NASA to perform key test of the SLS rocket, necessitating a delay in its launch, Ars Technica
“In a memo shared with senior agency managers earlier this week, NASA’s chief of human spaceflight, William Gerstenmaier, said the green run test would proceed. He also acknowledged that the first test flight of the rocket, Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1), would likely be delayed beyond 2020. “Ultimately, it was my recommendation to the agency that we stay the course with the plan that we have had for many years,” Gerstenmaier wrote in the memo, dated April 22, which Ars obtained. “Although there is no certainty in when we launch, I believe this is the best approach to achieving a successful EM-1 flight test and put NASA on the path to achieving an EM-2 crewed mission in 2022 and a Lunar Surface mission in 2024.”
Keith’s note: At yesterday’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel meeting it was made clear that the ASAP wants NASA to do the SLS Green Test engine firing. This pushes EM-1 back and makes the already sporty plan to land Americans on the Moon by 2024 (at the end of the Trump Administration’s potential second term) increasingly improbable.

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

61 replies on “HEOMD/ASAP Push Back On White House/9th Floor Moon 2024 Plans”

  1. Gerstenmaier, Wernher Von Braun this guy ain’t.

    $230 million for a test stand modification?

    $1 billion for a new mobile launcher? You know, for that SLS Block 1B that will most likely never get built or else be 10 years late.

    Have the new disposable RS-25 engines been designed, built and tested yet? How much will they cost?

    New space suits ever been developed? Oh, just $200 million spent over the last 12 years.

    1. Actually I believe von Braun wanted a more incremental test approach for Apollo…. I thought it was Mueller who pushed for going more quickly to a full up flight test.

      1. And they got away with it! Which “except” for Apollo 1 and 13 was very lucky. As Walt Williams said, “You don’t get medals for on-time failures!” While it is true that the RS-25’s are “almost” the same as the Space Shuttle reusable engines, there is the new control head design. Better to get an all-up systems test and dump more $’s into this (dodo) bird, than to have is come unglued on the first launch! Rushing things brought us such sterling performances as Apollo I and Challenger, among others.
        So either go ahead with the “green run” or cancel the whole thing!

        1. Everyone of the 16 refurbished SSMEs have been fully tested. I’m assuming the green test is mainly to test the fuel management system and engine interactions.

          It’s hard to say something is “rushed” when it’s two years behind schedule.

          1. It’s easy to rush something which is behind schedule. That’s usually when things go badly wrong.

            How can you tell? Well, at some point, early in the game, someone (actually more than just one someone) came up with a list things which they had to do to make the project work. Unless they were being dishonest, that was really things that they had to do, not things that would be nice to do (although listing both would be fine, as long as they flagged the necessary versus desirable items.)

            That list is the things which have to be done, regardless of how long it takes. If, years later, someone comes along and says, “We’re behind schedule, lets skip some of those necessary steps.” that means they are rushing. Or that there was something bogus about the original statement of work and list of tasks. Either way, it doesn’t say anything good about the project’s management. Although being years behind schedule already says something less than good about the project’s management.

          2. “the project’s management”

            I’ve been curious for many years about that. Ws the original schedule realistic?

            Or, is management just incoherent? And I’ve asked in many places if anyone who actually knows can characterize the extremely slow pace; the only answer I ever get has to do with Boeing or whoever milking the government. Which might be true, but likely a poor explanation.

          3. I’m not sure about the SLS schedule. But, for both schedules and budgets, the initial estimates are often not worked out very rigorously or in great detail. It isn’t unusual to simply list off the major systems which need to be developed and ask how much and how long it took, the last time someone did something similar. That sort of estimate can even be necessary, since you don’t have the budget or staff to do anything higher fidelity before a project is approved. And you need to provide an estimated budget and schedule to get approval. Unfortunately, once a big project is approved and funded, new requirements start creeping out of the woodwork, and people start adding tasks which go beyond the scope of those past, supposedly analogous projects used as an analogy. Keeping that under control is something project managers are supposed to do.

