SLS Sticker Shock At The White House
The White House puts a price on the SLS rocket–and it’s a lot, Ars Technica
“The Europa mission could be launched by a commercial rocket,” Vought wrote to the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Alabama Republican Richard Shelby. “At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete, the use of a commercial launch vehicle would provide over $1.5 billion in cost savings. The Administration urges the Congress to provide NASA the flexibility called for by the NASA Inspector General.”
Keith’s note: Over the years I asked Bill Gerstenmaier what the cost of an SLS launch was on a regular basis. I never got an answer. Instead I’d usually get some sort of “we’ll get back to you” or “we’re still working on that”. The ususal assumption was around $1 billion with an expectation that it would be much more. Well, now it is much more.
Of course NASA never explains where they get these numbers. They never include the real cost i.e. going back through the development of SLS into Ares V where this all started. Nor do they get into improvements in ground systems, and dead ends like certifying J-2 for Ares V and then mothballing that effort. Oh yes and then there is the cost of making reusable Shuttle SSMEs into disposable RS-25s. And then there is the cost of the payload – the only actual payload for SLS that currently exists: Orion (unless you count the cubesats that will be launched). NASA talks about using EUS but there is zero money for that new upper stage.
The $2 billion may well be the cost per unit now that all of the sunk costs are spent. But if you look at what it actually took to get to the point of being being able to actually build and fly this rocket, the reals cost per launch is much, much more than $2 billion.
The principle of “urgency” is resulting in the SLS being mandated for Moon 2024 whereas, if we have a bit more time to develop commercial crew for lunar missions then we could end up having a much more affordable lunar program. And affordable means more sustainable which was the first principle in SPD-1. So, urgency is working against sustainability. And then, ironically, if we go the SLS-Orion-Gateway approach with the traditional delays in government programs then we may end up sacrificing urgency after all.
“urgency” is good for commercial space, commercial can move fast, SLS can’t. “urgency” is what downsized Gateway, and “urgency” is why most Artemis launches are commercial, because NASA can only build 3 SLS cores by 2024. “urgency” is also why Blue Origin formed a team with LM and NG instead of everyone bidding separately. And of course SpaceX is used to “urgency” so no issues there.
Mr. Berger left out one other cost tht indexes into the cost per flight of SLS. The words “once development is complete” tells me that the increased fixed costs of the delayed development are also added to the per-flight cost to come up with $2B. That also means that my further delays could raise that even more and further erode SLS’s mission.
The irony is that a Delta Heavy launch could get Europa Clipper to Jupiter sooner than SLS, because Delta Heavy can fly it in, what, 2022 or so? SLS will NOT be available for an uncrewed Europa mission on that date. Flacon Heavy will have more launches under its belt, and thus a more solid rep, by then as well.
“Once development is complete” probably refers to the EUS stage needed to bring SLS up to the 1b larger-payload version. The NASA official cost would then be the $1 billion or so per copy they allege for an SLS, plus the $800 million or so I recently saw quoted as per-copy cost for EUS. Close enough to $2 billion for government work. Though it of course leaves out both development costs and SLS program ongoing fixed overheads.
An Ars Technica article said that cost included fixed costs but not development costs. I don’t think the EUS was included. The issue is specifically about launching Europa Clipper, and they’ve found a way to fly that on a Block 1 rather than 1b. (I suspect that was a programatic decision to release performance margin, since we didn’t hear about any technical changes.) But you’re right about EUS being expensive. I’m not sure how expensive, but it’ll use _four_ RL-10s.
$2 Billion dollars in dollar bills weights more than the rocket itself.
Without fuel, but yes: about 1.6 million kg versus about 2 million kg. Yeesh.
I wonder what if would be if it was all done in Pounds? (as in equivalent £’s and in ye olyd ”Imperial” lbs?)
In pounds, it would still be tons of money.
6,500,000 pounds avoirdupois
1,600,000,000 pounds sterling
This whole mess reminds me back in the late ’80s & ’90s when the B-2 Spirit bomber was coming on line. The cost per aircraft was >$1 Billion and there was such an uproar in congress about it. Now it seems the people in power just don’t give a crap.
