Significant SLS Delays Ahead?
New NASA rocket faces delays, Orlando Sentinel
“Lori Garver, leaving NASA after four years as deputy administrator, said NASA and Congress long have oversold the agency’s ability to build the rocket, called the Space Launch System, and its Orion capsule on an annual budget of roughly $3 billion. “It’s very clear that we could have slips of a year or two,” said Garver, referring to both the 2017 launch — which won’t have a crew — and the first planned flight of NASA astronauts aboard the SLS rocket in 2021. “People are more optimistic than … reality,” she said in an interview with the Orlando Sentinel.”
Chris Kraft on NASA and SLS (Updated)
“So what you’ve got is a beast of a rocket, that would give you all of this capability, which you can’t build because you don’t have the money to build it in the first place, and you can’t operate it if you had it.”
“It’s very clear that we could have slips of a year or two,” This is an utter disgrace. Development only started a year or two ago! This should be a clear sign to the SLS supporter’s that it’s not going to launch in 2017 or indeed nowhere near 2017. More like never.
It’s even worse than that. Our ever-cheap Congress mandated what they thought was a program that would take maximum advantage of not only shuttle tech, but the work already done on CxP. These were boat anchors, and the anchors are dragging.
First prize for coolest avatar.
Actually, given the constraints in place, I’d say work started on SLS sometime in the late 1970’s.
Nasa delays in opening a “third way”. SLS and commercial space plans are “A” and “B”. NASA needs a plan “C”. Although no budget for a plan “C,” The form can create an innovative operating and financing. Public-private partnership on a new project. The NASA administrator is prohibited from closing a project (if SLS), but it is not forbidden to start a new one. And choices have on the shelf. While “Mars One” captures the mass of money freaks who want to die on Mars, NASA lost the opportunity of it in private partnership, to raise this money for themselves. And make a decent project. Really colonization of the red planet. People have made several proposals to NASA, business proposals, and much new NASA has in its portfolio. Simply snap the pieces … There are other forms of financing, and everything can be tried. If NASA is bureaucratic, open opportunity for private companies doing business under its seal. NASA has new drivers and new fuels. NASA has a plethora of options and theoretical techniques, that within 10, 15 or twenty years, can mature into really big lake. I’ve said for NASA. Let’s think big. A ship larger than an ocean liner. A true interplanetary craft. To accelerate extreme … Maybe I’m an optimist seems silly, but if you think outside the box …
NASA does not have authority to initiate a new project of any significance without congressional approval. The appropriations law for NASA specifically mandates SLS and Orion. Congressional oversight is stifling to NASA and most other agencies.
Interesting . And NASA does not have a strong political agent ? Tell Bolden to reserve at least $ 500 million a year on a plan ” C ” or less , just to start … Over the years a good project matures , it replaces all there . I know that the crisis does not allow many adventures , and that one should keep his job … But the replacement of this whole thing needs to be thought and rethought , if not really want to do something that your ignorance relegate to the sweat of future generations to do. Or NASA is ahead of its time , or will always be ordered to invent a bureaucracy a hindrance to the achievement . Mutatis Mutandis . If the problem is NASA’s political need is a political solution , and a good politician . Bolden at NASA is not to be just to be a ventriloquist dummy . He may have his personal aspirations ( that I want to go to Mars ) and may present for this, as an administrator , a plan ” C ” , as he shamelessly swallowed all other NASA SLS , to go to Mars . And NASA was quiet and fulfilled order, when everyone knows that Orion is not going to Mars by the complete lack of space, design , safety , survival , and undeserved suffering of having to spend months traveling a distance as short astronomical . NASA already has diversified technology , new , and can remember their mission , which is not standing still fulfilling orders . Perhaps Boldem forgot who is a retired general and now he is an administrator , civil . The policy rule is do what you want , and if Bolden really want to go to Mars , he needs to do his will prevail . I told you, The day that Bolden has freedom to do the things he will have , like, ” goes the crazy ” and slam his hand on the table in front of Senator Nelson , with a good design in hand, and good project restructuring of NASA … NASA went through a crisis with the cancellation of Constellation , and STS , but made a restructuring plan . Just tried fill voids and becomes an agency job . If it looks like SLS and Orion will solve our desires real and effective space exploration , with Mars trip , back to the moon , and even other star , NASA needs to think big . And start small . But again. If Constellation was Apollo on steroids , SLS and Orion are Apollo, with a sling and bandage
The NASA administrator does not have that authority. Congress budgets everything, the only real fund he can play with is the cross agency support funds. Not enough to do what you are suggesting. Your ideas should be directed towards the PORKONAUTS in congress. NASA is a techno make work project for their districts. They do not care there is three engineers assigned to turn on bolt. If congress had their way there would be five engineers in their district turning that bolt.
You have to understand .. congress is NOT interested in space exploration . AT ALL.
It is all about getting cost plus fixed fee FAR, no bid contracts to the usual suspects, like ATK, Lockheed Martin et cetera. They get politican campaign money for funneling those contracts to the stakeholders. And it brings high paying jobs to their district.
