Surprise: SLS Will Cost 30% More Than The Last Big Cost Increase
Eyes Forward as Artemis Missions Set to Begin Next Year
“Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, NASA also completed a detailed cost and schedule assessment for Artemis I and established a new agency commitment for launch readiness by November 2021. While it is too early to predict the full impact of COVID-19, we are confident a November 2021 date is achievable with the recent pace of progress, and a successful Green Run hot fire test will enable us to better predict a target launch date for the mission. Taking this new launch readiness date into account, NASA also aligned the development costs for the SLS and Exploration Ground Systems programs through Artemis I and established new cost commitments. The new development baseline cost for SLS is $9.1 billion, and the commitment for the initial ground systems capability to support the mission is now $2.4 billion. NASA’s cost and schedule commitment for Orion currently remains within original targets and is tied to demonstrating the capability to fly crew on the Artemis II mission by 2023.”
Keith’s note: Wait a minute, let’s read that again. The last time NASA tossed out a number it was $7.17 billion (see GAO’s NASA Actions Needed to Improve the Management of Human Spaceflight Programs). Now a routine blog posting that sits in an out-of-the-way place at NASA.gov casually says ‘Oh yea – the whole SLS thing is going to cost 1/3 more’. Clearly this is going to trigger every imaginable automatic Congressional oversight alarm. At a time when the House wants a mostly flat NASA budget with an election weeks away, it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine how the 2024 lunar landing will happen under any circumstances – regardless of how the presidential election turns out and/or whether the Senate flips. I can’t wait to see how Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration try to explain this.
And FWIW it is utterly baffling that this huge cost increase was released at the same time that the President was crowing about landing humans on the Moon. This totally undermines those claims.
As always, here’s out ever-growing list of reports saying that SLS/Orion costs are out of control.
– Denial At Boeing Regarding Poor Performance On SLS, earlier post
– NASA OIG: Surprise, Surprise: Orion Is Behind Schedule, Over Cost, And Lacks Transparency, earlier post
– You Can’t Exert National Prestige With A Rocket That Does Not Fly, earlier post
Are we surprised?
No.
Think of how many Falcon Heavy flights could have been purchased with all that money.
Yes, another SLS review, another delay in the launch date and increase in costs for SLS. What a joke.
Think how many Falcon Heavies could be purchased with the cost overrun!
With a cost over run of about $3.750 billion the answer is 25 Falcon Heavy flights or, IF Elon Musk hits his price target for Starship/Super Heavy, about 125 missions to the lunar surface. His Starship mission would of course have the capability to carry up to 100 astronauts or 100 tons of cargo to support one or more lunar bases. This assumes Elon Musk does hit is price target of $2 million per orbital flight resulting in lunar missions of $30 million each.
BTW this would mean that the $3.750 billion cost over run could pay for 12,500 astronauts to travel to the Moon instead of only 4 as with the SLS/Orion.
Orion within original costs??
Undoubtedly no. The original cost estimates were for a program where the launch vehicle to be ready years ago. So, that alone will increase costs because the program got stretched out. And it was a different launch vehicle, so there were redesigns as the vehicles changed. Plus, the change to the ESA-supplied Service Module has delayed design work and increased costs. And there may be more.
Orion was poorly managed all by itself and has experienced its own cost overruns and missed schedules. It did not need an assist from SLS.
I was just a little amazed that they put that in. It’s the usual MO. Move the goalposts. Declare success. Hand out awards.
The end is still not in sight, either. Wait until they get one of these to actually FLY. Congress will have the precedent they set with the Europa Clipper edict to pattern future purchases of cores with our tax dollars.
That’s akin to a bureaucrat spending $20,000 on a desk when a $600 desk will do the job just as well.
Sigh. Just . . . Sigh.
Well at least Kathy Lueders is on the job to keep Boeing under control.
Obviously her predecessors had no effect.
Congress is the only one that can do that. As long as the funding train continues by congress it doesn’t matter what NASA wants.
Cancel it. Now.
Many scoffed when I said Starship will reach orbital status and may even land on the moon or Mars before SLS is fully operational at any price. Time will tell.
A while back on another forum I asked this question.
Which of the following do you think will reach LEO first?
1 – SLS
2 – New Glenn
3 – Starship
4 – Vulcan
5 – Ariane 6
What do all of you think?
Maybe Vulcan or Starship.
I’d say Vulcan, but since that rocket won’t provide any capability we don’t have, and since I don’t own shares in ULA, I don’t really care. For the ones doing something new or at least beyond current capabilities? I’d make it a close tie between SLS and Starship. But I wouldn’t put money down until closer to post time. _If_ things go well for Starship in the next six months, I might consider it the clear favorite. (And the results of the SLS green test might change my guess at the odds as well.)