The reason the price went up so much was that the buy order got cut. A lot of the extra money came from the research & development costs that were tacked on to the price of each plane. Less planes, less the costs can be spread out on. Same happened to the F-22.
I dont believe it’s quite that simple. For a given amount of funds you can also produce more planes, reducing per unit costs that way. That is increased line productivity. This goes to how programs often sell expectations that for some runout of funds, some total, you get some result, many planes, launches, etc. Then to find the development doesn’t even finish for that amount, or just a dozen planes come out, and viola, the discussion starts that the buy amount was reduced causing the high per unit cost? Not quite. That is to say the shallow slope of cost per unit was already there, and losing money was not going to be reduced by losing more. In many cases increasing production in a low productivity program just adds fixed costs and per unit cost are unaffected or go up.
Lose money on every car? How do we get better – volume!
You seem to have missed the point I was making. Back then the congress critters appeared to be concerned about how much stuff cost. Now they apparently don’t.
So much for a certain political party formerly claiming concerns about deficit spending. Now neither party really cares. Just like climate change – kick that can down the road.
When the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee is today a former Democrat who only switched parties to keep his 1995-Chair of the NASA appropriations sub-committee, it is no surprise that the first worry is always jobs in the districts the Party holds. His real party affiliation is LBJian. His behavior after 1995 is the same as before 1995.
Good point – at one time the Congress worried about the budget, about deficit spending, about the debt. Now they just spend freely and hope to retire before the bills come due.
Despite the cost the question I have will SLS even be ready in time to launch the mission?
I believe based on past experience the answer is a resounding no.
What mission? Artemis 1 or the 2024 moon landing? The answer to both is NO! (especially the 2024 moon landing).
The Europa mission that’s mentioned in the news item.
That’s part of the problem. The justification for flying Clipper on an SLS is the direct trajectory and taking a couple years off the trip to Jupiter. But Clipper should be ready for launch in 2023 and there are no SLS launch vehicles to spare in that time frame. Even if everything about SLS stays on track, those rides are committed to Artemis. So we can wait until 2025 or so when a SLS would be available. At a cost of an extra $1.5 billion or so, and at the cost of a two year delay, which makes the whole SLS-direct-trajectory thing a bit pointless. Actually, now that I think of it, the SLS option is even worse. You typically end up having to debug glitches and iron out operational procedures during cruise. So the time isn’t completely wasted. Two years sitting in a clean room on Earth is just time wasted.
I wonder if it is able to be launched by the Starship. The cargo version should be in service by then, and it has a higher capacity to LEO.
No. Clipper is getting to the point where they need to know what the launch vehicle will be. Actually, that should have been settled some time ago. That means they need something which has flown, with enough of a track record for a flagship mission, and with documented information about the launch environment (e.g. acceleration and vibration.) They need that sort of information to build the spacecraft, and they need it now. I think that means Falcon Heavy. Starship, New Glenn and Vulcan aren’t far enough along yet. I think all the remaining Delta IV Heavy launches are claimed by other government agencies.
Well hopefully NASA will be able to make the decision soon.
That’s just it. From what I understand, the current appropriations bill requires that Europa Clipper fly on SLS.
Cite:
NASA Has Committed to a Rocket for the Europa Mission
https://www.scientificameri…
So, NASA is essentially asking Congress to remove that requirement.
The current appropriations bill is the problem. It does require NASA to launch Clipper on a SLS. But it also requires NASA to launch Clipper by 2023. In practice, that’s July, 2023 since that’s when the launch window is. (And changing planetary orbits is out of their jurisdiction, although the environmental impact statement might be a fun read…)
So what is NASA supposed to do? Bump Artemis II and III, to give the launch to Clipper? Somehow, I don’t see that happening. Ask Congress for enough money to build an extra SLS in a hurry? I doubt that’s possible, regardless of funding and I can’t see Congress approving the funds. So NASA pretty much has to ask Congress to remove one of those two requirements. I guess someone decided avoiding SLS was the more sensible of the two options.
