Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

NASA Orders 10 SLS Rockets; Return to the Moon Likely Delayed to 2028

posted by janrinok on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the to-the-sea-and-beyond dept.

takyon writes:

Guess what's on the receiving end of more NASA dollars for SLS?

Hint: It rhymes with 'throwing' as lawmakers baulk at lobbing an unknown amount of cash into the 2024 lunar bonfire[.]

NASA brought a smile to faces of Boeing shareholders this week with the announcement that it would be ordering 10 Space Launch System (SLS) core stages from the US aviation giant for Artemis rocket launches to the Moon. Although paying for the things could be tricky.

[...]It is expected that the next batch of rocket core stages will not suffer the same hideous cost overruns and horrendously drawn-out birthing process of the first build, which might finally fly in 2021 after years of delay.

While more ex-Shuttle RS-25 engines will be needed for dumping into the ocean after the non-reusable SLS is expended, NASA also wants Boeing to finally get on with building the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) to be used from Artemis IV. The EUS is essential to send heftier payloads of the order of 45 tons into lunar orbit.

The comparatively weedy Interim Cryogenic Propulsion stage will be used on the first three Artemis missions in NASA's headlong rush to get those boots on the surface to meet US President Donald Trump's 2024 deadline.

And that arbitrary 2024 date is causing some furrowed brows. At a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee's Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee into NASA's proposal to bring the Moon landing forward from 2028, US lawmakers hauled the agency over the coals as the price tag for all the lunar japery remained unclear.

See also: A House budget committee has likely killed the 2024 Moon landing
NASA will award Boeing a cost-plus contract for up to 10 SLS rockets
Rocket Report: The Falcon 9 goes for four, Boeing's big cost-plus deal

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
NASA Orders 10 SLS Rockets; Return to the Moon Likely Delayed to 2028 | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 30 comments | Search Discussion
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: 2) by qzm on Tuesday October 22 2019, @08:07PM (4 children)

    by qzm (3260) on Tuesday October 22 2019, @08:07PM (#910525)

    And what exact part of what you posted is supposed to show that NASA dont want SLS?

    As I clearly stated, NASA have pushed FOR SLS constantly, by painting it as an essential way to avoid risk in relying only on commercial suppliers, as well as having a very large amount of oversight, design involvement, etc in the project itself.

    All you have done is pointed out that the actual funding is controlled by congress - congratulations on stating the obvious.

    Show me statement from NASA saying 'We dont want SLS' or even 'We think SLS is not the best path'....

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:02PM (3 children)

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:02PM (#910794) Journal

    Here’s why NASA’s administrator made such a bold move Wednesday [arstechnica.com]

    In a remarkable turnaround, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine on Wednesday said the space agency [arstechnica.com] would consider launching its first Orion mission to the Moon on commercial rockets instead of NASA's own Space Launch System. This caught virtually the entire aerospace world off guard, and represents a bold change from the status quo of Orion as America's spacecraft, and the SLS as America's powerful rocket that will launch it.

    [...] "SLS is struggling to meet its schedule," Bridenstine replied to Wicker's question. "We are now understanding better how difficult this project is, and it’s going to take some additional time. I want to be really clear. I think we as an agency need to stick to our commitment. If we tell you, and others, that we’re going to launch in June of 2020 around the Moon, I think we should launch around the Moon in June of 2020. And I think it can be done. We should consider, as an agency, all options to accomplish that objective."

    The only other option at this point is using two large, privately developed heavy lift rockets instead of a single SLS booster. While they are not as powerful as the SLS rocket, these commercial launch vehicles could allow for the mission to happen on schedule.

    [...] Why has SLS been controversial?

    The short answer is that the rocket was largely conceived in the U.S. Senate, so much so that it is derisively been called the "Senate Launch System." The rocket has had an enormous budget (more than $12 billion and counting) and yet it has experienced ongoing delays. And it uses old technology—a similar approach that Apollo used to reach the Moon, with a large, expendable rocket that is neither cost-effective nor sustainable. In fact, the rocket uses surplus Space Shuttle main engines [wikipedia.org], which were designed to be reusable, but which with SLS will be thrown away after each launch.

