This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
SLS and Orion

Is NASA Building A Rocket They Can't Afford to Fly?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 24, 2013
Filed under ,

Little Love for Asteroid Retrieval Mission; Squyres Deeply Worried about SLS Launch Rate, Space Policy Online
“Another concern Squyres stressed is the low flight rate for the Space Launch System (SLS). “I’m deeply worried,” he told Edwards, because no other human spaceflight system has had such a low anticipated launch rate. The first SLS launch is expected in 2017, the second in 2021, and then once every two years thereafter. SLS and the Orion spacecraft need to be adequately funded “to be proven out on a pace that really supports … a safe pathway” to cis-lunar space, Squyres insisted. Cooke agreed. The flight rate is driven “totally” by funding, he said, and “they definitely need more funding … starting with inflation.” NASA’s budget is currently projected to be flat, with no adjustment for inflation, which erodes buying power as the years pass.”
Faster, NASA, Faster, opinion, Ed Lu, NY Times (2009)
“In the 12 years before I left NASA in 2007, we averaged about four space shuttle launchings per year. We had periods when the rate was even lower: in the late ’90s, during the early construction phase of the International Space Station, and in 2003, in the wake of the space shuttle Columbia disaster. I saw firsthand the harm that low launching rates do to innovation. With precious few flights, every available opportunity to test new equipment or run scientific investigations was filled for years into the future, and this discouraged engineers from trying out new ideas. Without actual flight test data on, for example, prototypes for new life-support equipment, management was forced to substitute analysis for real engineering experience.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

66 responses to “Is NASA Building A Rocket They Can't Afford to Fly?”

  1. pennypincher2 says:
    0
    0

    Yes. Next question?

  2. Joshua Gigantino says:
    0
    0

    Flight frequency is the strongest indicator of launch prices.

  3. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    Just Our Best Spacecraft — acronym: JOBS.

    • CadetOne says:
      0
      0

      NASA’s MPCV spacecraft (formerly known as Orion) effort brags about jobs created/preserved in 30 (?) states and at every NASA center.

      http://www.nasa.gov/explora

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        And as much as the jobs can be seen as a positive thing, in the long run I fear it will be the only positive outcome of the program. I don’t see MPCV as a solution to any of the worthwhile things that NASA could be doing. Not much can be accomplished by sardines packed tightly in a small metal can.

  4. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    I absolutely agree that there needs to be at least one crewed Orion test flight before the asteroid mission. Fly it on an EELV-Heavy if there isn’t an SLS available (EM-1 should answer most of the Orion/SLS questions).

    The problem is that I don’t think that they can make Orion quick enough for even the three missions in four years that I propose above. Simply put, I’m reminded of something said about Ares-I at the Augustine hearings: “Even if it were magically given to us tomorrow, it would be cancelled the day after because we can’t afford to fly it!”

  5. Jackalope3000 says:
    0
    0

    Orbital propellent depots = stake through the heart of SLS

    • spacegaucho says:
      0
      0

      Yeah, that is why they aren’t going to be funded.

    • CadetOne says:
      0
      0

      I’ve often wondered if you could preserve NASA’s budget, have NASA stop building launch vehicles, have NASA buy launch services from ULA, SpaceX, and Orbital, what program could they develop?

      • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
        0
        0

        Things that need developing include small lunar lander, large lander, Mars transfer vehicle, surface vehicles, ISRU equipment, mining equipment and base buildings.

  6. Richard H. Shores says:
    0
    0

    Four years between flights is ridiculous.

  7. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    Not surprising. It will probably be canceled in five years anyways.

  8. Denniswingo says:
    0
    0

    Well, they can’t say they were not warned about this a long time ago.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Who is they???

      • Denniswingo says:
        0
        0

        NASA

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          One person who warned them, in no uncertain terms, was John McCain, at the first Senate hearing on Constellation in 2004. McCain asked how NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe was going to pay for Constellation. He got no answer.McCain said in no uncertain terms that the NASA estimates of the program cost were unrealistic and that the nation did not have the tax dollars to pay the real cost. Ironic considering that today the Senate is forcing the program on NASA.

