NASA Just Can't Get That Engine Test Stand Thing Right
NASA OIG: Construction of Test Stands 4693 and 4697 at Marshall Space Flight Center
“In an attempt to meet a 2017 launch date for the SLS, NASA expedited construction of the test stands and paid the contractor a premium of approximately $7.6 million to complete construction on a compressed timetable. Moreover, because the stand designs were based on preliminary testing specifications, the requirements and testing capabilities that would be needed were not fully understood when the construction contract was awarded. As the testing requirements matured, NASA modified the contract to meet changing requirements, added additional features, and made other modifications that raised the contract price by $20.3 million. In addition, NASA did not establish adequate funding reserves to cover these changes and therefore had to secure $35.5 million in additional funding over the planned budget. Finally, because NASA did not adequately consider alternative locations before selecting Marshall as the site for the test stands, it cannot ensure it made the most cost-effective decision regarding where to build the stands.”
NASA OIG: NASA’s Decision Process for Conducting Space Launch System Core Stage Testing at Stennis, earlier post
“In July 2008, the NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) examined allegations that NASA’s plan to build the A-3 test stand at Stennis to test its J-2X engine would duplicate capabilities of an Air Force testing facility in Tennessee. The OIG found NASA failed to follow both its own internal procedures and the process it had agreed to with the Department of Defense (DOD) to avoid costly duplication of test stands when making decisions where to test rocket engines.”
– Too Many Test Stands at NASA?, earlier post
– OIG Slaps NASA on Un-Needed Stennis Test Stands – Again, earlier post
And this is why I have no sympathy for those who lament Ares getting canceled or will lament SLS if it gets cancel. Be it Nasa, congress, the senate, “the alabama rocket mafia” whoever… some one put thier fingers on scales in selecting these rockets without considering alternatives. So they get what they deserve when the cost overruns catch up to them and the budget hawks zero in.
It’ll suck if DST gets set back cause there won’t be a rocket with 50tons to TLI, but If they were really so confident in these designs then they would have opened up shuttle replacement to competition and let the best design win.
Even worst, since under the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act transferred the Shuttle’s exemption to SLS, NASA doesn’t have to consider any commercial alternatives to a payload assigned to the SLS.
Yeah, someone on a forum calculated that with all the money NASA has wasted on SLS (may also have included Ares I and Ares V), NASA could have purchased 80 Delta IV Heavy launches and still had money leftover for 80 Falcon Heavy launches when it becomes operational.
That’s a missed opportunity cost of 160 “heavy” launches!
Apply an across the board payroll reduction in the amount of $20.3 million to all NASA employees and continue to do so for all overruns. Peer pressure will pretty quickly eliminate overruns. The citizens own NASA not NASA employees not a single one has been worth their payroll since Buzz Aldrin retired.
I call bullshit.
“Finally, because NASA did not adequately consider alternative locations before selecting Marshall as the site for the test stands, it cannot ensure it made the most cost-effective decision regarding where to build the stands.”
…and the most frustrating thing for me, the people who will swear the trade actually was done, or that in either case the decision was the least cost, who when asked to provide the report, or the logic, look at you like a troublemaker.
Nasa doesn’t spend money to build rockets. They build rockets to spend money. Overruns are good, according to the congress critters whose districts the money is being spent in.