Starship. Elon Musk stated at the Mars Conference today that work will start on the first Super Heavy booster this week with a test hop in a month or so. He is targeting early next year for the first two stage orbital flight.
By contrast Blue Origin only delivered the first “pathfinder” versions of the Be-4 and has not stated when flight ready versions will be available for the Vulcan. Given how slow Blue Origin works that may be a while…
As for Ariane 6, it’s moving forward at the usual pace of development in Europe so it may be a while.
No one knows what the state of development of New Glenn is and as for SLS…
That must mean Space X will have the required number of Raptor engines by years end then.
Those are my exact thought on Blue Origin. I question if the first version of New Glenn will be reusable or not. I can’t imagine they will try to land something that big the very first time without test flights.
One thing I think people don’t take into account about Space X is they are working 24×7 and that’s getting 2 years of work every year.
Yes I know about the issues with potently over working your work force but still….
In Boca Chica the workers work 12 hours a day for three days, then have 3 days off, so there are 4 shifts rotating that producing 720 hours of work per month (180 hours per worker). Legacy aerospace/NASA generally works one shift 40 hours per week or 160 hours per month (and per worker). So SpaceX is actually doing over 4.5 years of work per year compared to a legacy aerospace firm. Add in less paper work and fewer “productivity” meetings and it’s probably more like 6 to one. So in the 1.5 years the have worked on Starship they did about the equivalent of 9 legacy aerospace work years of labor. It’s why they have caught up and beat the SLS and other rockets on the list. It also cuts costs as you are diving your monthly costs by 720 hours versus only 160 hours.
But Elon Musk is on a wartime footing to get it done before regulators and anti-space development forces close the window to space settlement. Wartime projects like the P-51, P-80, and Mosquito come to mind in terms of the pace of work.
Elon Musk indicated the Super Heavy will only need two of the more powerful Raptors (40% more thrust) for hop tests and only 30 for the full operational version. In addition to the Raptors he indicated he will be using offshore platforms for operational flight since it’s less likely to bother the neighbors with the launch noise from 30 Raptors (150% of the thrust of a Saturn V). He is talking about putting the 12-18 miles out in the Gulf which will open up high inclination orbits for Starlink launches.
If I was Elon Musk what I would do is look into buying the two aircraft carriers (U.S.S. John Kennedy and U.S.S. Kitty Hawk) the Navy is going to send to Brownsville for scrapping as launch platforms. Attach them to the sea floor in the Gulf with a good steel frame under them and put a flame trench through the hanger deck and you have a couple of instant Super Heavy/Starship platforms. Even the names are appropriate.?
I didn’t use a calculator when I figured the work so that’s why I way under what it actually is.
Not sure how hurricane resistant your proposal would be.
Actually it would probably be better to have a Congressional review of SLS/Orion before Starship/Super Heavy is flying. That way Congress could continue with the myth that the only way for NASA to get astronauts to the Moon is by SLS/Orion. This will allow them to approve it again so they are able to keep the pork flowing to their districts without anyone raising any uncomfortable questions. So I think the timing has more to do the progress Starship is making rather than the President’s speech.
I actually wonder if the objective is to get SLS cancelled. Let Starship actually do the work and, because SLS remains a paper rocket, those whose careers depend upon it can continue to claim that it would have been the better launcher in the long run without pesky numbers getting in the way!
A paper Rocket ? SLS is at Stennis on test stand , while Starship douse not even exist yet apart from some tanks being tested , I would be amazed if they have a fully operational starship in Orbit by November next year.
Yeah, you didn’t understand my post. I’m saying that I wonder if the objective is to get SLS cancelled before it flies operationally. I wasn’t talking about relative levels of completion.
You do realize they’re building the orbital launch table, the first two Starship prototypes for high altitude tests, and the first Super Heavy booster may hop by this November?
Tanks that FLY, you mean.
Doesn’t the project have to go back to Congress for reauthorization if costs go 30% higher than the original baseline? Getting close.
Does the phrase ‘wave through’ ring any bells?
Hehe – When I got kicked out of Congressman Posey’s office in 2013 for saying SLS is a decade and $30 billion away I wasn’t kidding.
Grabbing popcorn.
PS Boeing you still owe me two suits.
More waste by NASA! SpaceX has working rockets that don’t end up in the ocean but I guess the space-cadets running these NASA programs can’t figure this out or have an interest not too.
The problem is that space cadets aren’t running these NASA programs.
Are we surprised?
No.
Think of how many Falcon Heavy flights could have been purchased with all that money.