59AM (12 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 15 2018, @09:59AM (#748932) Journal

                    So your point is that when NASA needed to use cost plus, they dis and it worked?

                    They didn't need to use cost plus. And it didn't work. We don't use those platforms anymore and we have no replacement that uses the technology from those replacements.

                    Read what I wrote again. They get awarded as fixed and then get amended repeatedly until they are effectively cost plus even while remaining written as fixed. Those change orders do pile up.

                    No. You don't get the point. Sure, such contracts are amended on a regular basis in the private world. That is not cost plus because the original party gets to decide whether to continue the contract in such situations. Failure is not baked in. They can always decide that the costs of the changes are too much and cancel the contract or grant it to someone else. That provides incentive for the contractor to do better work from start to finish.

                    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @02:59PM (11 children)

                      by sjames (2882) on Monday October 15 2018, @02:59PM (#749072) Journal

                      So you're saying we never reached the moon and the space shuttle never flew? Because otherwise, the objectives were accomplished. Or are you claiming the problem with cost plus is that they stop when the objectibe is met (that would be a bizarre complaint.

                      That is not cost plus because the original party gets to decide whether to continue the contract in such situations

                      So exactly like cost plus, only more lucrative for the lawyers.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @07:52PM (3 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 15 2018, @07:52PM (#749199) Journal

                        So you're saying we never reached the moon and the space shuttle never flew?

                        Of course not. But if you had read my post, you would have figured that out.

                        Because otherwise, the objectives were accomplished.

                        Sure two objectives (and many more) were accomplished. But as a result of that claim, you have a big unanswered question to answer, why do you think those objectives were worth well over a $100 billion each in today's dollars? Was it worth that money to have a few Cold War talking points? Was it worth that money to get about 800 pounds of lunar rock and a moderate, but useful amount of science from it? Was it to provide a jobs program for some of the most employable people on Earth? Was it to inspire a bunch of people and then leave them in the lurch for the next few decades?

                        Or was it rather to shape the future for the better? Here is where I believe these two programs failed. First, they failed on technical grounds. None of the technology of the Apollo program survived the end of the program aside from Skylab. So its claim to fame on that front is as a technology demonstrator - we can put people on the Moon, we can launch space stations, we can launch many unmanned spacecraft in quick order towards a common space exploration goal. Only the middle one was ever followed up on with the launch of the International Space Station (ISS) almost two decades later.

                        Similarly, the Space Shuttle was a dead end technology-wise. Look at how much is being wasted merely to get a rocket that reuses Space Shuttle parts. None of the traditional Shuttle capabilities such as reusability, unparalleled in-flight capabilities (most which was at best, used on token missions like ISS servicing or Hubble-repair). Again, the Space Shuttle's best claim to fame technology-wise is as a demonstration of reusability, which it had successfully accomplished in the early 1980s. SpaceX has interesting reuse capabilities, but these weren't inspired by the Space Shuttle.

                        Glancing at the fluffier, more intangible side, a generation was inspired to some degree by these projects which again seems rather slight given the cost of these projects. What inspiration has NASA provided since?

                        Finally, I think a key point is that such activities were supposed to presage a more serious effort, more manned activities on the Moon and in space, widespread exploration of the Solar System - unmanned and manned, etc. In other words, the fundamental point of going to the Moon was to prepare down the road for staying there and making the Moon another home for man. Similarly, the point of the Shuttle was to develop a cheap, heavy-duty means of going to space. Instead, we got forty years of token efforts.

                        With that last point, we get to the dark side, the Mr. Hyde part of NASA - the enormous opportunity costs of building white elephants rather than making smaller but more productive projects, here and off Earth.

                        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @08:42PM (2 children)

                          by sjames (2882) on Monday October 15 2018, @08:42PM (#749214) Journal

                          Worth the cost is another question entirely (kindly put the goalpost back where you found it).

                          The problem with the Shuttle is that Congress filled it's cargo bay with pork and kitchen sinks before the design phase was even complete.

                          Still, we got a lot of technology development started, possibly even enough to make the programs worth it. I'm not making a firm statement on that since even beginning to compile the data is well beyond what a discussion on Soylent is worth.

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @11:59PM

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 15 2018, @11:59PM (#749298) Journal

                            Worth the cost is another question entirely

                            No, it's not. The high cost for meager accomplishments is another indication of failure. You can't treat the value of the project as completely separate from its costs.