  9. Jeff Howard says:
    0
    0

    Thinking in terms of the SLS and our overall space program, how many asteroids have been identified that we can visit in the decades before we are ready for a manned Mars trips? How many manned missions to a 25 foot asteroid hauled to the area of the moon would we realistically need to do for scientific purposes? My second choice would be a lunar orbiting space station, but to me the best option would be for resuming lunar landings which would also be a great way to keep SLS operational until we are ready for Mars trips and enable us to achieve a cost effective flight rate with SLS. Do we really want a fly by but not land
    space program?

    • John_AnotherContractor says:
      0
      0

      Where did you find budget for a lander? What about a base?

      • Jeff Howard says:
        0
        0

        I’d want an overall increase to the NASA budget but would take away from other programs in the NASA budget if needed. The manned program is NASA’s most important mission in terms of our world leadership and national prestige. I’d rather see us spend a billion developing a lunar lander than a billion hauling a 25 foot rock to lunar orbit we’d only need to visit once or twice.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          That was true during Apollo. Today world leadership and prestige depend on a balanced budget and creating high-tech jobs. The most important part of NASA is aeronautics, because it supports an actual profit-making export industry.

  10. nasa817 says:
    0
    0

    It’ll never fly. What NASA can no longer afford is it’s bloated, incompetent civil service workforce. The support organizations and program offices are so bloated that there is little funding for engineering to do the actual work. Employees charging to overhead (CMO) at my center is close 50%.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      However CMO supports some useful R&D that would otherwise never get funding since it isn’t needed to get to the moon.

      • nasa817 says:
        0
        0

        I’m not knocking CMO exactly, just the tendency for it to bloat with support functions that are not the core mission. I understand the need for such support, but in today’s NASA the support has become primary and the mission secondary.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      I agree. At the same time, though, the exact same thing is true of the military, with a redundant officer for everything from food delivery inspection to childcare, but the DOD gets all the funding they need to cover it all. That is perhaps the biggest jobs program on the planet. I wonder how the percentage of actual fighting men and women compares to the percentage of actual necessary people at NASA.

  11. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    There’s no surprise here. The SLS/Orion program is simply not viable. It doesn’t lead to a space infrastructure that can pay for itself, and there is no way that the money will magically appear to make it even feasible to conduct science or geopolitical missions with it. We need to refocus on smaller projects of more immediate economic or scientific value. Part of the difficulty is the choice of goal. If you believe that sending a handful of Americans beyond the moon as soon as possible achieves an existential goal, even if we can do it only a handful of times, SLS/Orion is a rational strategy. If you believe that a meaningful future for human spaceflight is one in which, every day of the year, at least a hundred people are living, working, or vacationing in space, then SLS/Orion cannot be part of the solution because it is so expensive that it can carry only four people into space every two years.

    The problem is that, in an organization which prides itself on accurate prediction, no one wants to admit we are on an express train headed for a cliff. With each month that goes by, more irreplaceable tax dollars disappear into hardware that will, at best, be used a handful of times. So far, Squires is the only one among NASA leadership to stand up and say that we are on the wrong course.

  12. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    This is the post Shuttle blues folks. Nobody said it would be easy and budgets are tight. I just hope NASA stays out of LEO for good and hopefully the next administration (Jan, 2017)will support and fund HSF.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      • ed2291 says:
        0
        0

        We can’t get there from LEO. We need to have a higher orbit for moon, Mars, or asteroid projects. We need to stop the jobs program and get ambitious again.When I was in 9th we landed on the moon. Man has not been out of LEO since 1973. I am now 60. Will I live to see man go beyond LEO where John Glenn was? If so, will it be an American?

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      A Republican administration will cut taxes. NASA is funded by taxes. Therefore, a Republican administration will probably cut NASA funding, as the Republican House has done repeatedly. If we stay out of LEO we will not be on the moon and Mars. We will be on the ground.