          4. I’m not sure how to view this. Sure, I follow your argument. But.

            In my world, I do budgets for developers all the time. Want to know how much it will cost to develop that 100 acre tract? Give me a few weeks and I will tell you. I never miss, ever. And that’s only because I have enough experience and have done many similar projects. It’s not magic.

            At what point does space move into the same arena- sufficient experience to actually nail the cost estimates? Sure, there’s new scientific instrumentation. But gee whiz! Miss the budgets by factors of 3 or more? Seriously?

          5. But you have competition that forces you to work to make sure you are accurate. If you aren’t you don’t stay in business. And the money your customers are paying you is their money, which they value highly. 🙂

            On the other hand, if NASA is off by a few billion or years its no big problem, that just fall back on the old song “space is hard” and the Congress Crittiers nod and pour more taxpayers money into the hole. And unlike the customers you have, the Congress Critters don’t care because the money they spend isn’t their hard earned money, its the taxpayers, and although they claim to care all they really care about is creating jobs in their districts to create votes.

            So there is zero incentive for NASA to even try to be accurate in their projections for a venture as past events show.

          6. In the last couple decades NASA has done its best to put inexperienced people in charge of projects. So I suspect you are seeing inexperience in government together with contractors milking the government for everything they can.

          7. I see someone has already commented on having “space is hard” as an excuse, limited incentive to keep costs under control, and no chance of going out of business or being sued for wildly wrong cost estimates. So I’ll skip that.

            One real problem is exactly what your work suggests: You can get it right because you “have enough experience and have done many similar projects.” How many similar projects does NASA have? When was the last time they built something like Orion? With a small number of projects, years or decades apart, there isn’t a whole lot of experience. And when they try to find analogous projects, the analogy can be pretty stretched.

            Parametric cost analysis tries to get around that by looking for statistical correlations between vaguely similar projects. But even that is limited. You need many examples before the statistics are any good. Even with lots of examples, you can still have lots of false correlations. The projects have to be at least vaguely similar, which makes the process a bit subjective when it comes to picking which projects to include or exclude.

            When does space get to the point where those cost estimates are reliable? Well, I think communications satellites are already there. I’m not sure how many new spacecraft or new designs per year that amounts to. But it is items per year, not years per item.

            To me, one of the really worrying things isn’t the wild inaccuracy of those cost estimates. It’s the fact that they are always underestimates. If it really were just the uncertainty of the process, I’d expect overestimates as often as underestimates. That’s definitely true, and that means there is a systematic bias and something fundamentally flawed about the whole process.

    2. Typical bureacracy just running out the clock and hoping there is a new Administrator after the election. Afterall, its only taxpayer money they are wasting and there’s plenty more where that came from.

      1. We heard similar dreams expressed leading up to the end of the Obama Administration. No…and at this point very hypothetical…”new administration” can or will do anything to stop the freight train that is about to overtake and demolish SLS.

        Trump gave Old Space a chance and appears to have come around to the same mindset regarding SLS/Constellation vs New Space as Obama did. When the smoke clears in November 2020 we’ll either have him, or Obama’s VP Biden, or a Democrat version of Trump who will enter office just as clueless and disruptive and in the end will come to the same conclusion for even more reasons than he did. Even if we do manage to elect someone who will want to keep spending money on SLS, it’ll all be over with before they get their crap together.

    3. Hey, careful there, Gerst is the most powerful man in all of human spaceflight and has been at the top of this pyramid for nearly 20 years. The program we have today is a direct result of his leadership. When others wanted to keep Shuttle going, he felt there was neither the money or the safety so he saw to it that it was shut down. When earlier Administrators wanted Apollo on steroids, he supported and has kept it going for several subsequent Administrators. Von Braun had a vision; part of it was to reach the Moon and he saw that happen; the rest never came to pass. But von Braun remained at the top of the pyramid for a relatively short time. Von Braun was gone before Apollo was over. I have often wondered if Gerst has a vision and what it is?

