SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the cost-plus-contracting-the-spice-must-flow dept.
Rich Smith at The Motley Fool opines that NASA's SLS Rocket Just Got $3.2 Billion More Expensive:
How much is too much to pay for an SLS rocket? And how much is so much that it gets SLS canceled?
At an estimated $1.55 billion in cost per launch, and $209 billion total over its 30-year history, the U.S. Space Shuttle program was easily NASA's most expensive project since the Apollo Moon Program -- but NASA's next project is going to make it look like a bargain. Two years ago, an investigation by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated that each time NASA launches its new Space Launch System (SLS), taxpayers will ante up "over $2 billion."
As it turns out, OMB was being optimistic.
[...] Last week, NASA awarded one of its main subcontractors on the SLS project, Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC), a $3.2 billion contract to build booster rockets for five SLS rockets that will participate in the Project Artemis moon program.
[...] These boosters are essential to the Artemis program, providing "more than 75% of the thrust for each SLS launch," as NASA explains, but they do come at a cost. Specifically, each rocket booster will cost taxpayers -- and benefit Northrop Grumman -- more than $290 million.
[...] For the cost of just one Northrop Grumman booster rocket (which will be discarded after launch), NASA could buy two entire SpaceX rocketships. For what Northrop is charging to help launch one single SLS, NASA could launch four Falcon Heavy missions.
Your tax dollars at work. Also: Re-usable shuttle engines on an expendable launcher.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 21 2021, @11:24PM (20 children)
Almost every headline concerning space news confirms my bias. SpaceX is the future of American space exploration. We'll need a couple of private enterprise competitors in a few years, I hope someone smarter than Bozos and that British guy can step up. Unfortunately, you don't find space savvy billionaires on every street corner.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21 2021, @11:39PM (8 children)
$3.2 billion? How much is that in F-35s?
(Score: 5, Touché) by EJ on Tuesday December 21 2021, @11:48PM (4 children)
Fully-functional?
(Score: 4, Touché) by Pslytely Psycho on Tuesday December 21 2021, @11:52PM (1 child)
Is there such a thing?
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Wednesday December 22 2021, @04:08PM
-- Armageddon (1998)
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 Wednesday December 22 2021, @12:54AM
Static Display
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 22 2021, @03:30PM
Yes.
Commander Data was quite clear to Tasha Yar that he was Fully Functional. She did some quality assurance tests to verify this and pass the acceptance qualification tests.
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 fustakrakich on Wednesday December 22 2021, @12:00AM (1 child)
Um... 3.2?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Some call me Tim on Wednesday December 22 2021, @03:27AM
Well if you multiply Pi are round by cornbread are square you get the rounded rectangle of cobbler which totally invalidates any patents on the rounded rectangle. Sorry Apple, you lose.
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Wednesday December 22 2021, @01:43AM
Depends on version.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398 [medium.com]
The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21 2021, @11:51PM (1 child)
How about that NewZealand guy? Sure they're not heavy lift yet, but maybe one day after neutron proves itself?
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday December 22 2021, @07:38AM
Nowhere near the required capacity, you'd need to cluster, say, a main ring of 24 engines at the outer edge of the booster and the core propulsion system consisting of the inner 6 engines at about half diameter, with the control system based on differential throttling of the engines of the outer ring for pitch and yaw.
You could give it a name based on its country of origin, the first big New Zealand rocket, so N1.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22 2021, @01:33AM (4 children)
It is simple, others will see SpaceX's success and replicate it.
"Unfortunately, you don't find space savvy billionaires on every street corner."
You think Musk is savvy? Only in the way Steve Jobs was tech savvy.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday December 22 2021, @04:25AM (3 children)
Which is an apt comparison, especially considering the number of huge, successful technology-based businesses each managed to create. Yet another case of sarcasm gone wrong.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Wednesday December 22 2021, @11:36AM (2 children)
Selling luxury goods that are otherwise technologically inferior to the alternatives but come with a massive "bling" markup is a "technology-based business" now? That's like saying glamour clothing designers are the "material technology business".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 22 2021, @01:35PM (1 child)
It's merely your opinion that Apple's goods were inferior. I'll note as a bit of contrary evidence that Apple had the easiest to use Unix-flavor machines on the market, the first iPods, and their stuff looked good (bling may not be important to you, but well, there are other people to whom it is).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22 2021, @07:13PM
I don't think this is the flex you think it is...
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Wednesday December 22 2021, @11:30AM (3 children)
A scam to leech US state funds into the hands of private billionaires? Yeah, sounds about right. Collectivize the risks, privatize the profits - 'tis the glorious future.
(Score: 4, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday December 22 2021, @01:53PM
Here's a simple exercise. Figure out how much US state funds SpaceX leached from NASA (it's roughly $3.2 billion [christopherrcooper.com] over 2002-2020 (so a little more than the above SLS contract due to inflation). And figure out how much US state funds the SLS contractors have leached from NASA (it's roughly $18 billion [nextbigfuture.com], including Orion).
Finally figure out how many launches NASA got from SpaceX (39 launches [wikipedia.org] so far) versus SLS (0 launches). So about $170 million per launch for Falcon 9 (and possible some Falcon Heavy) launches versus nothing so far. NASA paid for results with SpaceX and just paid for a scam with SLS. Even now, the amount of money that they just threw at Northrop Grumman is almost as much as they have spent on SpaceX over the past two decades. And they have yet to get any return on the SLS spending.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 22 2021, @05:40PM (1 child)
I won't even attempt to argue that Musk isn't scamming the government. Musk does one mission for the government, and the profits pay for a private mission, or maybe even a bit more than 1 private mission. Pretty sweet scam - I wish I could get in on that.
But, as Khallow points out, Musk actually does perform missions for the government. SLS has never done a mission. Not one mission completed. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Now, take all of the space exploration and research entities around the world, and start tallying up all their missions, failed or successful. Then rank them in order of goods and services provided, per dollar. I'm too lazy to actually do the math and research, but I'll bet SpaceX ranks in the top 25%. They are likely higher than that, but I'm unwilling to make that assertion before doing at least minimal research. I'll bet a subscription to SN on that. If I'm wrong, I pay a subscription in the name of any person you designate, if I'm right, you pay a one year subscription for some poor unfortunate individual who isn't subscribed already. Want to take that bet?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 23 2021, @07:30PM
What do you have against poor unfortunates?
(Score: 3, Funny) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 22 2021, @12:03AM
It's going up faster than Bitcoin. Next year it should be worth 5 billion
Where it comes down is not my department...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..