This is How Broken NASA Is
NASA’s $349 million monument to its drift, Washington Post
“In June, NASA finished work on a huge construction project here in Mississippi: a $349 million laboratory tower, designed to test a new rocket engine in a chamber that mimicked the vacuum of space. Then, NASA did something odd. As soon as the work was done, it shut the tower down. The project was officially “mothballed” — closed up and left empty — without ever being used.”
Folks:
Geez NASA! Sell the use of this facility to the commercial space industry! Consider it a ‘national lab’ and take the marks for all they can bare!
I am so glad I turned down government work when it was offered to me way back when!
tinker
Tinker,
Many NASA facilities have been available for dual use and are utilized by DoD, industry, etc. The problem with this test stand is that it is not finished–it’s just a frame, no wires, no instrumentation and to complete it would take several years and several hundred thousand more dollars that some customer would have to agree to pay in order to use it.
It’s true that many NASA facilities are available but it is not that common to find a private customer that will pay the entire cost. If SpaceX is interested in using the facility as is and do the mods themselves it would make sense for NASA to make it available at no cost via an SAA.
Vulture,
You are exactly right!
In the past, customers many times came in and tested and NASA basically covered the costs. When full cost accounting was implemented NASA then had to seek reimbursement for testing costs. But not many customers were able to cover the immense costs of some of these government facilities, so NASA has to subsidize many tests just in order to bring in customers.
It was cheaper, easier, and faster for SpaceX to build their own test stands to their own specifications. Expensive NASA facilities, and navigating the bureaucracy in order to use them, is part of the reason “old space” is expensive.
Space Florida was able to square this circle by becoming the administration authority for NASA facilities like LC-39, the SLF and the OPFs and negotiating reasonable operating agreements with industry. But now communications between KSC management and Space Florida seem to have been cut off, for reasons that are quite opaque. Come on, NASA, recognize what side your bread is buttered on!!!
This is just ONE example of many. Committed funds must be spent regardless of utilization after construction is complete–this is more of a Federal Government thing than it is just a NASA thing.
It is a NASA thing. People at NASA have all the responsibility to stand up and speak up about waste and mismanagement, whether it comes from Congress or their own brass. Where were all the planetary scientists or technologists when this huge opportunity cost was incurred ?
How, exactly, can us people at NASA speak up about how we don’t want to follow the legislation congress enacted? Are you suggesting mutiny, or suggesting that the employees and contractors at NASA have a voice in budget bills, ex post facto?
Are you saying its up to non NASA persons to lobby against waste????
Add
I simply meant its up to us the people, the ball is in our court. I was agreeing with Mr. Lane
They still doing Iron work on that thing. What are they paying? I’m in the car headed to Missisippi. Lol
NASA doesn’t have a choice in how to spend the money that is allocated to it. the funds given have to be spent on what they are designated for – it’s US law. doing otherwise is literally illegal.
NASA certainly does have a say in some things, they can request funding for things they want to do, they have an active role in how the money is managed, and how the projects are worked on, etc. but they cannot outright refuse to spend the money they are given for certain projects.
>>they cannot outright refuse to spend the money they are given for certain projects
Yeah, but a program manager for ASRG can absolutely take every opportunity to mention that it was cancelled because we are spending the budget to build a tower for nothing – which NASA did not ask for.
It may be a legal responsibility to spend the money after the bills are signed, but these “laws” aka spending bills get changed and overruled every year. Building this tower for years after it has obviously redundant is incredible fiscal irresponsibility. The blame is largely at the NASA management for letting this happen.
At the last hearing when Bolden was in front of the Congress, did he mention the tower ? No.
Maybe Sean O’Keefe actually was the best administrator possible, being a self-professed bean counter.
I know quite a bit about big organization internal politics and “keeping your head down” survival instincts of the “working stiffs”. And great mediocrity can be continuously created if everyone just shuts up and does what they are told.
“Yeah, but a program manager for ASRG can absolutely take every opportunity to mention that it was cancelled because we are spending the budget to build a tower for nothing – which NASA did not ask for.”
except that’s not true, just completely not true at all. he can say that as long as he’s okay with lying through his teeth – because the plain fact of the matter is that building this test stand did not take anything away from the ASRG.
the blame goes squarely on the congressman who earmarked the budget and arranged the legislation (which was then passed by Congress as a whole) requiring that the test stand be completed – it is not on NASA at all.
they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to do the things that are congressionally mandated for them to do. their hands are tied, they have no other choice. they could not have not completed the construction of this test stand.
You can shout “legal” with capital letters left and right, but it does not reduce anyones moral responsibility of complying with questionable “laws”.
