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.
Commercialization

Big Aerospace's Chief Apologist

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 23, 2021
Big Aerospace's Chief Apologist

Scrap the Space Launch System, Bloomberg
“Perhaps predictably, the program has been plagued with problems from the start. A report last year from NASA’s inspector general warned of “rising costs and delays,” “shortcomings in quality control,” “challenges with program management,” “technical issues,” “development issues,” “infrastructure issues,” “performance issues” and more. A watchdog report in December found “uncertain plans, unproven cost assumptions, and limited oversight.”
Bloomberg Assails NASA Space Launch System With Misconceptions And Faulty Logic, Forbes
“The editorial board at Bloomberg News launched a nonsensical attack on NASA’s human spaceflight program last week. It was full of dubious assertions about alternatives to the Space Launch System, the first deep-space rocket NASA has built for human transport since Saturn V lofted Apollo missions to the Moon half a century ago. I don’t normally call attention to arguments that I think are wrong, but since Bloomberg’s screed was explicitly aimed at the Biden administration, I thought it might be useful to rebut some of the questionable claims advanced by the editorial board.”
Keith’s note: Forbes is pretty desperate for “news” comment when they print these blatantly biased columns about aerospace companies by Loren Thompson whose think tank employer is funded by the very same companies who get zillions of dollars from NASA to build the SLS. Despite his claim that he’s responding to someone else’s inaccuracies, what he actually wrote is a collision of contradictory nonsense, self-licking ice cream cones, and recycled Big Aerospace lobbying points.
This is my favorite, by far: “The editorial board complains that SLS is “years behind schedule.” If it had bothered to look, it would have realized that every major launch vehicle developed by NASA and by private industry ends up running years behind schedule.” So in other words, its OK for NASA to propose schedules and then let the companies walk all over them and stick out their hands to say ‘more money please’ since everyone overruns. Who needs schedules or budgets, right? It is just taxpayer money anyway.
To be honest though. I’m not sure the Biden folks are giving either of these op eds a whole lot of attention since they are two sides of the same problem.

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

26 responses to “Big Aerospace's Chief Apologist”

  1. Terry Stetler says:
    0
    0

    Loren Thompson being a sanctimonious hypocrite? Say it isn’t so!! ?

  2. robert_law says:
    0
    0

    Bloomberg should be scraped. classic example of negative anti space
    journalism clueless about the space program.

    • Terry Stetler says:
      0
      0

      Scrapping SLS ≠ being anti-space, especially when they note that there are commercial alternatives. Falcon Heavy is flying, Starship is in flight tests (another likely this week), and New Glenn is in the wings.

      • robert_law says:
        0
        0

        There are no commercial alternative’s at the moment that can come any where near the capability of SLS . However China is developing a Saturn V class booster but its not going to be available for several years yet .
        It would take multiple launches of Falcon Heavy to do what SLS can do in one flight . Starship is still years away as is is the Super falcon heavy.

        • Rabbit says:
          0
          0

          WHAT capability? The thing has not proven flight-worthy yet, let alone flown.
          PLANNED capability, maybe, but FH has already flown, is (in theory even the cores) reusable, and is designed for rapid sequential launches.
          So your comparison is faulty.

        • Todd Austin says:
          0
          0

          SLS has been years away for years. Commercial alternatives from SpaceX & Blue Origin are making far faster progress at far lower cost (both for development and on a per-launch basis).

          SLS configurations that do what you describe remain paper-based. Is there really any hope that anything resembling SLS Block 2 will ever actually fly?

          Building high-cost, old-tech, single-use rockets no longer makes any sense. Projects that had thought to use SLS to launch are now looking elsewhere (e.g., Europa Clipper).

          The Artemis 1 booster failed in testing, but they can’t even feel secure in re-running the test for fear that the device will fail during its mission launch. Launching without proper testing is a proven bad idea (e.g., Hubble Space Telescope).

          Doesn’t putting all your eggs in one test-article basket impress you as a truly foolish thing to do? That doesn’t impress me as a plan to get to the Moon, but rather as a plan to have a program that builds rockets. Rocket failed? No problem! We’ll just allocate another $2B to put together another and it won’t really matter if it succeeds or fails because the goal never was to get anywhere.

          Programs that really intend to get somewhere have a sense of urgency. They care about using resources efficiently because they know that they’ll get nowhere if they’re profligate with their assets. Where do you see any urgency in the SLS program? Is there any sense that cost matters?

