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.
Budget

Bolden Says $3 Billion+ ARM Mission Won't Be Multibillion Mission

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 14, 2015
Filed under ,

NASA: Two SLS Launches Likely Needed For $3 billion+ ARM, earlier post

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

31 responses to “Bolden Says $3 Billion+ ARM Mission Won't Be Multibillion Mission”

  1. Mark Madison says:
    0
    0

    What if the mission architecture included a falcon heavy? what then.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Apparently NASA would first have to design and build a Falcon Heavy …

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        No problem. Just replace the side boosters with 5 segment SRBs from ATK, replace the core first stage with one built at Michoud using RS-25E engines (because ISP!), and similarly replace the upper stage since it absolutely must be powered by LOX/LH2 (again, ISP!). And one more thing, forget about reuse since the shuttle PROVED that reuse is not economical…

  2. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Mr. Gerstenmaier:

    “IPs are expected to put up some funding for additional mission elements.

    “We need to operate in cislunar space. If we did not have SLS/Orion we would have to build a new rocket and spacecraft…

  3. Jonna31 says:
    0
    0

    The SLS costs $500 million per launch.

    http://www.space.com/17556-

    That is unless, “SLS deputy project manager Jody Singer” is lying. Actively lying. Do we have proof of this?

    This is the part where I receive a reply how such a number does not include R&D costs. This claim however ignores how such a number is intrinsically a political number. What’s a Nimitz-class carrier cost: $4.5B (or $6.5B depending on subclass) or $25 billion? Well let’s see, it cost $4.5B/6.5B to construct it. But over it’s 50 year life if you factor in all it’s costs they are $25B (roughly) a piece. So what does it cost?

    How about the Space Shuttle? Did it cost about $450 million per launch or $1.3 billion? Also what about each Orbiter’s $1.7 bIllion construction costs?

    One day someone will have to explain how the SLS, an architecture cheaper than the Space Shuttle in every way, somehow is unaffordable when that same Space Shuttle flew on average 4 times per year for thirty years.

    Oh wait that’s right, I alright know the answer, it’s because we’re running two manned space programs at the same time: the SLS/Orion program and the the ISS, which has somehow, someway, grown in costs since being completed. And thus the old chestnut of “we can’t afford it” has magically transported into view. As is often the case now days “We cant afford it” is another way of saying “I don’t want to pay for it”. Just like the Air Force “couldn’t afford” it’s A-10s, until, you know, it could.

    Sure we can afford SLS and Commercial Crew simultaneously. Just ditch the 15 year old, obsolete space station, third rate science and all.

    But seriously, let’s stop playing with SLS math in attempts to discredit it that are undermined by, you know, Google. NASA’s number is $500 million. ARM is probably a huge waste of time and resources, but when in a spending bill SLSs are marked up for it, the unit cost for it won’t be $1.25B. It’ll be $500M, just like the STS was every year, for 30 years.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Gerstenmaier has told me – and others – that a SLS launch costs $1 billion or more.

    • Engineer_in_Houston says:
      0
      0

      Consider the cost of the entire program. When you add up the costs to develop SLS and the handful of launches it will see, then you will understand the frustration. Remember, there is a cost to just own SLS with no launches at all. The cost to own and operate such a launcher with the low launch rate we’ll see due to the cost of the payloads that would *require* it makes it unaffordable and not the way to a sustainable presence in space.

      Columbus “rented” his ships – used what was available at the time. The money spent on SLS should have gone to develop payloads and the private sector should have been leveraged to provide launch services. That’s still the better way to go even now.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Actually the Queen ordered a city to outfit the party.

        “On the evening of 3 August 1492, Columbus departed from Palos de la Frontera with three ships: a larger carrack, the Santa María ex-Gallega (“Galician”), and two smaller caravels, the Pinta (“The Pint”, “The Look”, or “The Spotted One”) and the Santa Clara, nicknamed the Niña (lit. “Girl”) after her owner Juan Niño of Moguer.[41] The monarchs forced the Palos inhabitants to contribute to the expedition. The Santa María was owned by Juan de la Cosa and captained by Columbus. The Pinta and the Niña were piloted by the Pinzón brothers (Martín Alonso and Vicente Yáñez).”

    • John Kavanagh says:
      0
      0

      The assertion of $500M per launch is easy to refute. Just divide NASA’s annual budget for SLS by the # of launches per year.