Falcon Heavy has flown enough times now, no?
A Falcon Heavy should be fine. I’m not sure if it’s flown enough times now. The rules are a little vague, since a Falcon Heavy has enough in common with a Falcon 9 to be given some credit. But it isn’t quite close enough to call it a variant of the same rocket. But there are enough flights manifested by the end of 2021 for that to be a non-issue. More importantly, the Falcon Heavy has been approved for national security payloads and that’s sort of a gold standard. On top of that, the Clipper project has done the trajectory analysis; even though they’re still required to baseline SLS, Falcon Heavy is on the table.
Yeah, I have been thinking about that recently. The shuttle went through a tough patch when we could not keep the Liquid Hydrogen from leaking at the external tank to orbiter connection. I am too lazy to look it up, but I remember about 2 or 3 months during a summer in Florida, technicians were searching for this leak that only showed up at cryogenic temperatures. Once the connection warmed up, it would seal the helium gas used for testing it. Boy, did NASA get a bad rap from the press at the time… Fortunately, it did not happen again later in the program but we don’t even know the problems that will certainly show up with SLS, as a new vehicle. I read the engine section in SLS booster is extremely cramped with 4 engines and all the plumbing & cables having to be routed inside, by technicians that must be small and nimble. I know there are growing pains with every new vehicle…. so time will tell. In the mean time, the rest of the rocket companies (SpaceX, Blue Origin and ULA’s Vulcan) are switching to liquid methane (CH4). The problems with LCH4 are yet to be discovered and solved, but at least NASA will not have any of these “new” problems. Hopefully, those ole hydrogen leaks don’t ever come back.
I truly hope that VP Pence or our current President DJ Trump Immediately evaluate and question these numbers and truly ask “Why is This?” But before everyone jumps on my comments this way or that way, I wish to remind everyone of the following… the current Tesla EV was designed in America by US workers. It is built in America (California) by America workers in a former GM and Toyota shared manufacturing plant. Tesla’s latest earnings report, surprised many on Wall Street last week because of the positive news that the earnings reported were much better than the Wall Street analysts predicted. Innovation and competitiveness is good. Now everyone should also evaluate what the engineers and workers of the Chevrolet Division of GM have managed to produce in the new 2020 Corvette… this mid engine car which will be built in Rand Paul’s current hometown of Bowling Green, KY will be able to perform as well, if not better than the cream of the European sports cars that cost 3 times as much as the $65,000 Price yah of the 2020 Corvette. So my question for your readers and including the “all knowing” DC political swamp rats and their aerospace company friends is: “How can the US auto industry – design, develop, and manufacture truly innovative products such as the new Corvette, the Tesla EV cars and the soon to be released Tesla Cyber EV pickup which are built by US workers so economically? If they can do these things, why cannot NASA and its contractors make significant progress in the same fashion? I truly believe most NASA managers would rather not push hard on delivering milestone performance products and systems as there is no accountability within NASA SES personnel for this non performance…This behavior must be eliminated/terminated immediately as 2024 is only 4 years away and one cannot get months of schedule back no matter how much monies are spent at a later date.
>why cannot NASA and its contractors make significant progress in the same fashion
Probably because building cars and building spaceships two different things. One thing to examine is design, build, delivery of components. For cars it is the components most valued, final assembly is where all the pieces come together.
Having quality components delivered on time, otherwise just one missing part and entire final assembly comes to a halt. Then there is acquiring those components, are there barriers such as ITAR, procurement bureaucracy, certain budget requirements (i.e. can only spend money from such and such JO for certain FY), need to file clearance waivers, etc.
NASA is hamstrung by the Senatorial rocket design for the SLS. Along with pork delivery to certain congressional districts for the standing army work force and sub-contractors.
NASA HEO mission directorate is really just a jobs program that requires no operational hardware. Especially since there is no unique payloads that requires the bloated SLS program even if there is non Orion payloads funded by Congress.