NASA is NOT about space exploration. It is about government funding EXPLOITATION.
This makes it more interesting commercial space … So NASA can make a big Spin-Off?
The Orion capsule is far enough along and has demonstrated serious technical issues with its cracking bulkheads (which required adding weight and reinforcement); I’ve not heard that anyone has yet started on a real fix for the problems. My guess is that the people who are working it and managing it will hang on as long as they can in order to suck every available dollar from the US taxpayer but that they fully anticipate the program will be cancelled long before anyone gets close to a manned flight. As Chris Kraft pointed out, building and flying a rocket every couple years will never be safe.
I thought the bulkhead issue was caused by a brace that didn’t have any give in it, stressing the bulkhead as the capsule changed size. Is that not correct?
“My guess is that the people who are working it and managing it will hang on as long as they can in order to suck every available dollar from the US taxpayer”
This attitude is just plain irritating, unfair, not helpful, does not move the ball, and disparages thousands of quality people who are likely as frustrated as you are.
Unless, of course, there is specific evidence.
Can’t say this is a shock; such predictions have history on their side. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Boeing’s statements came back to haunt it.
It’s possible that this is the tiniest tremor of the beginning of the end for SLS. If so, I will not weep when it’s gone.
By the way, if it is cancelled, someone needs to be sure that our short-sighted Congress doesn’t claw down NASA’s budget rather than funding the more practical projects that SLS is starving.
As to Ms. Garver, given her frank comments, it seems she achieved escape velocity just in time–not that she won’t be scapegoated by some anyway. On the other hand, these people may soon wish she were inside the tent p*****g out, rather than outside p*****g in.
I have no illusions about this. The Orion/SLS budget is not exploration money. It is pork money. When those projects are cancelled, either new pork projects take their place or that money is gone. I’m not sure the reduced budget outcome would be the disaster some think it is. One of the reasons the general public is dismissive of space exploration is that so little value has come from the piles of money we have shoveled into NASA. A leaner organization working on smaller projects might gather more public support.
In the meantime it is of critical importance that as little of the budget be tied to these monster projects as possible.
NASA has know that the cost and schedule for the SLS and for that matter Orion are not realistic. The real question is why Garver when she had a voice did not demand accountability and have an independent cost assessment like they demanded of CxP. That said why doesn’t Lightfoot and Bolden who are still there, demand one? Its so obvious to all that these 2 programs are not sustainable. But the politics of the matter are what allow the fleecing of the American people
I think you overestimate Garver’s authority.
Her real opinion was pretty clear. She wasn’t given the opportunity to voice it.
She had her opportunity. But she fell in line with the inside the beltway politics, as Bolden and Lightfoot also have
Isn’t that what she is expected to do? Once the Administration sets policy isn’t her job carrying it out? We had enough of the Griffen-crap. She was an employee expected to give her opinion and once the course is set to put her hand on the tiller. And take a straight line.
Huh? “She was and employee…” What? she was a political appointee accused by many to have been a leader, she was not. She tried to push (ram) her agenda (CCP) and complained of being marginalized by the “technical” types. Then again who would be the right person for the job? Good and bad depend on the person judging’s perspective and vision for NASA.
From your assertion, one must assume that you worked side by side with these three people every day and know exactly what situations they faced and what efforts they actually did or didn’t make. Yes / No?
close enough
From your perspective, then, why do you think she didn’t demand accountability for SLS and Orion when she had the chance? I don’t think just saying she was a political appointee is an answer to that. What was her motivation, or the cause of her lack of motivation if you want to look at it that way. She certainly had both the ability and the data to make a proper assessment, so why do you think she didn’t (I’m assuming, based on your statement, that she didn’t).
Alternatively, is it possible that she did do it but was instructed not to go public for some reason? (Those of us on the outside are certainly not told about everything that goes on behind closed doors at NASA; nor are the lower echelons.)
WHHHAAAAT?
so all those press releases and HQ rah rah emails and social media posts about how the exhaustive Preliminary Design Review showed everything on track and making good progress for the 2017 and beyond milestones were wrong? With JWST wasn’t it post CDR before management fessed up it was going to be 2018 not 2010 for launch and several billion more $ to complete? will SLS/Orion follow the same path of denial?
Can you say Ares 1?
Déjà vu!
one has to wonder will SLS even make it to a kluged flight like Ares 1-X?
Yeah, SLS-X. Second order waste. You know, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if they did, just to give the illusion of progress. And after all, their PDRs were both full of holes. I think you’ve identified the one and only likely SLS flight.
If they need more money, how about cancelling the 2020 Mars Rover. The MSL will likely still be going strong by that point barring any serious wheel problems, and unless the 2020 Rover has a large drill that can bore deep underground (unlikely) and is tied into a sample return mission (a “maybe” last I checked) – then there is essentially no point. The MSL leftovers can stay earthbound.