    Additionally, by funding NASA to develop the SLS rocket, Congress prevented the agency from working on forward-looking technology like in-orbit refueling, propellant depots, space tugs, and other bits that would open up opportunities for a more economical space transportation system, and allow for the use of smaller, reusable rockets like those SpaceX has developed. (The longer story on that can be read here [arstechnica.com].)

    Why did Bridenstine do this?

    This was a bold move for a NASA administrator. If this mission happens, and if it is successful, it opens a pathway for commercial rockets to safely send humans to the Moon. In pro forma remarks, Bridenstine said the agency's preference remains using the Space Launch System for Orion crew missions, but it is hard to see the much more costly SLS used in the future if existing commercial launchers can do the same tasks. This means that NASA could carry out its entire lunar program over the next decade or two with commercial rockets that either exist now or will exist in the near future, such as Blue Origin's New Glenn vehicle. Finally, it also opens the door to starting on those cost-saving technologies blocked by SLS, such as low-Earth orbit fueling and multiple-launch missions with smaller rockets.

    For this reason, it's really rather remarkable to propose such a concept in the Senate, when there has been such deep institutional support for the SLS rocket for nearly a decade. This was Bridenstine's moment. He made his statement at the witness table Wednesday, without notes, speaking clearly. He has said all along that he wants to lead NASA and help the agency [arstechnica.com] get back to the Moon faster. On Wednesday, he seized the chance to act.

    Multiple sources have told Ars that Vice President Mike Pence, who oversees U.S. spaceflight policy, backs this approach. Pence grown tired of the SLS delays, and wants to see NASA getting on with a lunar program. A launch in 2020 would come before the end of President Trump's first term, and would signify that the administration's talk of a human lunar return is not just rhetoric. It would show that the White House is serious about this.

    President Obama was no great champion for the SLS rocket either—his administration agreed to fund it in return for support for the Boeing and SpaceX commercial crew capsules that will soon carry astronauts to the International Space Station. Since its inception in 2011, the SLS program has therefore found its greatest support in the U.S. Senate, particularly from Alabama's Richard Shelby, who now chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee. The Marshall Space Flight Center, which manages the SLS program for NASA, is located in Alabama.

    How I learned to stop worrying and love the big $60B NASA rocket [arstechnica.com]

    Criticism of SLS is easy to understand. Born amid a conflagration of politics in 2010 and 2011, the rocket was designed to mollify space shuttle contractors and preserve jobs in key states. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch made sure the new rocket used solid boosters, manufactured in his state. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby insisted that Marshall Space Flight Center design and test the rocket. Florida Senator Bill Nelson brought home billions of dollars to Kennedy Space Center to “modernize” its launch facilities.

    [...] The criticism of SLS as a political rocket was true then and remains true now. It has cost billions to develop, and it will cost billions to fly. But here we are. When one visits Michoud today, there are no PowerPoint presentations. Instead there is hardware, lots of it, including flight hardware that will fly beyond the Moon within a couple of years. The politicians have won.

    [...] Today’s commercial rockets can’t match the heavy lift capability of the 70- or, eventually, 130-metric ton SLS rocket NASA is working on. However, commercial rockets can be flown at a fraction of the cost. And had Congress allowed NASA to invest its resources elsewhere, the space agency could have built an exploration strategy around smaller launchers by focusing on what Aldrin called “things we do not know how to do.” These necessary technologies include in-space storage of propellant, the transfer of propellants between spacecraft, and the mining of propellant from the surface of the Moon.

    [...] “I really see this as the big, gigantic elephant in the room,” one NASA astronaut told Ars. “Are we going to use conventional or nuclear propulsion to get to Mars? My gut tells me that nuclear is the only way to go, otherwise the number of SLS launches is just too many, and the health risks too high.”