The planned 2024 return to the surface Moon isn’t a problem if NASA book a ride with the folks from Hawthorne. NASA should do so before a paying customer booked a ride to the surface of the Moon.
Zed, I take issue with everyone saying that this vehicle is or was designed for the political backing of various US senators from certain key states. IMHO. the whole VIABILITY and usefulness for SLS and vehicles before them such as the Ares are really only short term design solutions that have been sold either on budgetary or schedule Figures of Merit (FOMs). Billions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent, program is years behind schedule, billions of more dollars will be required before an actual first launch… but there are many more issues that really should be examined more in-depth before more tens of Billions of dollars are spent on this program… for instance the design will use left over Space Shuttle engines that were reused though at great cost in the STS program, but now these are going to be thrown away. And there may be only enough STS engines for only 3 or 4 flights… A new engine manufacturing program must be begun … then re-certifying these new engine builds will be required (as they are a new build) before SLS flights 5 and beyond commence… these things all cost $$$… how does this help with a sustainable program? Then if one looks to the previous manufactured SRB metal casings… there too is only a limited supply as these once resizable hardware elements are going to be thrown away in the SLS program… yes this was done to increase the advertised performance as parachute recovery systems cost mass that is emplaned into orbit or beyond…there are many examples in American manufacturing where the top management told the engineering staff to do certain stupid things all to save cost and improve short term sales targets… Some of these that come to mind is we all remember when GM Corp alienated the Olds customers as they had put normal Chevy 350 V8s into the Olds product line instead of the Olds 350 V8 engines.. this saved cost… but it also turned off these Olds customers. Note at one point in the 1970’s the Olds Cutlas was the best selling car in America…I could go on and on, but ONCE AGAIN IMHO, the NASA management all have supported designs that many of them helped create and had earlier sold to key Senators/staffers as a brilliant solution… but these Senators and their staffers were really not that smart on items such as the systems of launch vehicles and therefore they felt that NASA was doing a swell job as these new design ideas put out the current “brush fire”. This cycle has gone on repeatedly since the mid 1980’s. Launch vehicle programs such as the past ALS, NLS, Shuttle C, Shuttle CZ, X-37, NGLS, OSP, Fly back boosters, Magnum LV, and others… they have all failed…the previous launch vehicle successes were derived from the German rocket pioneers and their many combined years of service totally hundreds of years if not thousands. But today the New US Commercial LV companies have made reusable boosters a common place item. And they are striving to make the payload shrouds recoverable. These companies have spent much much less on their reusable vehicle designs than NASA has spent on its throw away single use SLS design…Perhaps some key Senate panels should investigate these points more to really understand why cannot Today’s NASA do as well as SpaceX? If they cannot, why not give SpaceX the job of developing a LV that can inject M tons into a trans lunar injection trajectory… This would save a ton of taxpayers money. Note: “If you cannot recognize that you have a problem, one cannot begin to fix the problem!”
Need I remind you that the list of components for the SLS was written into law by a senate committee. So the design of the SLS was mandated to carry on existing STS component contracts.
Why stop at the auto industry? Space X matches the same criteria-designed and built in the US by US workers. And their innovation and perseverence has paid off having won back the launch industry that the US had all but given up in the decades before. Fortunately operated with relatively minimal seed money from NASA and independent of NASA’s leadership.
Brian, you got my exact point… I was trying to be subtle in my communications. Yes SpaceX has done amazing and I truly marvel on the many successes that Mr Elon Musk has spearheaded in many industries after having came to America from South Africa via Canada. Imagine if minds like that were at the agency helm.
you would be cutting all the pork that congress gets through NASA.
That argument is frequently heard when making the case that private industry con do better than government. But dig a bit deeper and one finds that leaders in the two endeavors require different skill sets.
NASA is the DMV of space.
Tesla has one boss.
GM one CEO
NASA answers to a swamp of immature todlers pretending to be grownup adults.
DING! Why most of the posters here cant seem to understand that fact and do nothing but badmouth a bunch of folks who dont set policy is beyond me.