    • Joe Denison says:
      0
      0

      While I disagree with your point about ISS I wholeheartedly agree with your point on SLS affordability. Over the long run the cost of SLS/Orion won’t be that much different from the space shuttle even assuming $1 Billion for a launch. Yet we get far more capability.

      Sure SLS isn’t the perfect rocket. Is possible that SpaceX or others will build a better rocket that costs less? Sure but I and others are not willing to throw away what we do have that can work for the promise of something that might work better down the line. At some point we have to stop chasing perfection and actually build a rocket. If something better comes along we can replace it then instead of starting over again from scratch.

      • Happy Intro says:
        0
        0

        But we don’t have SLS, it is still a powerpoint rocket, a program that will continue to move to the right – the design is changing all the time. Only the government would choose to design a rocket so poorly. The rockets we have right now can and should be used to move forward with real exploration, with NASA building landers and Hab modules (i.e., payloads).

        • Joe Denison says:
          0
          0

          No it isn’t still a powerpoint rocket. Components are being built and tested right now. The RS-25D engines just had a hot fire test and the QM-1 test for the SRBs is coming up in March. (Not to mention that the RS-25s have already flown in space). The design has more or less been finalized (at least for Blocks I and IB). The tooling has been built and is being put into use.

          SLS isn’t perfect. Would I have preferred that it wasn’t sole sourced? Yes, but the time to decide that has passed and it can do the job as designed.

          Broadly we have two options ahead of us.

          A. Continue the “expensive” SLS that is proceeding slowly but surely and has the support of Congress and the ability to perform deep space missions. Like the shuttle, payloads will be developed to launch on SLS and people will venture beyond LEO for the first time in 45 years.

          B. Cancel SLS in favor of SpaceX BFR (or fuel depots only) and waste time, energy, and progress already spent on SLS. Even if the BFR (or fuel depots only) turns out to be much cheaper than SLS there is no money to develop it since it has very few supporters in Congress. Then we are left with no BEO missions for the near future.

          If the choice is between “more expensive but achievable” and “less expensive but unachievable” I am picking the former.

          • Happy Intro says:
            0
            0

            Speaking for myself, that is a false choice — I am not counting on BFR for anything. I am counting on Delta IV Heavy, Atlas, and Falcon 9 and possibly Falcon 9H. That is all we need for the foreseeable future, IMO. Could SLS be a worse design? Not without a lot of effort. Who would mandate a design to have multiple “blocks,” each a hugely expensive design effort in themselves? All these years later and they still haven’t nailed down Block I! The upper stage dance with SLS and its blocks – I, IB, II, etc., is sad, as they are finding out there isn’t enough money to design an interim upper stage for block I AND the larger exploration upper stage for the subsequent block. Don’t let anyone tell you that rockets are not Legos – the Senate has proven that they are. Anyway, I digress, sorry. SLS is its own worst enemy.

            We will all watch how SLS progresses and see just how it all turns out. I would think that we should all be highly skeptical of any “per launch” cost estimate from NASA.

          • Joe Denison says:
            0
            0

            Sorry if I didn’t make it clear but I was including your option in my choice analysis. If we are going to use the existing fleet we will have to supplement them with fuel depots in order to go BEO. Not many in Congress support that, hence no money.

            Again I said SLS is not a perfect rocket. That said it can do the job. A bunch of people here seem to want it to be exactly like 2001: A Space Odyssey. I’m sorry, we are not there yet.

            I agree that $500 Million per launch is probably not going to happen but even if the launch cost is $1 Billion it can still work.

    • Steve Pemberton says:
      0
      0

      >>NASA’s number is $500 million

      You are comparing actual Shuttle costs with NASA projected SLS costs. That’s looking at one with 20/20 hindsight and at the other through rose colored glasses.

      What was NASA’s number for the Space Shuttle when it was in development? The cost per flight for Shuttle was projected to be so low compared to existing launchers that the annual savings would pay back the development costs in less than a decade, and after reaching break-even it was expected to generate savings of over 1 billion per year. If anyone had any idea how much it would actually cost to operate the Shuttle it would have never been approved. And is why NASA spent practically the entire 30 years trying to replace it.

      Also you are comparing a multi-purpose space vehicle/launcher with just a launcher. Obviously SLS can lift more than a Shuttle however that’s all it does is lift weights (unless Orion is included in NASA’s $500 million number?) Whereas the Shuttle could also carry astronauts, retrieve satellites, conduct laboratory missions, carry out servicing missions, and build an elaborate space station. Being just a launcher and lacking the Shuttle’s intended (and unintended) complexity, I would expect SLS to cost a whole lot less than the Space Shuttle. And I mean in hindsight dollars not in projected dollars.

