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

Would You Buy A Used Moon Rocket From NASA?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 27, 2021
Filed under
Would You Buy A Used Moon Rocket From NASA?

Exploration Production and Operations Long-Term Sustainability, NASA
“The primary goals enabling this vision include 1) moving ESD programmatic implementation to a construct in which industry owns vehicle production and the flight hardware, and leads the ground operations services, 2) production, operations, and maintenance costs at a substantial savings of 50% or more off of the current industry baseline per flight cost with a flight rate of one crewed flight and potential for at least one cargo flight per year (costs are inclusive of Orion/payload and system integration but exclusive of the Orion hardware, payload hardware, government personnel and government facility costs), and 3) a programmatic construct that is a launch service (across 2 contracts) available for additional customers, including other government agencies, international partners and commercial entities.”
Keith’s note: This RFI is hilarious. NASA wants people to submit ideas as to how to save “50% or more off of the current industry baseline per flight cost” when NASA itself has never said what a SLS flight costs. So … how exactly does one submit a proposal to cut that unknown cost in half? And who would want to own this launch system for that matter since it was mandated by Congress – a rocket that took a decade longer and billions over budget to build? How predictable is its long term use when it took so long to build it in the first place? It has not even flown once.
And who is the customer? Oh, its NASA, of course, which has already shown its chronic willingness to spend vast amounts of money on this system – and bet their entire Artemis architecture on it. That means that any contractor knows going into this that they have NASA right where they want them. And if the contractor underbids or the rocket does not perform – and NASA is stuck without a ride – who will pick up the tab? Why NASA of course. This whole RFI is a fool’s errand. I can’t wait to see who responds.

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

16 responses to “Would You Buy A Used Moon Rocket From NASA?”

  1. Bill Hensley says:
    0
    0

    This whole RFI is a fool’s errand. I can’t wait to see who responds.

    Round up the usual suspects.

  2. Bad Horse says:
    0
    0

    10 years ago we looked at ways of giving the rocket to a legacy aerospace company (rhymes with going), They finish & pay for development and NASA buy rides. EVERYONE said no. Looks like the large cost are paid now so it’s time to give it away and buy rides. This is the biggest tell on the state of the SLS program. They only way to cut cost is bulk buy. We estimated 3 cores a year would cut the cost by about 30-40%. Safety is enhanced by a faster launch rate. Some of the most critical part of SLS are made in Europe (no, not the Orion SM) because Boeing did not want to invest in the needed US manufacturing base. Imagine its 2025 and the German supplier no longer wants to make dome panels. Production stops. The only national security reason for building SLS was to buy SRBs so the Solids industry is protected. But with a new US ICBM coming and being but by Northrop that reason may be going away too. Just one SLS rocket cost more than a US Navy Frigate. NASA, please buy Falcon Heavy or Starship..

  3. R.J.Schmitt says:
    0
    0

    Correct. This RFI is nonsense.

    SLS has two expendable solid rocket side boosters derived from the reusable Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster (SRB). I suppose the first thing to do to reduce cost is to make the SLS side booster reusable. However, to NASA’s surprise the cost of remanufacturing the SRB for reuse was about equal to the cost of manufacturing a new SRB. The SLS side boosters will have the same problem. No cost savings here.

    The SLS uses pre-flown RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) that cost $72M (2021$) according to the manufacturer Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJR) in 1992. These engines will be used in the first four SLS launches and dumped into the ocean after each launch.

    In May 2020 NASA placed a contract with AJR worth $1.79B for 18 additional expendable RS-25 engines for SLS. Unit cost of the new engines is $99.4M in today’s money. There’s is no cost saving here.

    The main component of SLS, the Core Tank, is built by Boeing. In Oct 2019 NASA and Boeing negotiate a cost-plus contract for 10 Cores. Neither NASA nor Boeing has revealed the value in dollars of this contract award. So there’s no way to accurately calculate the unit cost of these ten Cores.

    These Cores are fabricated from aluminum-lithium alloy and use friction stir welding. This is state of the art manufacturing technology. It’s unclear if there are new materials and processes available that can reduce the cost of these Cores by 50%.

    • gunsandrockets says:
      0
      0

      These Cores are fabricated from aluminum-lithium alloy and use friction stir welding.

      Segments of the SLS core might be joined by friction stir welding. But the individual panel segments of each barrel section appear to be traditional (and expensive) isogrid-machined from thick skins.

      Pushing the limits – Achieving the Impossible

      AMRO offers flight-heritage Isogrid and Orthogrid metallic structures used for spacecraft and launch vehicle primary structures. High-speed machining, brake forming, welding, assembly, installations, laser tracking and heat aging. From small desk top parts to the largest design and builds AMRO will execute with first time quality and on time delivery.

      SLS Core Stage Primary Structure

      Advanced Manufacturing practices are used in the construction of lightweight metallic Isogrid and Orthogrid barrel panels. We have over forty (40) plus years’ experience to help fully optimize designs for mass reduction and ease producability. SLS is just an example of the significant structures we produce on key programs.

      I believe friction stir welding can be a big cost reduction of manufacturing, which is why SpaceX used that method to attach ribs and stringers to thin Falcon skins instead of using traditional aerospace isogrid skins.

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      FYI the SLS side booster can not be recovered. Since they staged higher and moving faster than the Shuttle side boosters. By not including recovery hardware the boosters’ non-propellant mass fraction improves.

    • Brian says:
      0
      0

      These Cores are fabricated from aluminum-lithium alloy

      Is it actually Al-Li? Shuttle’s SLWT was Al-Li but I thought I read years ago that they switched back to standard aluminum for SLS.

  4. Nick K says:
    0
    0

    Not a “used Moon rocket”; so far a totally unproven design. In fact in order to cut costs NASA went with a compromised design in rhe hope that one day they would be able to afford a new upper stage which would make the design somewhat workable.

  5. james w barnard says:
    0
    0

    Sure! I’d buy a “used Moon rocket” from NASA…if it was made in Boca Chica, Texas! As Bugs Bunny used to say, “What a bunch o’ maroons!”

  6. Half Moon says:
    0
    0

    My memory is a bit foggy on this, and didn’t Dan Goldin ‘turn over the Shuttle’ to industry with the same (never realized of course) goals of saving money on STS processing, launch, and operations? This sounds like the same idea.

  7. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    Basically, NASA want an exploration launcher that costs $500M or less per flight. I’m sure that I can name at least one vendor who can provide that! I also can see why: The less you spend on the launcher, the most you can spend on the payload, which has been ESMD’s problem for a long time!

  8. Winner says:
    0
    0

    Ooops…..I don’t seem to have a spare $2 billion to buy that used rocket.
    Assuming it wasn’t disposable, of course.

  9. Keith MV says:
    0
    0

    “FUTURE NEWS FLASH: U.S. manned space program commits suicide, as a result of fears of SLS rejection and associated financial irresponsibility by NASA, while SpaceX Starship / Super Heavy proves itself a reliable and cost-effective launch vehicle for solar system manned and unmanned exploration.”

  10. Richard Brezinski says:
    0
    0

    NASA lost its way some time ago. What this RFI shows is that it does not have enough intelligence in its leadership to know what it should do.

    • richard_schumacher says:
      0
      0

      I’d bet a dollar that Senator Shelby’s office compelled NASA to undertake this embarrassment. Hmm, or maybe it was some eager beaver *cough* Bill Nelson *cough* who thought it up in an attempt to curry favor.

  11. M Puckett says:
    0
    0

    It’s like they are living in an alternate reality where SpaceX never happened…