      1. i don’t think the manned space program we have today is anything to write home about. Shuttle prematurely shut down with nothing to replace it, dependent on the internationals for almost everything, an underutilized ISS, a Moon “plan” that makes zero sense, projects billions of dollars and decades behind schedule. The most powerful-maybe having single-handedly destroyed the program?

      2. That would seem to be NASA’s problem too many folks just protecting a workforce not attempting to reach the goal !

          2. Execept NASA does not have that as their goal, it is only the goal for space advocates. As the folks in NASA will point out space settlement and economic development is not listed in the NASA Charter, only science and technology research. Its why you need to both overhaul NASA and rewrite its Charter if you want to end the stagnation in space,.

          3. They do have the goal of this though:

            “(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage to the maximum extent possible the fullest commercial use of space”

            Along with that you have the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, the Commercial Space Act of 1998 and the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015.

            So it may not be an expressed goal but everything is pointing to bringing the inner solar system into our economic sphere of activity.

            I would say NASA having the goal of fullest use of commercial space is that goal.

          4. NASA folk will point out their charter only applies to commercialization of NASA technology and assisting commercial firms by providing access to NASA technology. It says nothing about space settlement or the economic development of space. Remember, Congress created Comsat to develop the space communications industry. NASA only supplied technology and in the beginning, ELVs that Comsat had to reimburse NASA for.

            Those laws only apply to commercial activities in space for the most part, not NASA. They created and expanded the power of FAA CST and call for a better framework for space commerece activities. Indeed the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 is even a step backward in terms of NASA as it allows NASA to use the SLS in place of commercial launchers for activities like ISS crew rotation IF the NASA Administrator believes its necessary.

            Those laws just illustrate the gap between American space goals, as expressed by the National Space Council, and NASA goals. Remember, U.S. space policy is far more than merely NASA, which is why the path to the Moon doesn’t necessarily go through NASA. Remember, Vice-President Pence mentioned the goal of America astronauts on the Moon, not specifically NASA astronauts.

            If NASA thinks its too dangerous to send it’s astronauts to the moon private industry may well be funded to do so. The mechanism would be easy, NASA, or some other government entity (NSF? USGS?) could just pay for lunar samples or to place instruments on the Moon’s surface.

          5. Why the inner solar system? Venus doesn’t strike me as very economically useful, and Mercury is pretty hard to get to. Arguably, most asteroids aren’t part of the inner solar system, comets aren’t, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn aren’t without interest.

          6. Yes, any resources Venus would have are at the bottom of a deep gravity well and a really nasty atmosphere. Mercury may have some interesting resources, but getting to it is expensive and probably not worth it for any reason other that scientific interest. In terms of solar orbits interior to that of the Earth the only economic value I see would be setting up a series of satellite observatories for improving predictions of space weather events and having a secondary capability for searching for NEOs that might approach from that direction.

            I agree, the outer Moons of both Jupiter and Saturn are very interesting in terms of possible resources, as are the Jupiter Trojans which have interesting spectrums.

            But in terms of near term economic value I would rank the Moon as the clear front runner, with Mars, short term comets/asteroids and main belt asteroids in that order.

          8. The same is true for the Inner Solar System. Remember its not a matter of distance but of Delta-V.

            The Delta V to reach Mercury is almost as much as to reach Jupiter, not to mention climbing back up out of that deep solar gravity well to return to Earth. Venus may be easy to reach in terms of delta-v, but it takes almost as much delta v to leave the surface as it does as on Earth, and you have a much thicker acidic atmosphere to deal with which creates it far worse.

            That is why spacecraft will land on the outer moons of Jupiter long before landing on Mercury. And any missions to the Venus surface are one way for now.

          10. Comets aren’t what I’d call part of the inner solar system, but they do pass through every so often. That should allow some volatile extraction, although it might be a rushed, six-month, shatch and grab job.