The responsibility runs up and down the command chain, including the senator, senate committee, NASA administrator, and everyone actually holding a shovel while building the tower.
You can obey the law while peacefully protesting it.
okay… you realize that means the test stand still gets built, right?
No, it doesn’t. It took what, 7 years to complete ? That is a lot of time for anyone observing this first hand to speak up.
they did. i first heard about this story about two years ago. guess what? it still got built.
Even Sean O’Keefe failed to explain how
Constellation would be paid for.
Except that constellation was from griffin.
No, I’m saying it’s the legal responsibility of NASA to execute to the funding obligations Congress provides, and while telling your bosses they’re stupid may feel good, it accomplishes little. Blaming the working stiffs for a system that they have no real role in, and which existed long before they arrived, isn’t helpful.
It’s up to the public ultimately. Perhaps you missed the part about NASA having to follow the laws and spending specified by laws passed by Congress.
Didn’t miss Mr Squared 🙂
If you fight the system by being creative you are told you are not a team player. NASA has a lot of highly motivated people who are quite frustrated by this. But with seats in Congress essentially being sold to the highest bidder nowadays, it is hard to correct the problem. Essentially, we have made corruption a vital qualification for service in Congress. The best strategy available to NASA is to keep the important projects under SAA’s. Congress did not anticipate this and has so far been unable to stop it.
Maybe it would be a good thing if a few people would VERY PUBLICALLY fall on their swords about how congress does things. A little light that gets shined on this the better.
I don’t see how people behaving unprofessionally would help.
Well, I can’t see how it would help for “a few people [to] VERY PUBLICALLY fall on their swords.” But I wouldn’t call it unprofessional either. That is, for a fairly senior person to resign and, in a press statement, say it is because that person simply can not, in good consonance, work for an organization which wastes money in this way. As I said, I think that would probably be pointless. But not unprofessional.
What does bother me is the subtext here. Are you saying that, if an employer makes a mistake and an employee publicly points it out, the employee is behaving unprofessionally? That’s sort of disturbing, since I think a “the boss is always right” attitude is poisonous.
I am more refering to Senate and House committee meetings that are open to the public. When the Congressional members say wrong and stupid things, NASA reps call them on it. So it actually gets picked up by newswires and causes a little public outcry at the very least. Shine some light on congress. Dana Rorbacher has no trouble calling it.
Yes, I’m saying that publicly calling out your management’s decision making is unprofessional. Absolutely. It’s absolutely a responsibility to make your voice heard. I’m not suggesting the boss is always right. If you feel strongly enough, by all means, resign. Public badmouthing is unprofessional in all but the most extreme circumstances (whistleblowing).
I do not see how, informing the taxpaying public of the truth is somehhow “unprofessional”.
You obviously know nothing about NASA, government contracting, contract termination fees, budgets or how legislation enacted by congress governs all these things.
It is NOT just a NASA thing.
Which, in many ways, is even more terrifying. Especially when you consider the size of the USA’s national debt right now.
Maybe it’s time for the “Abandon In Place” signs to be posted on NASA Headquarters.
That sounds like a bad Ayn Rand novel. Interesting concept to play out. Hard to play out *realistically*. Will be interesting to see which novelist/politician/layfolks that can outline something like that with realistic chance of success first.
(some kind folks at CATO wrote a such scenario complete with everyone at NASA sentenced for stealing)
Its hard to find an Ayn Rand novel that isn’t bad! Always a fun read (at least for the first 800 or so pages), except for having the female protagonists needing and wanting to be raped by the hero in order to win her is a bit repulsive.
It has sort of become the new agency motto, hasn’t it?
the picture is of the LC-34 launch pad.
http://heroicrelics.org/ksc…
Well, in reality, it’s been a string of Administrations and Congress that have abandoned NASA. Not really giving it proper guidance or enough funding in the proper areas to do a good job.
Congress has just granted money to develop a replacement first stage engine for the Atlas V. That engine may need vacuum testing.
NASA’s Lunar CATALYST initiative will be developing 3 or 4 engines able to land on the Moon. Since there is a vacuum on the Moon the engines will need testing in a vacuum.
So there is work for this tower. Just a matter of getting the money.
Andrew.
TTBOMK only $200 million was approved for a project that’s going to require what, a couple of billion and where there are commercial alternatives already in the pipeline from BO/ULA and SpaceX. These dollars and just another example of waste.
In addition, this is a first stage engine. No vacuum testing required and there’s one other thing. If you need vacuum testing, send the engine into space like SpaceX did with their Merlins and will no doubt do with Raptor if they decide to use it as an upper stage engine.