          As a taxpayer, I oppose spending our shared resources on programs to build rockets. I want our limited resources spent on programs to get somewhere, and SLS shows no sign of ever doing that for a price that makes any sense whatsoever. $20B is enough. Pull the plug.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            To be fair, Blue Origin dropped several cool videos on YouTube yesterday showcasing their facilities and the hardware they’re building (mockup of the first stage and various tank pieces that are in process). I was wondering why they did that until I saw a Tweet that said the first New Glenn flight is slipping to Q4 2022.

            https://www.cnbc.com/2021/0

          • space1999 says:
            0
            0

            Yeah, you beat me to it. Pretty weak excuse if you ask me… they missed out on ~$250M and say it will cost them $1.3B, and they’ll slip to Q4 2022. At the time the down-select was announced they said they’d still be launching in 2021. Apparently Bezos wants to spend more time on BO, hope he can right that ship…

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            Bezos does need to focus more on BO. BO’s management has been running the company like it’s an “old space” company. Simultaneous delays and cost overruns are par for the course, right?

            Hopefully Bezos can get the company to break out of their “old space” mindset and swing a towards a more hardware rich development process. They’re making a huge leap going from New Shepherd to New Glenn and there’s going to be some failures along the way. Yet the New Glenn program is looking more and more like the SLS program every year with nothing resembling New Glenn ever flying.

          • Bruce M Wiegmann says:
            0
            0

            And that $20B sunk cost, if correct, would equal multiple Mars rovers that had just landed at Mars… but SLS ppt slides are most likely being prettied up… And what Exactly is the New Administration’s and NASA’s policy if the next green run test Fails to run for 100% of the predetermined test run time? Or will more $$$ be asked for? And to show how inept Congress and their staffers are – One would think that some Congress-person would demand a listing of all of the new technologies that are being developed in this SLS Program that will enable the programmatic life cycle costs to go down… Can anyone list 5 new technologies that are going into this ‘21st Century (Spruce) Aluminum Goose’? That should be a very easy set of charts that the US Congress needs to see… in the Apollo program, the LoX/H2 engine that was restartable on-orbit was developed, plus the requirements for robust micro computers drove the next 20 years of the semi conductor technologies were two notable technologies done then.

        • Dr. Malcolm Davis says:
          0
          0

          But…the SLS has no capability.

          Its not flown, and probably never will fly because its years behind schedule and billions over budget. Estimates put the 70 ton to LEO SLS Block 1 at $2bn per launch – compare that to 150 tons to LEO on a SpaceX Starship Super Heavy at around $200m approx. And that can happen, day after day after day, once Starship begins operations. SLS Block 1 – if it ever flies – will launch maybe once a year. Everything is thrown away – not a single component is reusable. We’re back to Saturn V and the 60s. By contrast – Starship or New Glenn is fully reusable – hence the low cost, and the rapid launch tempo.

          With on-orbit refueling of Starship, it can take 150 tons of payload to the Moon, or Mars, or anywhere else. SLS Block 1 can take 26 tons to the Moon. That’s it. (I’m not counting Block 2, because that’s unlikely to be funded in the end, but even if it is, Block 2 only can deliver 46 tons to lunar orbit – far less than Starship-Super Heavy’s 150 tons with on-orbit refueling, for far less cost).

          I’m sorry – SLS is yesterday’s technology for yesterday’s mindset. Its a step backwards – its obsolete and irrelevant, and its only role is to suck funds away from other areas of investment which NASA could make to progress in space.

          Its NASA’s albatross…

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          The reduced number of flights to loft the same mass is the chief advantage of SLS. It’s not complicated. More interesting is this: what’s the acceptable cost delta to gain this advantage?

          To leave these facts out of the discussion is disingenuous at best.

          • tutiger87 says:
            0
            0

            But why does it have to take so long?

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            The reduced number of flights and the lengthy time between flights increases risk and possibly keeps costs up. In that light, I think any advantage to SLS disappears. That’s doubly the case when you consider other options, specifically commercial options.

        • gunsandrockets says:
          0
          0

          Falcon Heavy is the hard reality, available now, and dirt cheap to fly.

          SLS is the expensive fantasy, years from operational status, with costs so high it is crippling NASA even before it flies.

          Cancel SLS. Now. Replace it with Falcon Heavy. Now.

          It is the right choice for NASA. It is the right choice for the taxpayer. It is the right choice for the Nation.

          Do the right thing.

          SLS delenda est

  3. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    SLS lobby is in high gear. They know that the criticism is warranted and will deflect as many of the attacks as they can.

    Falcon Heavy launching the first two elements of Gateway on one launch is kind of a hint that SLS really isn’t needed to return to the moon.