Pushing pause on planetary science for a few years to build the SLS is a small price to pay for the capability it will provide. It’s not like Mars is going anywhere. There is no ticking clock, like there was New Horizons (due to Pluto’s atmosphere).
I’m sure the planetary science community opposed to the program now will be salivating at the options a rocket of this size provides in future decades, especially to the outer solar system. If that means pain now for benefit later, this should be an easy decision.
Yes, lets cut our unmanned planetary budget even more when its given us real results in place of our manned program that has been unclear in its goals/purpose for the past 30 plus years. Idiot. Space X has the right approach, and they’ve got a tested and proven spacecraft with the Falcon Heavy first flying next year.
Now again, I’m not suggesting there isn’t a place for humans in space. I just think we need to be smart about how we do it, and so far we haven’t been. Shuttle and ISS didn’t have clear goals/purposes and thus they all cost way more and ended up being dramatically unrealistic in their approach. SLS/Orion are looking to be more of the same. Which makes sense, because if you think about shuttle/ISS and SLS/Orion aren’t about having a purpose for and foremost.
They were about corporate welfare for all the companies that got contracts for these companies. We know well about the military industrial complex, but less known/discussed is the space industrial complex since many of these companies are the same companies that provide to the department of defense.
Planetary science, dollar for dollar, has more value than a giant launcher that will never fly. Cut SLS and Orion, give money back to planetary science and launch their payloads on Falcon Heavy. Which, BTW, according to the SpaceX web site can send 29,100 pounds to Mars.
You can build a hell of a rover with that mass capability, and send it there dirt cheap.
http://www.spacex.com/falco…
OTOH, SLS has literally no missions. So why not cancel it now, before it does any more damage, and put the $2.7b into planetary science.
That’s an MSL scale mission, with change for two or three smaller missions like LADEE. And another next year. And another. And another. Ten major missions in a decade, plus another 25 or so minor ones. All for the price of one completely unnecessary Big Rocket. Bargain.
So why not wait to see if SpaceX can deliver Falcon Heavy, or even Falcon XX/MCT? A few years wait and maybe you get all the benefit of SLS from an off-the-shelf provider for less than the price of a Discovery-class mission per year. Why the rush to deliver an overpriced vehicle like SLS when there are no funded missions now or in the foreseeable future that actually require a HLV, and when someone else is developing such a vehicle for you at almost no expense to you?
Falcon Heavy fanboyism reminds me of DIRECT Fanboyism. And then NASA basically goes and adopts the basic Direct 3.0 Jupiter design and calls it the SLS (SLS being much closer to Jupiter than Ares V). Direct’s cheerleader crowd vanishes into thin air.
For a period of years, there was not a day you could post on this site about the Ares I/V without getting hit with a tsuami about how clearly, obviously, Direct was the superior design in every way and it was a payout to entrenched lobbying that the Ares designs were persued over it.
And we get it and suddenly we want to go to Falcon? Look, I’m excited about Falcon too, but when people rip on NASA – and they rightly rip on it mind you – that the agency hasn’t built a rocket in 35 years… this is why. First it’s VentureStar, then it’s Orbital Space Plane, then it’s Crew Exploration Vehicle in all it’s forms with Ares I. I’m sure I missed a few.
Last year we had a debate here about Liquid Fueled Boosters. Someone stridenly argued for an all new, all liquid launcher. It was a face palm moment
We need to pick a design and stick with it. If you won the argument – if SLS were canceled and Falcon selected, Falcon fanboyism would evaporate, and it would be pitted against “proven” EELVs or something.
At this point, the SLS needs to happen despite people’s objections, whatever the cost, not with regard to their objections. That’s my opinion, because I easily see this as the never ending debate that entrenched interests will always argue over.
>”SLS needs to happen despite people’s objections, whatever the cost, not with regard to their objections.”
whether it be VentureStar, OSP… I’d like to see something fly before I’m dead of old age.
That’s what I’m saying. Space is my first love. I’m a Computer Scientist, and I do nothing involving space, but I read more about it than I do my own field, funny enough, and had my entire life. Maybe that makes me a bad Computer Scientist.
I remember being in 9th grade history class and reading in the Science section of the Boston Globe all about the X-33 and VentureStar, America’s next Generation Space Shuttle that was going to drive launch costs down 90% (or so they said).
And after Columbia, then a high school student, I totally got on board with the ambitions of the Vision for Space Exploration: let’s make an American Soyuz… a dirt cheap capsule launcher and a large cargo lifter, and do things that vehicles with wings could never do. In the naive sense, it was a better plan.
But then Constellation came about. Ares I turned into a disaster. Ares V became absurdly distant. The DIRECT insurgency raged everywhere. It was discouraging and depressing. There was no compromise. Ares I-X was sniped. Obama took a year appointing Bolden, who was a popular choice as I recall and Garver, who were heavily criticized (and now the latter is being missed while the former is unpopular?)