Oh well!
Cheers.
The tower isn’t ready for any tests just yet. According to the story the sensors, electronics, etc still have to be installed. Then you have to do the shakedowns. Like the story said, they have to make sure it can hold a vacuum. 2-3 years more work.
First stage propulsion systems do not normally require vacuum/altitude testing. There are other facilities that could handle the catalyst engine work immediately. (depending on thrust output)
http://facilities.grc.nasa….
That sucks. $349 million is the cost of a Discovery-class mission. In fact, it’s only about $60 million less than the inflation-adjusted cost of the Mars Pathfinder mission, and about $100 million less than the MESSENGER mission to Mercury. Just look at the list of proposed Discovery-Class Missions, and think about how much was wasted on this.
It’s all too believable, though. They probably committed to building it and allocated the money, and then when the actual use of it was canceled it was too expensive to pay the charges necessary to shut the project down before construction.
Its also only $47 M less than NASAs commitment to spacex for it to develop the falcon 9 and dragon.
“In 2014, SpaceX released the total combined development costs for both the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and the Dragon capsule. NASA provided US$396 million while SpaceX provided over US$450 million to fund both development efforts.”
-wikipedia
read the article. NASA considered terminating the contract for it, but then congress jumped in to keep construction going.
and even if they HAD stopped construction, NASA doesn’t keep that money to do with it what they wish. that line item just gets deleted from the budget.
Figures that it was a Congressional Override.
I know. I’m just making the comparison as to what that money would buy.
This is the key point. Congress thinks that they can waste money like this and it’s a positive thing, because it ultimately benefits them. If we want their calculus to be different, it is we who must cause them enough pain for such actions that they stop.
The ball is in our court, Folks.
That is a good point. We have to be visible to Congress and the public. But how? Most of them don’t read Nasawatch.
“We” is the public in general, but unfortunately the public in general is so poorly invested intellectually in how Congress and government agencies run that things like this don’t end up on the radar of the vast majority of citizens. You won’t see a campaign ad about this, and you won’t see PACs discussing or pushing this issue (except to push the “government is bad” meme). That means for the vast majority of people, this won’t be an issue that influences a vote or causes letter to be written to their congressperson.
Oh, but a very vocal minority – Reddit – does. The Reddit army was able to flood the FCC comment box and made a mess during Boston bombing. Adding to the fact that NASA is currently Reddit’s only favorite government organization, no question asked.
Of course, mobilizing the army is an entirely different issue.
This isn’t exactly breaking news…
I remember reading about this a couple of years ago… IIRC, It would have cost more to cancel the construction contracts (due to contract termination fees) than it would have to finish building it.
Keep in mind, this test stand was caught up in the whole Constellation project cancellation. There were and are a lot of projects in Constellation. Some got finished, some partly finished, some remain unfinished. And some partly finished projects kept getting worked on thanks to congressional intervention, like this test stand.
Seems like raptors can be tested in there. If they had stopped they would have a junk heep. They now have an asset. Use it to set Raptors in to go to moon and mars.
This was built of J2X, which is less powerful than the Raptor. The stand was built for up to 1,000,000lb of thrust. Raptor is closer to 2 million.
Please remind me when the Raptor was proposed/first mentioned by SpaceX, and what is the status of it’s development. Seems to me that Elon was delayed several years from his initial timeline for his first full successful launch date.
wikipedia has a good page on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
Spacex is testing Raptor components at Missisippi now. Do they plan to do full size engine testing at St Missisippi or McGregor Texas???
McGregor, most likely.
Read dougs link
Seems like Mr. Musk is moving right along, while being careful to design an engine that is right for his needs at no direct cost to the taxpayer.
The link says nothing about current progress on Raptor, so there’s nothing to indicate that Mr. Musk is or isn’t moving right along with Raptor development.
The Raptor engine might not even fit in it. it’s speculated to be about twice the size and able to produce four times the power of the J-2X, which this test stand was meant for. so the A-3 test stand might also be physically incapable of handling the Raptor’s power.
anyway, the test stand was completed, but the instrumentation, plumbing, etc. was never installed in it. it would take a couple of years of work to make it actually operational. it’s definitely possible that it could be modified to test other engines.
Assuming the vacuum chamber itself has the required capacity, maybe an SAA could be worked out with SpaceX to do the necessary mods. However I’m not sure the high altitude version of the Merlin required such testing.
This is so damn depressing. They could have fully funded CCDev2 efforts. They could have put that money to work but instead threw good money after bad.
Again, this is a Republican House problem. I know – I was there.