    4. Back in the Olden days, we might have flinched a bit when these prices were announced, but in the end there’d be a shrug and not much else. And with good reason, too. There was not real point of comparison, with the exception of Old Space vs. Old Space. And forgive me for using terms like that. They are convenient shorthand, but ultimately misleading.

      anyway, any comparisons would be between, for instance, Boeing and Martin Marietta, or someone else (as I said, Olden Times).

      SX’ chief contribution to human space efforts in my view was this: a new way of thinking. Yes, thank you, Elon, for cool hardware, and for all the excitement. But mostly thanks for a new way of thinking.

      So, when I see that, as an instance, there’s a huge new machine to spin weld up there in Louisiana; or that the crawler requires huge changes, or whatever, it’s just inevitable to wonder how SX would handle the same thing.

      I have pointed out elsewhere the recent, breathless announcement act- wait for it? that two parts of the initial SLS body have been joined! Wow!

      Meanwhile, and again as I’ve previously pointed to: SX is running out of room to store the rockets that are streaming out of the factory.

      So, yea. Let’s have another look at that test stand?

      1. Don’t worry about where that spinwelder is going. The Micheod facility has been wrapped into Next Step by NASA. Next Step is built as a Commercial Space support thing.
        NASA saw this coming.

  2. Maybe launch Orion on commercial, but perhaps not all the way to lunar orbit in 2020 to achieve most of the Orion EM-1 objectives? Then instead of doing an SLS green run, do a test flight of SLS without Orion in 2021 with, for example, a commercial lunar lander as payload…

    1. Bigelow Aerospace moves fast. Maybe replace the Orion with a BA330. Instant lunar Gateway?

      Then put the Orion on a Falcon Heavy, without crew, and use it to test crew transport to ISS.

    2. That’s what I’d do. Use the SLS to launch the hardware sans crew. Realistically there will only be four SLS launches, based on the number of SSMEs they have on hand.

      Use them put the maximum amount of hardware in orbit around the moon.

      But it appears that NASA is going to stick with the original PLAN such as it is.

      1. In 2016 NASA signed a $1.16 Billion contract with AeroJet Rocketdyne to restart production that included an initial batch of 6 RS-25e so they will have enough for five flights and a production line capable of producing more. The other limit is they only have enough booster casings for eight flights., If they want more than 8 flights they are planning on developing an advanced SRB. I think they will get to 8 flights and then commercial takes over completely.

        1. Thanks for the information. I looked on the Rocketdyne website and couldn’t find anything related to the new RS-25 production.

    3. Could a modified dragon be the lander? Which could be sent by a falcon 9 to LEO where it could dock with a lunar staging modular or an adaptor for European module sent by falcon heavy?

    1. Do any of these people understand what it is that’s chasing them? Maybe they don’t care.
      One crewed loop around the Moon by Starship anywhere near UNCREWED EM-1 and no one will ever see SLS fly. Either that or it flies only once, for show, like Ares 1.

      Just another nail in the coffin of the Apollo paradigm.

      1. Yes.

        Which puts Elon in an uncomfortable position. He has a close relationship with NASA, it is said; one that is valuable on both sides.

        Appearances count: lapping NASA does nobody any good at all. On the other hand, Elon isn’t the kind of guy that likes to be held back.

        1. Which is why SpaceX is speeding forward with Starlink, so it will have a revenue stream strong enough to withstand any political reaction.

        2. In this case, lapping NASA and letting SLS die gives Congress its only hope in LOP-G, and that gives Starship a paying job. There is no business case for SpaceX to help SLS or Orion survive. All they need to do is stay the course on existing plans and let the chips fall where they may.
          That doesn’t necessarily hurt NASA.

      2. Elon really, REALLY has to retire the technical risks and operational bugs of cryogenic, in-space, large-scale refueling. Otherwise we’ll be stuck with variations of the ‘Apollo paradigm’ for some years to come. But even that paradigm could blossom with mature ISRU, especially for propellants.

  4. Gerst and company need to resist this rush to a politically determined landing date – that gets us right back to the days of schedule pressure. That got us the Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia accidents. Where did this date and landing site come from? NASA has learned a lot of lessons from earlier accidents and should not change their procedures for this.