It just seems like uncompromising parties with entrenched interests engaging in trench warfare, and the only real victim is our ability to put things into space. You have government space versus private space. You have subcultures like the “liquids only” crowd”. You have SLS supporters and SpaceX evangelists. You have the specter of limited future planetary missions and the disaster of the JWST hanging over everything, but whose supporters argue stridently for the largest share of the pie.
It’s no small we have nothing besides a lot of concept art. People should be happy in this world, if they get their way 40% of the time. But it seems, with NASA, and heck everything else in this country, if it’s not 100%, it’s not good enough. It’s no way to run a space program, or much of anything.
I really wonder if the SLS, and who knows, whatever comes after it if it is canned, is as ephemeral as the X-33. At what point did the battle become more important than the goal?
Good discussion guys
The “design” I’m opposing isn’t SLS. What I oppose is the way of operating that leads to SLS. Or Ares/Orion/Altair, or Venturestar/NASP, Freedom/ISS, JWST, the Shuttle, etc.
SpaceX is going to try to build Falcon Heavy. Whether NASA/DoD supports them or not. They are then going to try to build an even bigger rocket. And they are going to try to build Dragon-Crew, and they are going to try to develop reusability. They will be doing this anyway!
So, since there are no missions for SLS, and no prospect of funding for meaningful missions in the next decade, why not save $20-30 billion and wait-and-see? What harm is done?
Likewise, there are a bunch of companies that seem happy to build cargo and manned systems on minimal performance-for-payment contracts. Since it seems to be the most cost effective way to get hardware-for-funds, why not continue, or even expand, COTS/Commercial Crew instead of Orion, and see what eventuates.
The point is not to pick a launcher, it’s to fundamentally change the way NASA and its primary contractors operate.
We picked a “design” for how NASA operates, and we have given that “design” 40 years to work, and it has failed over and over and over. So lets pick a new “design” for NASA, one that has delivered surprising bang-for-buck, and give that time to work.
How long do we need to keep following the same failed path before you will accept that something is wrong?
Thank you for your really thoughful comment. I have a few I’d like to share to better explain my position. I truly respect yours, and I’m a big believer in what SpaceX is doing, but I’m less sanguine about it’s long term potential.
Why do we go to Mars? If you ask a planetary scientist, it will be because of the science, but to me, and I believe it’s stated in NASA’s statement of intent, it is to pave the way for eventual human visit. I believe that is the only reason to go to Mars. If the science of life emerging on other life bearing worlds is interesting, we should be checking out Enceladus. I view our missions to Mars as a precursor to make sure eventual permanent human habitation doesn’t accidentally kill something indigenous.
So what does this have to do with the SLS? I think we’re going to need to build the SLS or something like it one day, and we might as well bite the bullet now and have it in our “tool kit” rather than do it later and regret we didn’t do it earlier (looking at you Apollo architecture).
Going to Mars will require building of vehicles and in space, and sending hardware well in excess of what the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy or EELVs are capable of. I’ll never forget the number thrown around: It would have required six Ares V launches to build the ISS, and about something the mass of the ISS (or a little less) would be required for a Mars mission. All those shuttle, proton, Soyuz and EELV launches, and Ares V could have done it half a dozen.
So before we go to Mars, we’ll need to launch large scale infrastructure into space to make it there. That means by definition, a big lifter. Now SLS, Ares V could do that. You also could make the serious Argument that an evolved, larger Falcon model (Falcon XX could do that). But SpaceX is going to incorporate Grasshopper technology into the basic Falcon design before long, that will be undesirable on any super heavy lift rocket. So NASA will have to contract SpaceX to build a 140t lifter, a lifter only NASA will use due to its size, around a design SpaceX finds unsuitable for everything else it’s business does. If this sounds like the SLS, it’s because it’s exactly that.
Will it be as much as the SLS or Ares V? Who knows. Probably not. But it won’t be so much less it’s worth the delay in my opinion, because we will spend YEARS waiting for SpaceX to fly this 140t launcher, year’s we’ve already spent doing the Ares / SLS dance. It’s basically doing the same thing, with another dance partner, because it’s slightly cheaper.
We also lose something too. I’m a computer scientists and the first rule of computer science is you document everything because you don’t know if you will be using something years from now. You hold on to everything and never give up to capacity you’ve gained.
I recall on this note, the discussion about going “all liquid” for the SLS booster from last summer. Now the idea has merits, but several posters said something interesting: NASA will ensure ATK wins by default and we have SRBs post- 70t SLS, to keep ATK in buisness and America in the Solid Rocket Fuel producing business. It was extremely peculiar to me that was being used as a dig AGAINST IT. Where I come from, keeping capacities are fundamentally important.
If NASA went all liquid for example, and ATK lost that part of it’s business, the country loses a technological and industrial edge it has nutured and built for decades… something not easily replaced. This is exactly what happened with Saturn technology and now we regret it, and museum pieces are being analyzed to re-learn what we had lost.