                            The problem with the Shuttle is that Congress filled it's cargo bay with pork and kitchen sinks before the design phase was even complete.

                            So what? Does that mean it somehow failed less as a space project?

                            Still, we got a lot of technology development started, possibly even enough to make the programs worth it. I'm not making a firm statement on that since even beginning to compile the data is well beyond what a discussion on Soylent is worth.

                            The obvious rebuttal is what are we doing with that technology development? Where's the manned lunar missions? Where's the next generation of the Space Shuttle?

                            And if you really did "compile the data" rather than merely talk about it, you'd have to conclude that these programs are failures on multiple levels. I'll note three starting places already - money spent for value gained, opportunity cost (what the money could have been spent on, even the same project if it had been done with an eye to cost effectiveness!), and what Apollo and Space Shuttle technology have evolved to now (hint: the SLS morass).

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:04AM

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:04AM (#749302) Journal

                            Worth the cost is another question entirely (kindly put the goalpost back where you found it).

                            As to the "moving the goalposts" accusation, cost was part of my argument from earlier when I spoke of NASA's poor record with these contracts.

                            Plus, you'd have a point, if you could actually point to cost plus having a successful record. Instead, NASA's record with this sort of contract is one of the most remarkable failures of modern times. For example, they've put hundreds of billions into launch technologies and all they have to show for it is a development program costing somewhere around $20 billion, which duplicates existing launch infrastructure at about an order of magnitude greater cost.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @08:01PM (6 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 15 2018, @08:01PM (#749203) Journal

                        So exactly like cost plus

                        I already explained why that's not the case.

                        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @08:31PM (5 children)

                          by sjames (2882) on Monday October 15 2018, @08:31PM (#749211) Journal

                          And I refuted it point by point. All that's left is "it's not because you say it's not'.

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @09:37PM (4 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 15 2018, @09:37PM (#749235) Journal

                            And I refuted it point by point.

                            Where? It's tiresome to go through this. Here's the definition of cost plus [investopedia.com]:

                            A cost-plus contract is an agreement typically used in the construction industry by a client to reimburse a company for building expenses stated in a contract, plus a dollar amount of profit over and above expenses, usually stated as a percentage of the contract’s full price. To protect against cost overruns, many contracts state the reimbursement cannot exceed a specific dollar amount. The cost-plus contract pays the builder for direct costs and indirect, or overhead, costs. All expenses must be supported by documentation of the contractor’s spending.

                            Meanwhile here's a definition of fixed-price [wikipedia.org]:

                            A fixed-price contract is a type of contract where the payment amount does not depend on resources used or time expended. This is opposed to a cost-plus contract, which is intended to cover the costs with additional profit made. Such a scheme is often used by military and government contractors to put the risk on the side of the vendor, and control costs. However, historically when such contracts are used for innovative new projects with untested or undeveloped technologies, such as new military transports or stealth attack planes, it can and often results in a failure if costs greatly exceed the ability of the contractor to absorb unforeseen cost overruns.

                            There are several differences between the two. First, fixed-price is regardless of the actual cost of the contract to the contractor. Second, cost plus attempts to keep track of the costs actually incurred by the contractor. So there is this massive level of overhead that is not present with fixed-price. And of course, there's the third point that in a cost plus contract, the contractor has incentive to play up the costs to absorb what the contract will allow, while fixed-price doesn't have this perverse incentive built in.

                            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @09:47PM (3 children)

                              by sjames (2882) on Monday October 15 2018, @09:47PM (#749238) Journal

                              I'm just going to refer you back to the top of the thread. I'm not going to manually recurse just because you can't be bothered to keep up.

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:01AM (2 children)

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:01AM (#749300) Journal
                                Very well, I'll refer you to my reply [soylentnews.org] which you have yet to address.
                                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:08AM (1 child)

                                  by sjames (2882) on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:08AM (#749306) Journal

                                  Look down about 1 inch (assuming an average sized monitor. This isn't architecture, it's rocket science.

                                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:22AM

                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:22AM (#749411) Journal

                                    Look down about 1 inch (assuming an average sized monitor. This isn't architecture, it's rocket science.

                                    It's rocket engineering not science. And architecture is not that different, which is why I mentioned it. You do realize that analogies don't need to be absolutely 100% perfect in order to be accurate, right?