Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday March 22 2021, @04:48AM   Printer-friendly

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.


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, Interesting) by Immerman on Monday March 22 2021, @01:53PM (3 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Monday March 22 2021, @01:53PM (#1127437)

    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.

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

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Leebert on Monday March 22 2021, @02:06PM

    by Leebert (3511) on Monday March 22 2021, @02:06PM (#1127449)

    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:

    Concerned by the program's outsized costs, the NASA transition team appointed by President Joe Biden initiated the study.

    The post I replied to seemed to imply that it's NASA acting on its own, which is what I was taking issue with:

    Yup, par for the course for NASA, although they usually cancel and move on to the next shiny thing a lot quicker...

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 22 2021, @03:51PM (1 child)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday March 22 2021, @03:51PM (#1127526)

    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.

    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.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 22 2021, @07:20PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 22 2021, @07:20PM (#1127626)

      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.