    • LPHartswick says:
      0
      0

      All too true. We are doing ARM because they don’t want to spend the money to do what we should be doing…going back to the Moon for longer research stays; technology & life science development outside the Earth’s magnetosphere; and to develope our “sea legs” in a hostile environment that is only 72 hours from home. It’s so obvious it makes my eyes bleed. Politicians…Ugh!

  4. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    I think that we have the same situation here that has been noted over on NASA Spaceflight.com with the SLS project claiming to be the baselined launcher for a vapourwear all-in-one Mars Sample Return mission. For the record, Mars 2020 is part of the real MSR mission and all elements will probably be launched by EELV and equivalent launchers.

    Basically, SLS is struggling to find a mission and is thus attempting to lay claim to as many headliner missions as it can. The hope is that it will inspire Congress (thinking that SLS is the only launcher capable of the job) to nod approvingly and allocate the funds for the launcher and the massive side-inflation that such a large launcher will allow.

    Oddly enough, SLS is baselined for one proposal – Europa Clipper. It’s such a fascinating mission that I’m genuinely surprised that the SLS project isn’t making more noise about it. I suppose it’s because it’s a non-HSF and non-Mars mission so they’re scared that it will be seen as a distraction.

  5. Joe Denison says:
    0
    0

    I find it quite fascinating to see that after so many complaints over lack of payloads and missions for SLS the same people are complaining just as loudly about proposed payloads and missions for SLS.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      i know, it’s so ironic.

      being realistic, there’s very little chance that Congress will cancel the SLS, they’re pretty much stuck with it. so NASA needs to find some way to use it.

      • chuckc192000 says:
        0
        0

        ARM is not compelling to anyone outside of NASA (and very few -inside- NASA for that matter). We need to focus on building a permanent presence on the moon.

        • Zed_WEASEL says:
          0
          0

          So where is the money for a Moon lander and a Lunar surface habitation module plus other Lunar surface infrastructure?

          ARM might be a crappy project. But it is doable with the current funding level.

          • chuckc192000 says:
            0
            0

            That’s what I’m saying – if the public is not behind the mission, the funding will dry up. They don’t want NASA spending money “just because”. At least some of the public would be interested in returning to the moon. Nobody is interested in going to an asteroid.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            The lunar mission was dropped because Congress did not make available funding for landing and lunar base systems. I do not see additional funding as very likely considering the deficit. How are we going to be able to afford a reasonable launch rate (say 6-8 per year) and also develop and fly payloads, landers, habitation modules, nuclear propulsion, etc? Maybe we can make the claim that we can send a probe to Europa two years faster if we spend an additional $1 billion on an SLS launch, but I doubt SMD would pay for it. We could continue with one launch a year (paid for by Exploration) and leave it at that.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          that’s just like, your opinion, man.

          NASA’s stuck with the SLS. they might as well do something with it. whether that’s ARM or a return to the Moon, something.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        The bottom line, IMHO, is that currently Congress doesn’t care about missions for SLS. It only cares about the jobs sustained by SLS.

        • Engineer_in_Houston says:
          0
          0

          This is so true.

          It has to be said again that this is not the fault of the engineers who are working on SLS. Personally, I have great respect for the NASA/industry team – they are the best in the world. But, it is ridiculous in the extreme to say that NASA will just have to find a use for this spruce goose that they are stuck with. The correct order of execution is supposed to be (roughly):

          1) Set the goals and make a plan.
          2) Obtain financial backing.
          3) Build the tools to achieve the goals.

          Instead, what we have is:

          1) Build one of the tools (BFR) to achieve an arbitrary and unspecified goal.
          2) ?
          3) ?

      • LPHartswick says:
        0
        0

        Believe me there are a ton of ways to use the kind of capability that the SLS will give us.

        • Engineer_in_Houston says:
          0
          0

          Naive. That’s what they always say. There have been paper studies since the Saturn V was flying about what a heavy lift capability could be used for. But, it costs money to keep open a production line, to pay a workforce to build, maintain, and operate such a vehicle, and to design and build the payload[s]. Flying once a year or two, guess what the cost of SLS is?

          Show me the money.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          yeah. NASA / Congress just need to find some ways that stick. and get funded.

    • speragine says:
      0
      0

      Exactly Joe, NASA will have an abundance of missions to utilize the SLS for. The problem will be if can they free up sufficient funds from other NASA programs that do not have to do with space exploration!