You were in the House?
How much closer would that $349M (plus who knows how much more in other fees) have brought us to meaningful SLS utilisation? Before a single cent is removed from actual worthwhile projects like commercial space access, the agency and Congress must, must, must come to grips with these ‘zombie’ budget-guzzlers.
I propose a joint commission, like what was used to shut down unneeded military bases. Everyone (politicians) got cover. The hard work was done.
Beware future posturing for some particular other thing using the existence of this test stand as a reverse justification. For example, we are on the verge of an upper stage decision for the SLS, and then the need to justify funding this some way. Along will come someone (call this the other shoe dropping) and inevitably say they can use this facility -by hook or by crook, if the jobs are in the right district. The justification will include some lie about how using an “existing” facility saves money, when actually the best thing would have been to bid out the job entirely anew and very competitively, with a commercial approach say, that would have left more money on NASA’s budget for in-space elements like landers or habs.
that’s really not how NASA’s budget works. “saving money” in one place doesn’t mean they can then shift those funds to whatever other project they want. their funds are given for specific things and the money can only be spent on them. and yeah, it absolutely would be cheaper to use an existing facility rather than building a new one.
I was not saying that’s how the budget works. This is how people justify or “sell” specific projects and budgets-by touting a savings from using something existing, to make the price tag seem better.
I think using existing facilities and being cheaper rather than building a new one is a poor phrasing, as if assuming the new one is required of the same sort in all aspects. Well of course it would be cheaper! But that’s not the question. The question is what any next system costs vs. the last similar time, and how productive that system will be. That is, if we assume we are going to do something very expensive, just as in the past, then the use of existing facilities is both a distraction (a savings, after assuming a costly baseline) and a myth. New approaches that absolutely say “the past one was X, the next one must be half X” would never end up using expensive, existing facilities that just make the next item cost X-or more-again.
Just out of curiosity, how does the capabilities of this test stand differ from the Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility at GRC/Plum Brook Station?
Both facilities test upper stage engines but the big difference is that the new A-3 stand is designed to handle 1 million pounds of static thrust whereas the Plum Brook facility can handle up to 400,000lbs thrust.
http://facilities.grc.nasa….
Heaven forbid that consideration be given to upgrading the thrust capability of a facility that already has infrastructure, data systems and such…when one can now use the 1M lb thrust facility to justify closing the northern facility…
Who is talking about closing a northern facility? Nobody–it isn’t even a topic in this thread.
You have no engineering concept of what “upgrades” would be required if it were possible at all and in this case it is not.
This isn’t about “How broken NASA is”. Its about how broken Congress is, and how pork spending rules all. When Congress passes a budget, they are actually passing a law. If that law specifies that a government agency shall do something, then if we don’t, we are breaking the law.
I agree. Most of NASA’s major decisions are made by Congress based on inputs from lobbyists, then forced on NASA. Then NASA is attacked by Congress for not making good decisions.
You say that like NASA and the Congress are not part of the same thing: the federal government. If you base your dreams of space exploration on state-run enterprises and funding via taxation, then you have to accept the downside — huge inefficiencies like these that come with state-run enterprises.
To be fair, it was NASA who thought they needed the J-2X engine, when in fact a cluster of RL-10s would have been just fine. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
No a cluster of RL-10s would not have been just fine either. The 2005 Congress that brought you the incredibly expendible, unsustainable architecture http://www.thespacereview.c… by “investing” in LV too big and cast aside the cheaper alternative. This same Congress introduced a few flaws in the 2004 VSE (moon prepares NASA for Mars ) and killed all the technology required to enable BEO missions.
“In the days of the Apollo program, human exploration systems employed expendable, single-use vehicles requiring large ground crews and careful monitoring. For future, sustainable exploration programs, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews. NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems,
pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and
propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles.” http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/555…
The other part of the story, which the Post article doesn’t emphasize, is the J-2X that the stand was meant to test. That engine, intended for the Ares-1, was continued until 2014 and then put on the shelf. Probably not quite “abandoned in place”, but still a lot of money for not much use.
See
http://blog.al.com/breaking…
NASA defends decision to idle J-2X engine program, says it wasn’t a ‘$1.2 billion mistake’by Lee Roop
October 22, 2013
HUNTSVILLE, Alabama – NASA has spent $1.2 billion to design, build and test a powerful new upper-stage rocket engine for the future called the J-2X. But after final testing next year, the new engine will wait to see if there’s a mission for it. And the decision to park the J-2X has the space agency trying its first week back from shutdown to get out in front of criticism that it wasted money by the boxcar-load on an engine it may never use.