So my feeling is this. We’re going to need something big – SLS, Ares V, Falcon XX, to do Mars in a big way in the future. We will need to spend big on that rocket, whatever it may be, whenever it may be. And the budget situation will look no better then. It’s very clear judging by how NSF and NIH grants work, Americans don’t care much for science and engineering beyond lip service.
And if the day comes when we do need to build it, by abandoning Shuttle technology, we will have fewer options. We will have abandoned proven, mastered technology whose limits are well known. We will have lost something that we shouldn’t have. Because while the shuttle technology does have some shortcomings, it has some undeniable advantages.
Under that mindset, to me, it makes no sense to give up SLS, if we feel we’re going to end back up where we are now, in fifteen years anyway, just with the name Falcon XX, rather than SLS, and a similar price tag. So that’s why I support. (1) we’re going to need something like it, at that cost, anyway in the future. And (2) Shuttle technology is too valuable to abandon. So in my opinion, we bite the bullet, and and put in our “toolset” the standard 70-130t lifter for the next 30 years. Just like the shuttle, we do it once, and stick with it for a while.
Note: if its not clear from what I’m writing, I have no care in the world for the SLS as a launch vehicle for Orion. I think using SLS to launch people is wasteful to the extreme. Falcon 9 and Delta IVs should do that (with Orion on top of the latter). I care about the SLS as a cargo lifter, to build and send big things into space, which is valuable, if your ambitions for space extend beyond sending things the size of Mars Rovers or space telescopes.
But again, programs like SLS actually prevent steps that would lead to permanent space settlement. In other words, SLS actually delays our advancement. My point was that it’s the culture that leads to decisions like SLS that is harmful. Whereas the culture that created COTS/CCDev is the one that will lead humans in space.
The latter culture could create a HLV, if one were actually required, nd do so efficiently, within the broader context of creating actual capability. The SLS culture can only destroy capability and deny opportunity.
Except that SLS specifically prevents those “big things” from ever being built.
Que? How does reusability harm heavy-lift?
Slightly? I’m not sure you comprehend just how cheap SpaceX is.
The list price for Falcon Heavy is around $120m per launch. The development cost to NASA is zero. (USAF is chipping in a bit.)
Let’s add a NASA-tax and call it $200m per FH launch for NASA. For the $2.7 billion per year SLS development budget, you could buy 13 FH flights. That’s 650 tons to LEO. Every single year.
Of course, they’d be empty, like SLS. So more realistically, three COTS/CCDev-like fixed-cost programs (about $400-500m/yr each) to develop Mars-landers, hab-modules and centrifugal modules, from multiple vendors. And that still leaves you with enough money for 2-3 additional Discovery class missions each and every year.
[I don’t support a manned Mars mission, nor the belief that Mars is the path to space settlement, but since you do, I’m using your goal.]
And in ten years, when the technology is mature, you order the now off-the-shelf parts, launched on off-the-shelf launchers, and launch a Manned Mars Mission every single conjunction. All for the price of a single SLS-70 launch.
To use your “toolbox” analogy: You want to buy the biggest and best tool shed on the market – and you know it’s the best because it’s made from recycled aircraft-hangers! And besides, you’ll need a tool shed eventually, might as well “bite the bullet” and build it now while those recycled parts are available.
But you are spending all your money on the tool shed, leaving you with not one dollar to actually spend on tools. And I’m saying that if you buy the right tools, you can build your own damn shed.
You abandoned shuttle technology in the late ’80s. You don’t “preserve knowledge” by operating a prototype for 30 years.
If you wanted to keep shuttle technology alive, you would have done a series of small projects throughout the ’80s and ’90s to use shuttle hardware in alternative configurations. That would train a post-’70s workforce in shuttle technology in novel conditions, so that there is that pool of expertise when you decided to finally replace the shuttle.
Failing to do so means that pool of expertise doesn’t exist today. Lots of very smart people know how to operate a shuttle, within increasingly tight limits as faults were revealed and patched, but none of them know how to use shuttle parts in a non-shuttle configuration. Nor how to build new shuttle engines when the current set are used up on SLS test flights. Nor a million other things that they need to produce and operate SLS.
They will learn (and relearn) those things, at great expense. But they don’t have it today – you aren’t preserving knowledge, you are trying to recreate it. And if you are going to do that, why not look to the future instead of the past? Accept the loss, look at your deficiencies, and build new knowledge.
“Proven” isn’t “well known” when you use it in an entirely different configuration.
To use Yet Another Analogy: A group of aircraft mechanics who have only ever worked on one type of aircraft for 30 years might be smart enough to build a truck from recycled parts of that aircraft, but do you really think it would be very good truck?
Meanwhile, over in this corner, we have a group of truck makers, who are working on their second model of an entirely new family of trucks. They just created the forth version of the truck engine. And they are simultaneously working on a new semi, and a vastly cheaper-to-run version of their existing truck. [Plus whatever Dragon is in this analogy.]
