SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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:
Artemis Program Requires More Cash to Reach Moon by 2024; SLS Could Cost 1,000x More Than Starship
NASA OIG: Tell Congress that Moon Rocket is Over Budget and Behind Schedule
NASA Spent a Decade and Nearly $1 Billion for a Single Launch Tower
NASA Will Pay a Staggering $146 Million for Each SLS Rocket Engine
Charlie Bolden Says the Quiet Part Out Loud: SLS Rocket Will Go Away
NASA Lays out $28 Billion Plan to Return Astronauts to the Moon in 2024
NASA SLS Megarocket Shortage Causes Tug-of-war Between Moon Missions, Europa Exploration
SLS: Nasa 'Megarocket' Assembly Begins in Florida
NASA's Europa Clipper has been Liberated from the Space Launch System
After a Decade, NASA's Big Rocket Fails its First Real Test
NASA's Massive Artemis Moon Rocket Set for Second Hot Fire Test Today 1500 EDT (1900 UTC)
NASA Has Begun a Study of the SLS Rocket's Affordability [Updated]
COVID-19 Pandemic Estimated to Cost NASA $3 Billion
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday October 28 2021, @11:19PM (5 children)
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
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)
Elizabeth Green wrote:
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)
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)
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
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.