SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
NASA has begun a study of the SLS rocket's affordability [Updated]:
Original story: NASA is conducting an internal review of the Space Launch System rocket's affordability, two sources have told Ars Technica.
Concerned by the program's outsized costs, the NASA transition team appointed by President Joe Biden initiated the study. The analysis is being led by Paul McConnaughey, a former deputy center director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, as well as its chief engineer.
The SLS rocket program has been managed by Marshall for more than a decade. Critics have derided it as a "jobs program" intended to retain employees at key centers, such as Alabama-based Marshall, as well as those at primary contractors such as Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Aerojet Rocketdyne. Such criticism has been bolstered by frequent schedule delays—the SLS was originally due to launch in 2016, and the rocket will now launch no sooner than 2022—as well as cost overruns.
For now, costs seem to be the driving factor behind the White House's concerns. With a maximum cadence of one launch per year, the SLS rocket is expected to cost more than $2 billion per flight, and that is on top of the $20 billion NASA has already spent developing the vehicle and its ground systems. Some of the incoming officials do not believe the Artemis Moon Program is sustainable with such launch costs.
Update: After this story was published, NASA released the following statement at 11pm ET on Monday regarding the internal study:
NASA is conducting an internal study of the timing and sequence of lunar missions with available resources, and with the guidance that SLS and Orion will be providing crew transportation to the Gateway. The backbone for NASA's Moon to Mars plans are the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, ground systems at Kennedy Space Center, Gateway in lunar orbit and human landing system. We currently are alsoassessing various elements of our programs to find efficiencies and opportunities to reduce costs, and this exercise is ongoing. This will include conversations with our industry partners. Budget forecasts and internal agency reviews are common practice as they help us with long-term planning. The agency anticipates taking full advantage of the powerful SLS capabilities, and this effort will improve the current construct associated with executing the development, production and operations of the NASA's Artemis missions.
(Score: 2) by Frosty Piss on Monday March 22 2021, @04:51AM (15 children)
If we go by past behavior of NASA, having already spent *metric butt-loads* on this whole project, it’s time to cancel it. Is Google running the show?
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday March 22 2021, @05:17AM (8 children)
Yup, par for the course for NASA, although they usually cancel and move on to the next shiny thing a lot quicker, or at least with less money spent, than they have with the SLS. They should really revert to their previous acronym NACA, the National Association of Cancelled Astroprojects.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Monday March 22 2021, @12:51PM (4 children)
It's par for the course for a new administration.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Monday March 22 2021, @01:53PM (3 children)
Right, blame the new administration that's been focused on other things, while giving a pass to the previous two who did jack all through their times in office? Heck, Trump gave it a huge shot in the arm with his pushing to try to put boots on the moon fast enough to make him look good.
Besides, it's not the administration that controls the purse strings, it's Congress. And they have consistently insisted that SLS continue its pork-flow, and made it quite clear that there was no way they'd approve any NASA administrator that wasn't fully on board with the program.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Monday March 22 2021, @02:06PM
I'm not blaming the administration. I'm not even saying that it's the wrong choice. I'm pointing out that it has become the nearly inevitable consequence of a transition of administration. Which is exactly what's happening here, as per the quote from the story:
The post I replied to seemed to imply that it's NASA acting on its own, which is what I was taking issue with:
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 22 2021, @03:51PM (1 child)
Agreed that he funneled money that way, but how focused was his leadership / mission statement of what to do with that money? How talented was his management staff executing the stable genius' vision?
Just throw shit at the wall and call what sticks art - there's always been a generous supply of cash to try try again with, and friendly bankruptcy courts to limit your losses when it falls and hits the fan.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 22 2021, @07:20PM
Trump put Jim Bridenstine in charge of NASA and then gave him free reign. Jim was only the best director NASA had since Apollo and was a major advocate for cutting pork and diverting the money to doing actual science even before he became director. His chief opponents in Congress were Shelby and Nelson, who have repeatedly diverted NASA's budget to feed their SLS program. Biden asked for Jim's resignation as soon as he was inaugurated and has now nominated Nelson as his replacement. This cost reduction study was the last thing Jim left on his desk on his way out, and it seems that it is already been watered down.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday March 22 2021, @01:45PM (1 child)
It's not up to NASA though. They can make recommendations, but Congress is the one calling the shots here, and SLS was politically designed to be an uncancelable pork project after the previous system was cancelled partway through. Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly) it seems the contractors took that to heart, and have been milking it for all the bacon they can get without delivering a damned thing.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 22 2021, @04:59PM
To do otherwise would be to fail to serve their shareholders' one and only interest: maximize ROI.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday March 22 2021, @03:31PM
Not for this kind of "metric-butt-load" of spending. The previous like project was the Space Shuttle, which spent an impressive amount of money per launch. It would have been nice, if they'd went full-in on Commercial Space as soon as it was viable. Then again, who knows what that would have looked like. SpaceX might have been squeezed out for those kinds of $$$$ cost plus dollars.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1) by Fuck You Niggers 3 on Monday March 22 2021, @06:02AM
It's called cutting your losses before spending another $20+ billion.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 22 2021, @06:37AM (2 children)
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Monday March 22 2021, @02:15PM (1 child)
I did not realize that they were now giving names to the solid rocket boosters.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 22 2021, @10:43PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by Socrastotle on Monday March 22 2021, @02:08PM
You're not considering one issue. If the SLS ever flies, it will almost certainly be obsolete on day 0. Here [everydayastronaut.com] is an infographic of the specs for SLS/Falcon Heavy/Saturn V/Starship. Falcon Heavy, which is already flying, is competitive with it. Starship, which is already at least getting off the ground unlike the SLS, will dwarf it in both capability and cost. Erm, dwarfs it in the happy way in terms of cost.
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Monday March 22 2021, @03:51PM
But first they have to spend money on the internal study. I wonder how much that will cost, and how much it will further delay the project while we await the (foregone) conclusion.