And the total cost to you is about a tenth as much as “preserving” those aircraft mechanics. So if you don’t like that truck company, you can actually afford find three or five different rivals and still save money. Imagine up to six brand new truck designs for less than the price of a single truck made from 30 year old aircraft parts.
I was a direct fanboy
but I learned!
Defining moment
Elon Musk saying that along with used hardware comes their cost structures.
It’s not easy to predict the future:
“We can foresee the development of machinery that will make it possible to consult information in a library automatically. Suppose that you go into the library of the future and wish to look up ways for making biscuits. You will be able to dial into the catalogue machine ‘making biscuits.’ There will be a flutter of movie film in the machine. Soon it will stop, and, in front of you on the screen, will be projected the part of the catalogue which shows the names of three or four books containing recipes for biscuits. If you are satisfied, you will press a button; a copy of what you saw will be made for you and come out of the machine.
Courtesy of futilitycloset.com
Reminiscent, again, of horse whips. And written recently- in 1949! They could not see beyond the available technology, imagining the library as a central repository.
Just plain impossible to have seen that we’d carry the entire world’s knowledge (well, a big part of it) around in our pockets. Similarly, who knows what we will do with that big rocket? Stuff will happen for sure.
What we will do with that big rocket is go broke. The Saturn V model does not apply in today’s world. Until NASA can get over that, we will struggle.
Although we can’t accurately predict the future, we can reasonably eliminate a lot of possibilities.
I’d like to see a big chunk of the money that would (theoretically) be available if SLS were canceled go into R&D related to people surviving and remaining healthy in space during the missions that just might be possible if we had reasonable HSF LVs, spacecraft, and other hardware available at an operating cost that didn’t make grown men cry.
Even if SLS and Orion were finished and affordable right now, today, with all the money in the world we still couldn’t do BEO missions without being worried about people dying. The fact that there are people willing to take the risk doesn’t make it acceptable.
It says something about our national attitude toward HSF that we should have been experimenting in LEO with radiation shielding and artificial gravity thirty years ago. There were a few attempts, but all were shot down.
It wouldn’t work anyhow. For every additional dollar that becomes available the cost of SLS will go up by $2.50.
I can’t imagine it had been easy for Garver to express support (even though it was always “lukewarm” support at best) for SLS/Orion these past few years. Maybe more of the real story can come out now. While Congress created those beasts, the White House could have pushed back harder and likely would have if Garver had her way. Not sure anyone else cares enough to fill the job with someone else willing to stand up to Charlie.
I expect that there are enough serious technical issues with Orion, and it is so far behind the competition (Dragon, CST), that we will see it cancelled outright soon enough. Actually I think that the Orion contractor and management will hang on as long as they can, sucking every dollar they can from the taxpayer, but that none of them really expect it to ever fly, which is why they do not seem to be too interested in fixing the technical issues.
Why do you think Dragon and CST are ahead of Orion? Compare the amount of test data [wind-tunnel, arc-jet, flight] available for Orion to that available for Dragon and CST. A design can progress only so far on numerical analyses and simulations alone.
Because a CREWED orion is not scheduled to fly until 2021 and now OIG and confirmed by Garver,,, that schedule could slip a couple years.
SpaceX and Boeing both plan on launching humans on commercial crew by 2017.
That is why .. basically anyone with even the slightest interest in space, knows this.
you cannot compare what space x and boeing plan to do in 2017 with the eventual flight of a manned ORION/SLS! Its like comparing a VOLKSWAGON to a RANGE ROVER. ORION is a much more capable spacecraft than the CST100, or the DRAGON spacecraft. ORION is being designed and built to travel into deep space at velocities many thousands of miles per hour faster than the LEO destination of CST100 and the initial human rated DRAGON capsule. And really, what would you expect Miss Garver to say as she heads out the door? Just another political volley at a NASA human spaceflight program not initiated by OBAMA! Something that was forced on Him.
No, it’s like comparing a Volkswagen with a really expensive concept vehicle.
There is no flight data for Orion, since it hasn’t flown. And the only time it’s going to fly before 2019 at the earliest is on a completely different rocket from the one it’s being designed to fly on.
Yes, the original intent may have been to simply “size up” Apollo so that they could benefit from Apollo flight data, but that was contingent on it actually being a fairly direct scaling in both shape and mass. Orion’s got weight problems, and the changes they make in order to cope with them are likely to toss the Apollo flight data out the window.
Dragon, meanwhile, has been flying. The crew module will certainly have different performance characteristics with the different hatch (NDS vs CBM) and the addition of the SuperDracos, but how likely do you think it is that by, say, 2022 we’ll know more about how Orion performs than we will about how a crewed Dragon performs?
Unfortunately your statement shows the sheer stupidity of the vast lot of Orion supporters. “Were making steady progress. We’ve been collecting all kinds of data. We’ve restarted the same assembly lines that were used for the Apollo heatshield….”
Whoopdedooo!
