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: 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?