Meanwhile, at the USAF ‘Pitch Day’ event
https://spacenews.com/elon-…
I’m assuming SpaceX won’t price Starship launches with a 1000:1 profit margin just to keep up with Boeing ?
Yes, that comes out to an estimated cost of $22/kg for the Starship at 100 tons to orbit. The SLS Block I is only able to take 95 tons to orbit for a cost of $23,158/kg. Yes, there is a bit of a price difference…
$2,000 million per launch. My goodness. Better cut taxes another $1,500,000 million to help pay for them.
Because raising taxes is the sure fire cure for stupid spending practices?
No but at the very least you would pay for the services you are utilizing. We are currently operating under the constant republican illusion we can give 100% government services but never pay for them .. just deficit spend. Republicans have never met a deficit they didn’t love .. when they control the WH … if they can not cut spending .. they can quit pretending we can afford tax cuts.. we can’t .. raise taxes to pay for the spending.
Every time the Republicans have made a serious effort to control spending, the Democrats never fail to cynically take political advantage rather than act responsibly.
The recent policy positions promoted by the Democratic Presidential candidates have made it clear that the appetite of the Democrats for ever greater control of every aspect of the U.S. economy is insatiable. The appetite for greater taxes is insatiable. The appetite for greater spending is insatiable.
This obviously can’t go on forever. But then a growing faction of the Democratic Party, the anti-capitalists, the AOC wing, not only thinks our system is rotten from top to bottom, they would gleefully prefer to see our system collapse so they could “rebuild” the rubble to fit their own fantasy of social justice.
Control spending. By cutting taxes?
So you’re all in? that raising taxes will cut spending?
The primary problem with the Federal Debt is increased spending. No tax increase is going to solve that problem. Taxes aren’t the issue. Spending is the issue.
LOL … silly .. gosh maybe another tax cut then for the 1% .. that should take care of those deficits .. that ALWAYS get created after a tax cut.
SLS is about 2 Billion per launch + 2 or so billion more in additional yearly costs. A lot of money to keep legacy NASA going. Congress needs to allow NASA to adapt and get commercial launch options. NASA should not be building rockets. That experience has moved into industry just as it should have.
In perspective for 2 billion you can:
Launch 4 Delta IV Heavy rockets each year
Launch many Falcon 9 Heavy rockets each year
Buy two squadrons of F-35’s each year
Buy 6 commercial spacecraft (crew 6) rides to ISS each year
Build a small commercial space station in LEO each year
Fund a new major planetary mission each year
Or fund 1 rocket that can fly at a max 1 per year and that’s with 3 years advance notice to the prime that you want to accelerate construction from 1 every two years (and brother its going to cost you to do that).
And, according to Musk, launch 1,000 Starship missions. That is insane.
8 preflown F9’s and 8 200 milllion dollar lunar probes to the moon every year.
NASA has never built a rocket.
What happens to MSFC at that point?
They manage the lunar lander and habituate for Gateway.
The current NASA plans call for an Orion stack on top of the SLS. So added about another $2B+ to each manifested SLS flight. Which come about to about $7B for each for the first 4 flights of the SLS with the puny ICPS upper stage.
Keith’s note: Over the years I asked Bill Gerstenmaier what the cost of an SLS launch was on a regular basis. I never got an answer. Instead I’d usually get some sort of “we’ll get back to you” or “we’re still working on that”. The ususal assumption was around $1 billion with an expectation that it would be much more. Well, now it is much more.
———————-
Sure Congress gets blamed, but certainly the mismanagement from NASA administrators has to be factored in too. This is so bad I sometimes think actual malfeasance occurred (or is occurring).
In case no one noticed, everything his NASA organizations touched in the last 15 years went sky high over budget and never met a schedule-many are still in work with no certainty that they will fly on any schedule anyone anticipates. Usually he put “his people” in charge and they were beyond question or reproach because they were “the best we have”, even if many had no relevant experience; they were just his friends. I am hoping Bridenstine’s recent choice of a new AA will fix this issue of putting those without relevant qualifications in charge.