For those of us who are space supporters, the goal is not a jobs program and its not designing and collecting data or conducting tests. The job was to have had a manned vehicle in orbit before the end of Shuttle. Constellation/Orion, because of its absolutely foolish design decisions, have now missed that by a decade, and now it sounds like a few years more. And yet, for some reason two start ups with no experience, both of whom started long after Orion, both of whom have spent hundreds of times fewer dollars, are now half a decade ahead. Why is that?
And the matter of dollars is a serious issue. NASA has been told, starting 40 years ago, how much money they would get: 1/2 of 1% of the Federal budget. So why should any project, like Orion, get an overwhelming part of the budget if its not going to produce? And so far it has NOT produced. Its just a sinkhole using up dollars for all that test data you are boasting about.
And BTW, Boeing and SpaceX are designing and producing fully functional vehicles. Space X’s has been in orbit a few times already; they already conducted the test that Orion will not get to until 2017 or maybe its 2019 now. Orion is not a fully functional vehicle. What might fly in another year is just an empty shell collecting more of that test data you are boasting about. The fully functional vehicles that are 5 to 10 years out require a European add-on module to make them fully functioning. Now why is it that Orion is spending all those dollars and all that time and yet there is so little to show for it?
Orion is being built from the start for beyond Earth orbit operation, right? High speed return, long time in space, and all that. Even the first test flight will be a high speed return. I believe Boeing’s CST-100 has no such aspirations. Dragon does of course have those aspirations but will need to evolve to get there. So it seems like they still have a race to me.
From what I remember they claim Dragon’s heat shield is already good for high speed return, but we have to wait for a test on that.
That’s basically so. Of course, Dragon Rider is still maturing, though fairly quickly, and needs testing.
SpaceX says that the PICA-X heat shield is good for interplanetary-speed re-entries. It also is said to be both re-usable and less costly than the labor-intensive heat shield on MPCV which, subject to correction, I don’t think can be re-used.
If this is true, the Orion heat-shield decision is a head scratchier. Of course a descendant of the company that did the Apollo heat shield is doing the Orion work; maybe that had something to do with it, though, if so, it’s not the best reason to select a technology or a contractor.
Curious. You’ve just described the Gemini program activities of the early 1960’s. There must be a significant message in that.
Unfortunately SLS & Orion have the same problem ISS has. We are building SLS/Orion with no clear goal of why we are building them. First it was going to be us going back to the moon, next to the asteroid belt, and now maybe we’re going to bring an asteroid to us. Which btw scientists, and asteroid experts are skeptical about.
The only thing that is clear about SLS/Orion is that they are a job’s program. Corporate welfare so that Lockheed Martin and the shuttle contractors get new contracts.
Now, I’m not saying we should get rid of our manned program but this is no way to run a space program. We need a clear goal/reason for doing what we do first, that should of been the lesson from ISS. We spent 8 billion on ISS, the original budget for ISS without building anything and mostly that was because of constant redesigns of what its mission was.
Sound familiar?
This should be no surprise to anyone. I’ve said numerous times that this rocket will never fly for two reasons; 1) the funding from Congress is not sufficient, and 2) NASA is no longer technically competent enough to execute a project of this magnitude and complexity.
If you can’t build a launcher with $2.7b/yr, you should get a new career.
Or hire a good cheaper sub contractor lolol. Send me that2.7 b. I’ll call elon and get you a recoverable heavy lifter and maybe buy myself an island to retire on or retireon mars.
There may be some truth to that. See NASA’s own “Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle NAFCOM Cost Estimates, August 2011.” This is available on the net; you’ll be shocked how much more NASA pays for the things it buys, far more than necessary.
“The activity estimated Falcon 9 would cost $3.977B based on NASA environment/culture. NAFCOM predicted $1.695B when all technical inputs were
adjusted to a more commercial development approach.”
But SpaceX did Falcon 9 for around $400 million.
Sad.
It’s no different from the $500 toilet seat that you get in the DOD procurement world. Why do so many people think this is a condition unique to NASA? This is where I’m on board with commercial spaceflight:hopefully we get out from under the ridiculous government procurement process.
I’m not a complete SpaceX hater. I just hate when folks come out here and act like Elon will be the saviour of the world. From a technical standpoint, it’s Mercury all over again. BUt I have always conceded that his model for operating his company seems to have incorporated all the lessons that NASA should have learned and applied.
When a Man sets a life time goal to get humans to another planet. And then starts showing us how its possible. He just may become the savior of world.
As the Dos Equis man might say:”……….No.”
Did anyone say it was unique to NASA? If you knew a little more, you would find that the same cost estimation software used by NASA (as referenced in this report) was also used by the Pentagon. The numbers would have been about the same if the report had been signed by the USAF. You might also brief yourself on FARs, Federal Acquisition Regulations, and compare them to Space Act Agreements, then learn a little more about cost-plus versus fixed-fee contracting.
I agree with you, but it’s not enough for NASA to do it, see #2. NASA has a huge amount of baggage that makes costs excessive, mainly a bunch of useless civil servants, criminally negligent contracting practices, and tons of useless facilities that it has to pay for and is not allowed to shed. All dictated by Congress due to money going to districts of influential politicians. Failure is inevitable and unavoidable. Success is not an option.