  13. Steven Rappolee says:
    0
    0

    Yes!

    next question you ask ?

    well congress will build this any way so; what can we salvage from this? that’s the question to be asked.

    the best case for a salvage operation has to be the CBC for the SLS,I see a need for a fly off between solids RP-1 and a Methane Gelled LH2.

    http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW

    The methane gelled LH2 goal would be to,

    (1) to mix methane and liquid hydrogen as to arrive at the least or no modification to a 68-A or methane Raptor on a CBC.

    (2) to cross feed the methane hydrogen mix into the LOWER part of the SSME powered stack at a ratio so as to not have to modify the SSME’s. why the lower part of the(Tank) stack? early consumption of the methane mix from the CBC.( lower part of the hydrogen tank) followed by a pure hydrogen burn after CBC separation.

    (3) this allows for two competing bids form ULA and SpaceX for a methane gelled CBC.

    (4)Both ULA and SpaceX could incorporate these improvements into their existing vehicles!

    (5) a winning bid means mass production of engines.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Shouldn’t you also be looking to get the SSMEs replaced as well? They are a bottleneck in more than one aspect and the situation will only get worse when the few remaiing engines have been used.
      Has there been sufficient progress with gelled H2 to consider it a “ready” technology? I haven’t followed it, but the last I read there were feed pump issues. If gelled delivers what has been predicted it would be a lovely step forward. We never lose by investing in R&D!

  14. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    So we spend as I recall ~ $ 18 billion to develop SLS and it flies infrequently , maybe just 4-5 times on any forseeable manifest ? That does not pencil out well.
    It really bothers me that we are basically upgrading 45-year old Apollo-era hardware ( F-1a, J2-X etc ) with some augmentation from modern hardware (SRB, SSME’s, RS-68 etc ) yet the price tag is still staggering. God help us.

    No, wait. Go buy the Russians leftover Energia all-liquid superbooster kit… the Saturn V class beast that flew successfully three times and launched their only Buran shuttle mission .

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      One of the aspects that bothers me the most is that NASA and Congress both still play the “we don’t do it that way here” game, so what little changes, changes only very slowly. SpaceX galdly, and smartly, used NASA developed designs and concepts to build better, less expansive products. But NASA doesn’t adopt better processes that SpaceX or any of the other progressive companies are using. And many aspects of the space program are still Apollo/Cold War in concept because too many in Congress are stil living in that world, still acting as if there was a geopolitical war going on.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Would you consider the SRB and SSMEs “modern”? (Developed in late 1970’s, first flight 1981, so well over 30 years old)

      • Dewey Vanderhoff says:
        0
        0

        I should have used the term ‘ contemporary’ instead of ‘modern’, meaning we are still using them and there is nothing more advanced than our SRB and SSME in their class.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          Let’s assume you’re right (although I don’t necessarily agree), being the most advanced in their class is not the same as being the best available solution to a specific requirement. All things considered, I would argue that neither the SRB nor the SSME was the best available solution for the requirement that each is currently being used for (SLS). Please notice that the people who argued for these components and the people who argue for sustainability in the space program are not the same people.

          • Dewey Vanderhoff says:
            0
            0

            I agree. I would never fly to orbit on anything using basic 12th century Chinese technology built by the low bidder from Utah.

            The Neo-SSME’s are being down-designed to a fly-once parameter that should simplify them and reduce weight, etc. But why do I think they will somehow be very very pricey …? Look at how the J2-X program is proceeding from the old J-2 .

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            ATK was not the low bidder. it was the _only_ bidder, because Congress required that its Shuttle SRBs be used for SLS.

  15. thebigMoose says:
    0
    0

    I see something gelling on the horizon. Goddard, Marshall and JPL as the core of the “new” NASA… only 2 of the 3 are “insert cough, cough here.” It will take a BRAC to condense the current 11 field centers of NASA, likely with the next administration when austerity takes hold for the nation.

