Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday October 28 2021, @09:51PM   Printer-friendly
from the why-buy-one-when-you-can-buy-two-at-twice-the-price? dept.

NASA wants to buy SLS rockets at half price, fly them into the 2050s

NASA has asked the US aerospace industry how it would go about "maximizing the long-term efficiency and sustainability" of the Space Launch System rocket and its associated ground systems.

[...] In its request NASA says it would like to fly the SLS rocket for "30 years or more" as a national capability. Moreover, the agency wants the rocket to become a "sustainable and affordable system for moving humans and large cargo payloads to cislunar and deep-space destinations."

[...] Among the rocket's chief architects was then-Florida Senator Bill Nelson, who steered billions of dollars to Kennedy Space Center in his home state for upgraded ground systems equipment to support the rocket. Back in 2011, he proudly said the rocket would be delivered on time and on budget.

"This rocket is coming in at the cost of... not only what we estimated in the NASA Authorization act, but less," Nelson said at the time. "The cost of the rocket over a five- to six-year period in the NASA authorization bill was to be no more than $11.5 billion. This costs $10 billion for the rocket." Later, he went further, saying, "If we can't do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop."

After more than 10 years, and more than $30 billion spent on the rocket and its ground systems, NASA has not closed up shop. Rather, Nelson has ascended to become the space agency's administrator.

Previously:


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This discussion has been archived.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.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28 2021, @10:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28 2021, @10:01PM (#1191481)
    No such rocket(s). Please do not attempt to calculate the price per zero rockets.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28 2021, @10:57PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28 2021, @10:57PM (#1191496)

    They'll be lucky if they're flying BY the 2050s

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28 2021, @11:00PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28 2021, @11:00PM (#1191498)

      SLS should fly sometime next year. New Glenn is the one with the long lead time. I wish I was being funny.

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Friday October 29 2021, @01:54PM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 29 2021, @01:54PM (#1191670) Journal
        Schedule slip is a thing. SLS should fly sometime [engadget.com] in 2018. You heard it here first!
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29 2021, @11:29PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29 2021, @11:29PM (#1191852)

          True, but there isn't much schedule left to slip. They've finished stacking and are currently completing final integration and testing. For any other launch provider that would take a couple of weeks at most. "Sometime next year" means sometime in the next 14 months, or about 30x longer than it should take. Even Boeing can only drag it out so long

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 30 2021, @12:22AM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 30 2021, @12:22AM (#1191866) Journal
            We'll see. My take is that there's plenty of schedule to slip. Sure, they have a good chance of launching successfully in 2022. But they also have a good chance of putting that launch off for more years.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 30 2021, @12:36PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 30 2021, @12:36PM (#1191928)

              This late in the game that becomes increasingly difficult to justify. Unless they have another major test failure, which would make Boeing look bad at a time when they are already getting bad press due to Starliner, I'm not sure how they can slow things down more than they currently are. The only meaningful way I can see to drag it out more is to cancel Artemis, say, due to lack of space suits, and then "redesign" SLS for a different mission again. Probably either back to Mars or deep space probes. I'd bet on the latter since that would do the most damage to NASA's scientific mission.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 30 2021, @12:44PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 30 2021, @12:44PM (#1191930) Journal

                This late in the game that becomes increasingly difficult to justify.

                Doesn't matter if they find a flaw that's too dangerous or blow up the rocket.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday October 29 2021, @03:11PM (1 child)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 29 2021, @03:11PM (#1191705) Journal

        SLS should fly sometime next year.

        For how many years have we heard that?

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28 2021, @10:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28 2021, @10:57PM (#1191497)

    As others pointed out in the Arstechnica comments about this, the half off offer means nothing since NASA is still covering the development costs and possibly facility costs as well. The rocket could actually be more expensive and still count as 'half off'.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday October 28 2021, @11:19PM (5 children)

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 28 2021, @11:19PM (#1191502) Journal

    The only possible justification I could have for this would be if they didn't want to be sole-source dependent on SpaceX for heavy lift launches.

    Scratch that, there is another explanation. It's possible, even likely, that this is a job subsidy program in exchange for some other political favor.