    [...] Setting aside that neither presidential candidate seems to have much interest in space policy, we can entertain the idea that a President Clinton or President Trump might suddenly want to cancel the rocket program. Obama tried that in 2010 with Constellation, NASA’s program of record to build a large rocket and space capsule. Congress stopped him then and, if anything, the House and Senate are more united now in this aim. Outside of Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican House member from California, it is difficult to find a US representative or senator who will say SLS or Orion should be cut (I've tried). After asking about space policy in 2017 and prospects for SLS and Orion, one plugged-in staffer told me recently, “Congress is going to be very much on guard so that we don’t have a Constellation 2.0 situation.”

    Facing such an uphill fight, it is difficult (although not impossible) to imagine a new president blowing so many political chits on making such a dramatic change to NASA’s baseline policy.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:36PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23 2019, @02:36PM (#910802)

      Wow, why not submit this as a main page article? This is a really big deal. Boeing is one of the most well connected companies in existence. Bridenstine saying what every single person familiar with this situation is thinking, is huge. We've been playing a game of the 'The Emperor's New Clothes' for going on a decade with the SLS and Boeing in general. Boeing's now going to put 100% of their political capital into getting him removed, and watching how this plays out is going to be very interesting.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 23 2019, @03:25PM (1 child)

        by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday October 23 2019, @03:25PM (#910821) Journal

        After the Falcon Heavy Launch, Time to Defund the Space Launch System? [soylentnews.org]
        President Trump Praises Falcon Heavy, Diminishes NASA's SLS Effort [soylentnews.org]
        NASA Administrator Ponders the Fate of SLS in Interview [soylentnews.org]
        White House Budget Request Would Move Launches from SLS to Commercial Providers [soylentnews.org]
        NASA Chief Says a Falcon Heavy Rocket Could Fly Humans to the Moon [soylentnews.org]
        The SLS Rocket May Have Curbed Development of On-Orbit Refueling for a Decade [soylentnews.org]

        I don't know if that exact article from March had been subbed, but we've pretty much covered all of it at one time or another.

        I like to focus on Starship now because if SpaceX keeps on developing it at their current pace, and SLS gets delayed by another year or so (not unlikely), then Starship could pose an existential risk to SLS. Without Starship, there is nothing that can trade blows with SLS, except maybe Blue Origin's New Glenn. But that's further out. Falcon Heavy is a better choice, with separate crew and cargo launches making more sense, but it can't shame SLS on every aspect like Starship will.

        Musk and his supporters can and will trash SLS when the time is right, but having a superior rocket ready to fly makes all the difference. NASA only recently acknowledged the existence of Starship by partnering on in-orbit refueling [arstechnica.com] and studying it as a launcher for LUVOIR [teslarati.com]. Then more recently, Bridenstine and Musk traded barbs [futurism.com] over the Starship presentation, and then they made up (as far as is possible) with a visit to SpaceX HQ [nytimes.com].

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24 2019, @04:25AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24 2019, @04:25AM (#911113)

          Wow that's embarrassing. I like to imagine I follow these events reasonably closely, but I completely missed this announcement from Bridenstine. I'd assumed when you stated Wednesday that you meant literally yesterday, and did not even bother to check the date on the article. Especially with things like the IAC going on right now, the timing for such an announcement was perfectly reasonable. Though I would say here that the Falcon Heavy does already dominate the SLS. The payload capacity is about 75% that of the SLS to LEO, but you're looking at about 20% of the price. And that's assuming Boeing keeps to their goal of half a billion dollars per launch for the SLS, which it's almost certain that they won't.

          Of course Starship will dwarf them both by every possible metric, but there's already no real justification for the SLS - especially when it continues to drain billions of dollars. And as things such as this article emphasize, we continue to just throw money at them while letting SpaceX work entirely unaided. It's quite irrational and certainly unfair. But such is the nature of a productive company competing against the military industrial complex's equivalent of a trust fund baby.