“In case no one noticed, everything his NASA organizations touched in the last 15 years went sky high over budget and never met a schedule”
Gosh one could almost think this guy was a absolute friend of congress and senate staffers from space states must have told him on a regular basis over the years… “good work Bill”
I respectfully disagree. There have been multiple interplanetary missions that have been accomplished in the past 15 yrs that have been on-time and on-budget. I give a large chunk of credit to planetary orbital mechanics, which drive uncompromising deadlines.
I believe he was referring to the projects Mr. Gerstenmaier was responsible for (or involved in.) He’s spent his entire NASA career on the human spaceflight side of the agency.
A valid point, as being told what to do by Congress arguably still leaves a lot of latitude on how. A case might be made that a demonstrated disinterest in cost, acting as if due diligence on costs is beneath you, is negligence, and we are half way home to malfeasance.
I think that would be misfeasance (an official failing to do his job) not malfeasance (an official using his authority inappropriately.) I guess it could be either, but it’s would be much easier to get a conviction for misfeasance. Of course, since we’re talking about congressmen, conviction isn’t the right word and the whole process involved politics rather than evidence and proof.
I think there has long been a fear that being up front about the costs (both past and projected) would cause an outcry and nothing would get funded, causing the agency budget to shrink dramatically. And, of course, for a government agency that’s the worst possible outcome.
When I look out in my division and see all the folks who are not funded by any project and twiddle the day away, but are covered by funded projects that their cooworkers are working, I’m surprised it’s only $2 billion.
On another site there is a good article about the “RS25E” engines, of which we have 16 after hugely expensive conversions from reusable shuttle engines to splashable disposable SLS engines. Such a shame, and then what engines do we use? Of course I expect that would further raise each launch’s cost for SLS some more.
Elon Musk is claiming that his company will soon be making one Raptor engine per day, which obviously equates to 365 per year. These Raptor engines are not all that much less powerful than an RS-25. It just seems unreal to me that Musk is aiming to making 300+ of these reusable engines per year, while we only have 16 RS-25s after years of development. It seems like SpaceX exists in a completely different reality.
Even if they can manage one Raptor per day, I suspect that would “only” be 250 or so per year. On the other hand, this is SpaceX, so people working weekends and never taking vacation isn’t unthinkable. I also have some doubts about what Mr. Musk means by “soon” and how realistic that is, given the trouble Tesla has had getting up to full production.
The RS25E are the redesigned new engines, not the refurbished old engines from the Shuttle.
NASA decided to re-used the existing engines and upgrade them with new controls which cost hundreds of millions of dollars in order to save money.
Because there was only 16 of those old engines they had to also pay Aerojet $1.6 billion to redesign the engine by simplifying to make them disposable and also restart the production line. I believe part of that deal was 6 new engines of the new design.
https://www.nasaspaceflight…
I think they just recently signed a billion dollar deal for 8 additional engines but I could be wrong about that.
There is a meme that rocket science is a trade between performance, reliability and cost. But you only get to choose two.
NASA always chooses performance and reliability.
SpaceX always chooses cost and reliability.
That’s the difference right there.
Hi Fred. Not sure where SX has traded away ‘Performance’ unless you mean their S2 engine but doesn’t seem to have hurt them.
Personally I think they’ve scored the trifecta.
Cheers Neil
Just this morning Space X launched its heaviest payload with a Falcon 9, launched and recovered a booster for the FOURTH time, reused fairings from a previous launch, and launched 60 Starlink satellites for the start of a dramatically improved worldwide internet. Expected Starship orbital flight first half of 2020. The clock is ticking rapidly for SLS.
Hopefully this entire discussion will be rendered moot in another year if Space X is successful with its Starship. If Starship is successful, as early as in the next 6 months, then it will become obvious to all, including the taxpayers and Congress, that SLS, Orion and Gateway are just nonsense projects using up tax dollars trying to recreate an event from 50 years ago. NASA ought to be planning for what they will do with all those people working on those projects.