    Change is coming, slowly by commercial standards, but coming none the less.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      I agree with your analysis Moose, but I think you’ve perhaps understated it. Add sequestration effects in and the time table for “asset reductions” (my term) will likely speed up considerably. And as strange as it seems, when this happens people will act surprised.

  16. CadetOne says:
    0
    0

    Yes… but space flight/exploration isn’t SLS’s purpose.

    When the Aldridge Commission report came out, someone asked why the report didn’t recommend the expected NASA facility closure and realignment recommendation. Aldridge answered that they were told if it contained that recommendation, the report would be DOA.

    When the Augustine Commission report came out, it recommended Constellation be cancelled. Obama tried. Congress fought and won (just using a new name, SLS).

    Remember Senator Shelby’s crusade against commercial space? (Ironic for a Republican, no?)
    http://nasawatch.com/archiv

    SLS is about directing money to certain districts, states, and companies. That is its purpose.

    • cynical_space says:
      0
      0

      “When the Augustine Commission report came out, it recommended Constellation be cancelled. Obama tried. Congress fought and won (just using a new name, SLS).”

      Have you actually read the Augustine report? Can you point me to the paragraph number where it recommend canceling Constellation? It pointed out that there were budgetary and technical issues that needed addressing but nowhere that I have found that it made such a specific recommendation. Shutting down Constellation, for good or ill, was Obama’s decision, and his alone.

      The report, in general, did not make such specific recommendations. It pointed out the present state of the art, noted any issues, and presented alternatives. It’s the leadership that made the choices. One thing I will note is that the Commission did have one absolute recommendation:

      “The Committee concludes that the ultimate goal of human
      exploration is to chart a path for human expansion into the
      solar system. This is an ambitious goal, but one worthy of
      U.S. leadership in concert with a broad range of international
      partners.” page 9, executive summary

      This recommendation has been completely ignored.

      • CadetOne says:
        0
        0

        I did read the report, watched most of the public meetings, reviewed documents posted. It does become a blur as to what words were specifically in the documents.

        The discussions (in public meetings) towards the end felt morose as they presented various budget scenarios and nothing could really be done under any expected budget scenario.

        Obama has never seemed a fan of the space program. Even while running for office the first time and before the recession fully hit he talked about cutting NASA’s funding (redirecting it to education I believe). But even before Obama, neither President Bush nor multiple Congresses funded Constellation at the necessary/expected levels. There has not been, under presidents from both parties and many Congresses, a willingness to fund NASA at the necessary levels to accomplish the VSE as embodied by Constellation.

        Given the reality of no political support for a significant plus up of the budget (necessary to actually accomplish anything), canceling Constellation was probably the most responsible thing to do. No NASA-sponsored report would explicitly spell that out, but I think that was the inescapable conclusion. Constellation had become the rocket program to nowhere. (SLS has now inherited that role)

    • AgingWatcher says:
      0
      0

      Augustine actually said Constellation was perfectly viable — assuming NASA could come up with an additional $3 billion per year to fund it properly. Of course, the $3 billion turned out to be a pipe dream — but that’s what Augustine said about Constellation.

  17. Rocky J says:
    0
    0

    The topic of SLS has been raised here before but this title-question is long overdo. Short answer: YES. By the time it flies, commercial ventures will have heavy lifters for half the price, off the shelf. NASA will struggle to justify its continued use to taxpayers. The planned low frequency of its use will lock in its high cost. SLS will become known as the last launch vehicle designed and development-managed by NASA. Nevertheless, it is a public works project now. The congressmen with SLS in their districts will never permit the funds to evaporate. It will remain as one of the big sucking sounds in the NASA budget along with JWST. One could justify SLS in order to cut out the need to use Russian launchers and also the need to have some in-house capability to go beyond LEO, wherever that might be. But this is likely the last big chemical rocket for NASA. Commercial efforts and space commerce is expanding and NASA’s role in manned flight will need to adapt and also take advantage of the commercial low-cost options. Lastly, while it is likely the last ‘heavy-lift chemical rocket, it is not the last propulsion system. Glenn and JPL have Ion Propulsion under development that is necessary for the next generations of robotic and manned missions.