    Damn.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Freeman on Friday October 29 2021, @01:54PM

      by Freeman (732) on Friday October 29 2021, @01:54PM (#1191669) Journal

      The "reason" is so they aren't solely dependent on SpaceX. The actual reason is pork barreling. I.E. Jobs programs for X State(s).

      --
      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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29 2021, @05:44PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29 2021, @05:44PM (#1191755)

      Elizabeth Green wrote:

      The only possible justification I could have for this would be if they didn't want to be sole-source dependent on SpaceX for heavy lift launches.

      Once SS/SH is flying reliably, which seems very likely to eventually be the case, the easy way to avoid sole-source dependency, and thus always have 2 ways to get to space, would be to spin off F9/FH into an independent company.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29 2021, @11:33PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29 2021, @11:33PM (#1191853)

        If Starship pans out then Falcon won't be economical to fly any more. Just let that sink in.

        • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Saturday October 30 2021, @03:42PM (1 child)

          by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 30 2021, @03:42PM (#1191962) Journal

          How cool would that be? :)

          The thing about technology is it gets "easy" once someone has proven its possible. If* SpaceX succeeds they will have a significant first mover advantage in the reusable heavy lift space. That doesn't mean they won't have competition in fairly short order. There's too much money to be made off this rock for it to be the sole purview of one company. That's assuming they don't lock a bunch of the core tech behind patents. I'm ignorant of the details of that possibility.

          * Failure is always an option.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 30 2021, @05:34PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 30 2021, @05:34PM (#1191975)

            SpaceX doesn't patent any of their stuff. Musk's attitude regarding competition amounts to 'come at me, bro', because if someone else can do rocket launches better than he can then he'll happily hire them to build his Mars colony for him. He's only sinking billions into it himself because nobody else would and he got tired of waiting.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28 2021, @11:33PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28 2021, @11:33PM (#1191504)

    At this point, enough with the LEO development money.

    The payment should be a check for a successbul flight.

    Also, half seems strange. I though reuse set the market to more like 10x?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28 2021, @11:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28 2021, @11:36PM (#1191505)

      You're not the buyer. You're the payment.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by khallow on Friday October 29 2021, @12:36AM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 29 2021, @12:36AM (#1191514) Journal

    NASA has asked the US aerospace industry how it would go about "maximizing the long-term efficiency and sustainability" of the Space Launch System rocket and its associated ground systems.

    You want a long term solution that maximizes the "long-term efficiency and sustainability"? Here you go: Dig a big hole. Drop all your SLS stuff into it. Pour on some gasoline. Light it up. Long term efficiency and sustainability of the program has been achieved!

    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday October 29 2021, @02:21PM (2 children)

      by Freeman (732) on Friday October 29 2021, @02:21PM (#1191686) Journal

      That would only be true, if they then stopped funding the SLS. That is not a guarantee with your solution.

      --
      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 khallow on Saturday October 30 2021, @12:24AM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 30 2021, @12:24AM (#1191867) Journal
        It's not a guarantee either, if they continue to develop SLS. /sarc
        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday November 01 2021, @01:36PM

          by Freeman (732) on Monday November 01 2021, @01:36PM (#1192442) Journal

          Only thing guaranteed right now is the pork barreling.

          --
          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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29 2021, @04:02PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29 2021, @04:02PM (#1191720)

    it's prolly expensive since they don't see a reward at the end.
    maybe it's like commissioning a ship but not seeing a benefit when reaching the other side of the ocean?
    so it's basically a "big ship to nowhere for nothing" they figured to just make it expensive so at least there's a reward in the "home harbor"?
    if spaceX returns from "somewhere" with even a small chest of loot, you can bet your ass, SLSs will roll of assembly lines weekly and guaranteed cheap.
    in the mean time ...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29 2021, @05:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29 2021, @05:35PM (#1191751)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29 2021, @11:37PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29 2021, @11:37PM (#1191854)

      You have that backwards. The purpose of SLS is to be as expensive as possible for as long as possible so as to maximally line the right pockets. Actually flying is a detraction from that since flight hardware costs money better spent on yachts and seventh houses. Under that logic a rocket to nowhere is the perfect solution.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 30 2021, @12:37AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 30 2021, @12:37AM (#1191870) Journal
        Indeed. R&D is where the profit is. Actually launching stuff drops the margin.
(1)