The truly sad thing is that the J-2X was never needed in the first place. A cluster of existing RL-10 engines would have done the job without billions in development costs for what was essentially a new engine.
I think there was eagerness at MSFC to get back into the engine business, and the whole Constellation aura of recreating Apollo on Steroids played a roll. No one was asking hard questions, like “show me the money”.
That said, the RL-10, dating from long before the J-2 and even the first human spaceflight, remains a work of art. Elegantly simple, efficient, reasonable in cost, so light a couple of people can pick it up. The J-2 was developed not so much because of the S-IV but because the Saturn second stage was so huge that it would have needed 20 RL-10s, and five J-2s were more practical. Today we would use methane instead of hydrogen for this application, and save a lot of money.
ISP rules in deep space away from the gravity well, especially if short trip times are required, where at least 25% or more IMLEO for methane vs LH2 is required depending on the dV. For slow trip times, the higher ISP, reuseable EP systems should also help reduce costs to preposition supplies. For GEO, then perhaps methane is the most economical. Perhaps a trade can be conducted with all the alternatives on the table, including work on reuse?
maybe this entire article is a sign of the times? “someone” at NASA snaps a pic, sends it to the Washington Post, who write a story about government waste. and 99% of the responders follow suit, “Woe, Woe, Woe, trice woe”.
there could be valid reasons for outrage, but this could be a valid commercial decision. It sounds like it might have been cheaper to finish construction, than to cancel the project. It sounds like the facility isn’t ready for use, and would cost some to get into a test ready state.
the “pork” angle … well, that could be so, or it could be that this was the right facility to build this test cell.
maybe not all NASA’s decisions are the dumbest thing since breakfast ? surely several are, but not all.
the picture is of the LC-34 launch pad.
http://heroicrelics.org/ksc…
Anybody remember Senate Majority leader Trent Lott from Mississippi who was so adamant about keeping the shipbuilding yards in his state open that he forced the US Navy to build a whole lott-a ships it did not want or did not need ? Lott’s hometown of Pascagoula had a huge ship yard , Ingalls, that recieved several billion in contracts. Pure battleship grey PORK. This is not new to Mississippi.
To be fair, the A3 tower was contracted to help develop the ‘ new and improved’ J2X hydrogen upper stage from the old Apollo J2 engine. I seriously believe we need to do just that , but the Aerospace-Industry Corporate Complex turned that lofty goal into a monstrous bloated project. It boggles me the amount of money being spent and long drawn out timespan it takes to upgrade our Von Braun era hardware for the 21st century…Constellation , SLS, SLI … to take us back where we were forty years ago.
It’s easy to follow the money . Just track the wild hogs roaming the Deep South.
The comment from the construction worker was interesting. He was a member of the Tea Party and strongly opposed government waste, but he had no problems belonging to a union and getting paid for an unneeded government project. When we are willing to turn down money ourselves, to make to some minor extent the kind of sacrifice we demand of our military, our medical personnel in West Africa, even some of our astronauts, maybe we can do something about the level of pork barrel politics, or maybe we should call it corruption, in our government.
“It had to swing open to let the rocket engine in, then swing shut and hold up under 40 pounds per square inch of pressure from the atmosphere outside.” This looks like an error. Atmospheric pressure is not 40psi, it is 14.7 (or 1 bar). Maybe the chamber door was overspecified.
He didn’t use a great analogy to convey his point, but I think what he was trying to say is that by the time they pull 3 atmospheres of vacuum on the inside it would roughly equate to 40psi pushing on the outside, chamber specs in this case would be to keep it from imploding under vacuum.
I’m confused. There is no need to “pull 3 atmospheres of vacuum” on Earth since it only has one atmosphere of pressure to begin with.
That’s true. Vacuum does not equal three atmospheres. In fact, as you would expect, it equals zero atmospheres. External atmospheric pressures equals one bar.
SMH
Something that makes this even sadder is that it probably never needed to be built, as there is a facility at Arnold AFB that probably could have been used. Also they are doing again for SLS, dumping huge amounts of money into an unneeded test stand at Stennis even though there already is one that would work at Edwards AFB.
nothing new here almost 20 years ago NASA Ames was completing a 200+ million total rebuild of the 12 ft pressure wind tunnel. in a nod to Al Gore’s re-inventing government move and the inept management of Dan Goldin the concept of the “virtual wind tunnel” was embraced and the 12ft was dedicated and mothballed all at once. happens all the time. don’t forget this kind of stupidity when you’re attributing some clever rip off the tax payers scheme to NASA/DoD officials. usually their graft is just the result of stupid or not caring…