  18. bobhudson54 says:
    0
    0

    I’ve always thought the SLS/Orion launch system was a “white elephant” to begin with, filled with production delays, cost over-runs. Turn it over to Space X for better progress.

  19. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    Ed Lu’s comment reflects the operational aspect and that is only half of the equation. Just as Mr. Ford discovered with the assembly line and Mr. Boeing discovered in turning out airliner fuselage’s like sausages, efficiency and expense reduction comes when you build in quantity-repetitive motion. One of the reasons the R-7, aka Soyuz booster, has been so plentiful, reasonably inexpensive and safe is because so much of it is produced in qunatity. There are 4 of its large boosters for every R-7 launched. Something learned from Shuttle but promptly forgotten was that it cost little more-marginal costs-to run a Shuttle program with 10 Shuttle launches a year than it did to launch 3.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Good point. The one year we reflew the tethered satellite the mission, added to the schedule, increased costs less than $100M. Of course the overhead was already high, but the added flight, with all the actual parts and labor needed to add a marginal flight, was not that expensive.

  20. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    Yes, SLS will be cancelled before 2020. The more painful question: Will it drag down the rest of NASA human spaceflight with it?

    • CadetOne says:
      0
      0

      2020 should be an interesting inflection point in American HSF. ISS should be winding down about then, but the commercial rocket companies will have a lot of launches under their belts. Will they start setting the agenda?

      SpaceX’s Grasshopper shows some impressive technological development. Virgin Galactic should be flying people into space. Several very tiny companies like Masten Space Systems and Armadillo Aerospace have demonstrated VTVL capabilities; they could be building lunar lander systems with their experience. Google’s Lunar XPRIZE might actually have a winner. Bigelow has a contract to add a small module to ISS already, is still working on his own space stations, and is under contract with NASA to develop a new agenda that incorporates more commercial involvement.

      Even now I wonder how much the NASA proposed asteroid capture mission came because of prodding by Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries.

      By 2020, I’m not sure who will be setting the agenda, nor what that agenda will be.

      • mattmcc80 says:
        0
        0

        2020 isn’t assured to be the end of ISS, as 2028 has been discussed frequently as an extended retirement date. Of course that depends on the condition of the various modules and systems. But even if the station is still able to operate through 2028, it may end up being more practical to transition to Bigelow stations. It only takes two and a half BA-330’s to match ISS’s internal volume, after all. Assuming Bigelow has a two-module station flying around 2017, I suspect it’ll be harder to justify keeping ISS operating beyond 2020 at an undoubtedly higher cost.

        As for Virgin Galactic, I wouldn’t put much faith in them developing commercial orbital service within the seven to ten years. That’ll be the job of SpaceX, possibly SNC, and possibly Boeing (if and only if they get a NASA commercial crew contract, otherwise they’ll likely abandon CST-100).

        • Graham West says:
          0
          0

          I think you’re right, but I had an interesting thought. 3 BA-330s would provide all that volume, but they wouldn’t provide as much surface area. I wonder what is the optimum balance between those two things?

  21. David_McEwen says:
    0
    0

    If SLS is successfully built, I predict it will be a phyrrhic victory for NASA.

  22. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    I think a good question to ask is why can NASA not develop and fly vehicles like an Orion or SLS for the kinds of costs anyone else-Space-X, ESA, Russians, incur. Why is it that it costs NASA ten times as much and takes them ten times as long? Why is NASA so inefficient and ineffective?

    Personally having been within NASA for several decades I think I can answer that-incompetent, inexperienced management that is mainly after personal promotion and a poorly organized manned space effort. I have zero faith or trust in the management today. I cannot identify even a single person in a top leadership position today that I would have any faith or trust in.