    People may claim that SpaceX, etc could make this date but the crews they have are also smart enough to not want to take enormous risks, cut enormous corners, just for some politically determined landing date.

    1. Uh, you realize first flight was supposed to be in 2017. Is there pressure to put men on the Moon? Hell yeah! NASA has been working on the project since 2005 (if we include the Constellation program), blowing through billions of dollars with nothing to show for it except one test flight of the Orion capsule in 2014 and various components sitting on the ground.

      NASA did learn from the other incidents: no pure oxygen atmosphere, double O-rings on the boosters, and capsule at the top of the stack to be free of debris. The SLS takes everyone of these learnings into account.

      The HSF program is horribly mismanaged and expensively bloated.

        1. You are correct. After researching it a little, NASA said that date was DOA and moved to 2017.

          The Shuttle went from contract award in 1972 to first flight in 1981. And that was using new technology like the heat tiles, the R-25 engines, etc. All in less than 9 years.

      2. The original SRBs had double O-rings. They got a third one (and heaters,and (I believe) the J-flap) after Challenger.

    2. That would be credible if and only if there was some evidence that NASA was following a reasonable schedule for this program. There’s no way to reasonably argue that at this point in time.

      1. So to replace an unreasonable schedule you are happy with an even more unreasonable one? You are happy to advance the schedule, cut corners?

        1. No, you replace it with one that is reasonable and make people stick to it.

          EM-1 in 2020, EM-2 in 2022, EM-3 in 2024.

          EM-1 in 2020 was already NASA’s revised schedule time.

    3. The only reason for SpaceX to carry Orion to the Moon would be to save it from SLS’ fate.

      Why would Elon tale his eye off the Starship ball to do that?

      1. SpaceX is in business to make money so if someone wants them to put the Adminstrator’s old car in orbit they will do so, as long as NASA pays for it.

  7. NASA should just merge with the DMV, and just process paperwork for people who make things happen. At this point NASA seems to be getting in the way of progress.

  8. Note this was being proposed only a little over 3.5 years ago:

    https://www.nasaspaceflight…

    A launch rate of 1 per year seems ludicrous now (even though it states at one point it would hit 3 per year). And they were still hitting on EM-1 in 2017/18 which means the “green test” should have been in 2016 but should have been known by Gerst in 2015 that was not remotely possible.

    So basically NASA been selling a very expensive bit of science fiction to Congress and the public. I’m not really concerned with the Mars missions as that would be purely pie-in-the-sky. The lunar missions however, they were selling not one, not two, not three, but FOUR crewed cis-lunar missions by 2024!

  9. I realize St. Gerstenmaier is somewhat of a legend within NASA human spaceflight. By all accounts he is a genius. But he is NOT a steely-eyed missile man. I hope I don’t ruffle any feathers…but what exactly has Gerstenmaier accomplished in the past 20 years, besides the (premature) cancelling of the Shuttle, with no follow-on NASA human-rated launch vehicle anywhere near completion…nor would there be, going now on fifteen years, and apparently to continue for sometime more. We desperately needed a man (or woman) of vision, fortitude and courage, that would not be blown around like a leaf upon the capricious winds of various administrations and their associated NASA boondoggles.

    1. I wonder why anyone would think he was a genius. I am not aware of any accomplishments which would point to it. Even on a personal level, the greats like George Mueller, Robert Seamans or George Lowe who ran Apollo, were PhDs with serious industry, government and research experience. Gerstenmaier never finished his PhD, he was ABD – all but dissertation – he never finished a research project or writing up findings. And since he moved into his Headquarters position he has not really succeeded at anything except for shutting projects like Shuttle down. ISS was well along so he cannot take much responsibility for it. Orion and SLS have become embarassments on his watch. Every Administrator in the last 20 years has deferred to him as though he knew what to do, but after the capricious changes of direction and lack of progress, someone ought to be rethinking NASA’s progress and identify an achievable goal.

Comments are closed.