The headsman is sharpening his ax…..
Call me a crazy optimist, but here’s a possible scenario. Let’s say that the awful budget handwringing the right is engaged in nowadays goes away, just like it did in the 90’s. And let’s say that the country gets its collective head screwed on right and deals with the military budget.
America is an incredibly rich country horribly mismanaged from left and right for decades. At least the six decades I’ve been around. We can actually afford the infrastructure we need on the ground and in space.
So let’s say that at some point a decade or so from now, the country finally figures things out and gets some big ideas about what to do in space and discovers that we have a big ole rocket that, yes, is pricey, but we have the money, and wouldn’t XX be a cool mission?
Crazy. I know.
Oh. And it is worth pointing out that SLS is keeping alive and working some very valuable people. What they would be doing without SLS is anyone’s guess because there is sure a paucity of mission ideas out there.
Even if your fantasy came true and NASA suddenly found itself with more money, it still wouldn’t change the fact that SLS is grossly inefficient use of that money. A mere 40% payload bump over Falcon Heavy, for example, for a 3500% bump in price of development, and a 1000% bump in price of launch.
Even if you doubled or tripled NASA’s budget, the logic for cancelling SLS remains.
[Even the grossly overpriced Delta IV Heavy is better value for money. You could, for example, buy around ten DIVH launches each year for the current SLS budget. Or more realistically four DIVH launches plus four Discovery-class payloads, every single year for the last 5 years, and every single year for the next five years. So 40 extra science missions in a decade for just the development budget of SLS/Orion. You could be launching now, not in a decade, and not treading water waiting for a fantasy budget boost.]
You underestimate the cost of a DIVH launch. if you include the AF subsidies, it’s upwards of $700M each. You could buy 4, not 10, for the SLS budget. Or you could buy a couple of dozen F9H, but it is unproven as of yet.
Which would be stupid. These would be additional launches. In addition, the listed per-unit price would drop due to increased production numbers.
It’s not stupid, it’s a fact. You don’t know what you are talking about. The AF subsidizes ULA to the tune of $500M to $1B per year. I don’t mean purchasing flights, I mean paying for infrastructure and other costs that would normally have to be covered by launch costs. That’s what subsidize means. If ULA didn’t launch at all, it would still make money because the AF gives them direct payments just to exist. This has nothing to do with “additional launches.”
Then you haven’t understood what I said to Michael.
Peace. I understand and agree with the your original post. I was just picking on the DIVH number because I had seen data in the past that showed that if the AF wasn’t subsidizing ULA that a DIVH launch would cost around $700M. Still a bargain compared to SLS, but also a bit of a travesty in and of itself. Launch costs are way too high in the industry. I was hoping SpaceX could change that, but I’m still waiting to see how that plays out. They are getting sucked into CC and anytime NASA is involved you can add a zero onto the price tag.
“A mere 40% payload bump over Falcon Heavy, for example, for a 3500% bump in price of development, and a 1000% bump in price of launch.”
Point taken.
“Oh. And it is worth pointing out that SLS is keeping alive and working
some very valuable people. What they would be doing without SLS is
anyone’s guess because there is sure a paucity of mission ideas out
there.”
This is why we refer to SLS as a jobs program. Keeping people employed, no matter how awesome they are, is not an acceptable justification for wasting tens of billions of dollars on a rocket that we can’t afford to operate.
Those people are not that awesome. The awesome people in NASA are few and far between. Most of those people from Shuttle don’t have a clue about development, that’s why CxP failed and SLS is failing. Shuttle was a mature operating vehicle when 90% of the current workforce started. Oh, and they think they are so smart that they can’t be taught how to do anything correctly. It’s much worse than anyone on the outside could think and anyone on the inside will admit.
Orion is due to launch and re-enter in 1 years time, September 2014. That means there are only a few weeks to solve any problems with the heat shield, parachute, outer hull and RCS. Life support can wait until after this test flight.
Ok folks, how about a thought experiment — how much money (if any) would be saved if SLS didn’t have to be man-rated? Cut the extras needed and make SLS a cargo-only lifter!
Many mention putting Orion on a F-9 Heavy (not far-fetched), or a Delta IV Heavy (since the test flights will be using D-IV-H). I would further the thought experiment on by saying we should give Atlas V Heavy a chance (now there’s a config not talked about much). Since Atlas V is already in the process of being man-rated in anticipation of CST-100 and Dream Chaser launches, I don’t see that much of a stretch to man-rate a Heavy variant.
Crazy thinking!
Your “crazy” certainly trumps SLS in my books. Keep those crazy thoughts alive.
No reason why not. FH is being crew-rated from the get go, Atlas is getting there and FH, at least, can lift even the overweight Orion. For long missions, FH for the crew and freight-rated SLS for the rest of the spacecraft. LEO rendezvous. We could do this and save a few cents.