    I’ve worked with the Russians; I’ve worked with ESA, I’ve worked with commercials. They are all motivated towards accomplishment and efficiency and I see their leaders are only those amongst the most experienced and capable. I do not see that in NASA. Most of the NASA leaders today I look at and wonder what it was they accomplished to put themselves into the positions they have. In the world’s space programs and in commercial, they know full well their budgets are constrained and they have to get the most they can from their expenditures.

    I do not see that in NASA. Even the current cry that they desperately need more money. Why? There is no more Shuttle. That used to cost $4 billion a year. That money has not been taken away from NASA. NASA is doing less in the ISS program than ever before. They’ve gotten a steady $3+ billion a year for decades. Despite the fact they are doing less, they are still getting the same money. NASA has no shortage of competent well educated technical people. Much of the work is done by experienced and competent contractors anyway. So what this means is the the NASA management “leadership” is severely lacking. So if they have accomplished so little with what they have gotten for years, then why does anyone think that by adding a few billion more we are going to now suddenly see results? I do not expect it. The management needs an overhaul.

    • Odyssey2020 says:
      0
      0

      I agree 100% of what you’re saying. I saw the same thing with my own eyes. A huge part of the problem is that a new president can, in a snap, change the direction of the whole agency.

      NASA’s name should be changed to PASA–Political Aeronautical and Space Administration.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        I agree. When George W. Bush announced out of the blue that we would abandon ISS, Shuttle, and the goal we had pursued, however haltingly, for 40 years, of making human spaceflight practical, and that we would instead return to a grandiose and obviously unaffordable “Apollo on Steroids” with no increase whatever in the budget, i knew we were on an express train headed for a cliff. We still are.

    • thebigMoose says:
      0
      0

      The core of the “problem” is not the people, it is the mandated political objective from “on high.” The agency is focused on “process” and not “product.” I have my opinion on why, but I’ll leave it to others to state their opinions. Some of the poor performing leadership others have noted are results of the mandated objective and have resulted in process creep.

      I too wonder where all the “old shuttle” money is going in the current agency. It should currently be awash in cash.

  23. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    Is NASA Building A Rocket They Can’t Afford to Fly?

    Is Congress Forcing NASA to Build a Rocket No One Can Afford to Fly?

    • Nassau Goi says:
      0
      0

      Are most NASA managers and Civil Servants going along with it, without protest?

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        I’ve never talked to any of them about it so I can’t say, but it sure seems like most of them are on the bandwagon with SLS and Orion. Maybe, when anyone is actually in their position, it’s hard to look past trying to keep your job so that you can provide for your family. Having been in that position myself more than once over the years, I can’t condemn them for it. In the detached environment of a blog it’s easy for us to talk about principles since there’s no risk. But ideals won’t feed your children. Do those NASA managers and Civil Servants really have any viable alternatives to going with the flow?

        • Nassau Goi says:
          0
          0

          This is true, so in a way NASA is coming down to a Jobs program.

          At one point, it was believable that the quality of NASA employees was so high they could get a job anywhere else. Long hours and ambition used to be common place. Not so much anymore, and it is evident in results.

          It leads to question what is the point of NASA? Especially those centers tasked with SLS and Orion projects.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            I think what we’re seeing is not at all unique to NASA, but rather characteristic of large organizations in the western world these days. We can see lots of examples of where this has given new advantages to lean. mean small companies. This is also where the eastern countries now have it over us. Their big companies seem almost like country clubs, but they’re a whole lot more efficient than ours. And that’s where Russia goofed when the USSR fell; they went all-out western (with no financial reserves) instead of copying their neighbors, most of whom are doing better now than ever. I think the NASA people are simply caught in a whirlpool they can’t get out of and are afraid they’ll drown if they try.

  24. Nassau Goi says:
    0
    0

    This result brought to you buy Baby Boomer leadership. To add insult to injury this leading generation is loading debt onto the youth of the nation.

    NASA screwups are just the tip of the iceberg. The agency might as well shut its doors for a generation.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      The NASA budget hasn’t changed. The rapid increase in the national debt is the result of tax cuts, which have vastly increased the personal wealth of the upper class.