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: 4, Interesting) by dltaylor on Monday March 22 2021, @09:07AM (1 child)
The US Navy likely has about as many submarines as it really needs, but we need to one or two in the production pipeline(s) so we have enough skilled labor around to know HOW to build one, not just from CAE "drawings" but from real hands-on experience. CAE has come a long way in providing tools to determine what pieces go where, and how to fit large bits like reactor containment vessels and steam turbines, as well as how to get them into the hull in the right place, at different stages of assembly, but things like coatings are harder to handle that way. Look at what's happening with the B-2 fleet as another example.
How many people are maintaining FORTRAN or COBOL programs older than they are, and how many have scratched their heads at "why did they do it THAT way", only to find out a couple of months later that the answer is "because THAT way this, this, and this all work better". I remember using more than a few "special methods" to fit programs into resource-constrained environments (a spacecraft can't (yet) call Amazon for a few GB more RAM to patch, expand, or re-purpose a system in flight).
NASA pioneered a lot of stuff, and private industry has rightfully, if not gratefully, picked up that knowledge and run with it. This is what was supposed to happen. If that process is going to continue, there need to be people on hand to provide a similar information base.
This review is described as intended to determine if the SLS really is adding anything to, or preserving, the knowledge base, or whether the resources might be better spent elsewhere, such as reducing pressure waves (sonic booms) from supersonic and hypersonic aircraft.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday March 22 2021, @02:33PM
That argument works for nuclear submarines.
I don't think it works for the SLS. My intuition is based on observing how well private industry is now building rockets compared to Boeing's Cost Plus contracting on SLS. And the political motivations behind SLS vs the commercial motivations of private industry.
Rockets are beginning to look more like building airplanes or automobiles.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.