  4. rktsci says:
    0
    0

    So in other words, its OK for NASA to propose schedules and then let the companies walk all over them and stick out their hands to say ‘more money please’ since everyone overruns. Who needs schedules or budgets, right? It is just taxpayer money anyway.

    There’s a lot of blame to go around. NASA puts out RFPs with funding profiles that they know are impractical. The bidders respond. The contract is awarded, work starts, and there are immediate slips when Congress doesn’t increase funding. Add in technical problems, requirements changes, and more with the result that the schedule slips and costs go up because you have to keep the same staff on contract for years longer.

    NASA and Congress are, to me, the worst offenders. NASA assumes unrealistic funding profiles and Congress doesn’t do their proper oversight to correct the problem. And it’s a bipartisan problem.

  5. Chris says:
    0
    0

    The SLS nightmare is if SpaceX has a 2nd in your face moment when/if Starship reaches orbit and successfully lands.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      I’m sort of looking forward to a hearing in Congress where the chairman of the committee asks the NASA guys why no-one had mentioned that NASA was developing a fully-reusable Shuttle replacement. “We aren’t” is the reply. There follows an awkward silence.

  6. Winner says:
    0
    0

    Established players are under threat and feeling vulnerable.

  7. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    ‘A report last year from NASA’s inspector general warned of “rising costs and delays,” “shortcomings in quality control,” “challenges with program management,” “technical issues,” “development issues,” “infrastructure issues,” “performance issues” and more. A watchdog report in December found “uncertain plans, unproven cost assumptions, and limited oversight.””

    What part is going right? Bueller? Bueller?

  8. Bruce M Wiegmann says:
    0
    0

    After having worked 38 years at the MSFC, I today was saddened by a personal photo that I sent to some of my former coworkers. The photo showed the mock LAS crew capsule in its visit to the AL Space Museum in Feb 2012. That was 9 years ago! That is longer than it took the Apollo team to land astronauts onto the moon in the 1960’s.
    Yes the SLS program is behind schedule, over budget, etc. It always has been this way… now that Sen Shelby is not the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I believe bad things will come. Especially if the next green run test has another unknown unknown…
    IMHO only, a major sea change is needed, not only at MSFC but within the entire NASA manned Space Program. SpaceX is on the cutting edge and doing great! My hat is off to Mr Elon Musk for being a visionary and empowering his personnel to come up with real options that bring down the cost of ETO travel. His systems are designed for reusability, whereas NASA is using engines that were designed to be reusable but they are being thrown away. Where is the ROI of that management thinking. But the same managers are still the big boys and girls. Just ask yourself this point – Has anyone been shown the exit ramp when they fail to make a key milestone? And if the next green run has another issue, why not just Terminate the Program due to failure to meet key milestones within a set budget! That is the way corporations work. When those big decisions are made to terminate programs and/or projects then finally the NASA managers will know that their estimated budgets and program schedules must be well thought out in advance with the required program reserve/program management $$$ to account for those unknown unknowns. And lastly I get totally upset and sick when I hear that the SLS will be the most powerful rocket ever built. That really sounds great! But that is only the thrust delivered at ignition. Please check the actual amount of mass injected into a circular Earth orbit on what the initial SLS blocks are to be capable of then compare that mass number to the 50 yr old Saturn V. To a simple man from WV, educated in WV, this statement is somewhat misleading or fraudulent, and key managers should know that point as well. So I shall close and say “God Speed Mr Musk for your many Visions as you are on many great trajectories in all of your pursuits”

    • Nick K says:
      0
      0

      I’ve been at JSC since Shuttle started. Here they’ve worked on Orion since the year after Columbia, which was now 16 years ago. Not only is it way behind schedule but I would not be surprised if it is not yet ready for primetime. But no one knows when it never flies. And we cannot afford to build or fly more than one a year? I think the days of NASA sending people anywhere are over and I am hoping and anticipating that Mr. Musk and others like him will now lead the way. NASA lost their way. They had the mandate; they had the budget. But NASA forgot what the program was about. Too many decisions made based on NASA organizational politics. When flight controllers are declared “scientists” without science degree or background, or flight directors made the lead human factors specialists without a human factors degree or background, you have to wonder. One NASA top AA was shown the exit about a year ago; it was overdue. People in the ranks are great but NASA leadership in human space flight is nonexistent-has been for a long long time.

      • Bruce M Wiegmann says:
        0
        0

        TY for having the courage to speak the truth from your JSC vantage point. Your words truly speak to the underlying corruptness of a bloated federal agency that is not held accountable for even their produced budget estimates and schedules… And no major schedule milestone is met, but no one is fearful of loosing their SES positions… Truly dab but true.

      • tutiger87 says:
        0
        0

        PREACH!