Only NASA Would Spend Billions To Make A Reusable Engine Disposable
NASA will pay a staggering $146 million for each SLS rocket engine, Ans Technica
“However, this is not the true price of these engines. NASA has previously given more than $1 billion to Aerojet to “restart” production of the space shuttle era engines and a contract for six new ones. So, according to the space agency, NASA has spent $3.5 billion for a total of 24 rocket engines.”
Keith’s note: Only NASA would spend billions to develop a reusable engine and then spend billions more to make the reusable engine into a disposable engine. But wait – there’s more. Its not the first time NASA spent vast sums of money upgrading an old engine design. Aerojet Rocketdyne also got a pile of money to develop the modified Apollo era J-2 (J-2x) engine for use on the SLS’ predecessor the Ares V. And where did the $1.4 billion J-2x funding go? Answer: a bunch of engines that will never be used and hardware that needed to be re-redesigned for RS-25.
NASA Awards Upper Stage Engine Contract for Ares Rockets, NASA (2007)
“NASA has signed a $1.2 billion contract with Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne Inc., of Canoga Park, Calif., for design, development, testing and evaluation of the J-2X engine that will power the upper stages of the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles. The contract includes ground and test flight engines. It continues work that began on June 2, 2006, under a preliminary letter contract with Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne.”
NASA’s Management of Space Launch System Program Costs and Contracts, 20 March 2020, NASA OIG
“The RS-25 Adaptation contract with Aerojet provides for the retrofitting of Space Shuttle main engines for use on the SLS under a cost-plus-award-fee and incentive-fee structure. This contract began in 2006 under the Constellation Program to develop J-2X engines for use on the Ares I rockets. In 2011, the SLS work was added to retrofit and certify 16 RS-25 Engines for the first four Artemis missions. … The $2.06 billion contract will end in March 2020, of which $1.4 billion was spent on development of the J-2X engine for the Constellation Program. … Specifically, Aerojet anticipated reworking the Constellation Program’s J-2X ECU for the SLS Program, but found instead they needed to develop a completely new ECU, which added time and cost to the contract.”
Don’t get me started. Ugh.
There is nothing more shameful that throwing these engines away. Ridiculous.
The fact that NASA has given Space X an increasingly active role in lunar operations (and Boeing a shrinking role) gives me some hope. If Space X continues to accomplish much more at a cost that is much less then that bodes well for the future even given a corrupt NASA and congress.
So a single engine for the SLS will cost as much as a Falcon Heavy launch…
A fully expended Falcon Heavy with some additional services, or one with only the center core expended and an additional reusable Falcon 9 launch.
Ares, SLS and now Artemis are all jobs programs designed to spend money across multiple states and keep people in jobs and to that purpose they have been and still are, a roaring success.
The mixed messages on attending this upcoming launch are pretty typical where politicians and officials lack leadership and report and are paid for from different sources. It also results from differing motivations, i.e. revenue v’s health safety.
Covid-19 has been bad for some people and sectors of society whilst very good and profitable for others; pretty standard for a ‘disaster’ of any magnitude. Unlike humans, overall Covid-19 has actually been very good for the natural environment with the resulting reduction in human pollution and use of scarce resources.
Also killed off some of the excess numbers of those pesky human beings.
This last comment is of course a personal opinion and not one I expect many to subscribe to.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Cheers
Neil
More government Bravo Sierra.
KILL SLS.
Yes; replace it with uprated Vulcan. That rocket has room for up to 10 or 11x solid strap on boosters on its hull. That would get about 50 metric tons into low Earth orbit. Use that to get a fully-fueled Centaur V into LEO with a docking collar atop it. Then launch Orion on a 6x booster Vulcan to rendezvous and dock with the Centaur V and do the TLI burn out to high lunar orbit, or Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit.
Two launches of Vulcan/Centaur V is supposed to cost less than half a billion dollars. Each launch of SLS is supposed to cost nearly $2 Billion with a B!! Where’s the economic advantage of SLS in that context?!
Don’t think the Vulcan-Centaur Heavy with 6 solid boosters and the elongated Centaur will be ready by 2024. Never mind any variant more powerful.
It appears that the current Vulcan core can only take 6 solid boosters without structure modifications. There is a maximum payload capacity of 27200 kg for the current Vulcan-Centaur. Probably due to structural limitations with the Centaur V.
They should replaced the SLS with the only current super heavy lifter. Unfortunately the senior senator from Alabama care only for the pork.
Control of cost was never a guiding factor in the SLS/Orion program. Rather it was directed to utilize Shuttle technology wherever possible, including the SRBs and VAB. Did we forget that Shuttle was too expensive?
Rather it was directed to utilize Shuttle technology wherever possible,
—————–
That seems to be a loophole that one could drive a Mack truck through.
If an administrator gets hauled in front of angry Congresscritters to justify choosing something not Shuttle-derived, the question asked won’t be “is it practical” or “is it effective” to use the Shuttle option, but “is it possible”. At that point, the administrator has to find some way to argue that it is completely impossible to use the Shuttle-derived technology instead, or they’re in trouble…and that’s a virtually impossible argument to make in general.
That can be a very difficult argument, but it can be possible. It depends on the actual language of the legal requirements. If the requirement actually specified a goal, or said something about the amount of funding to assume (e.g. do X by 2024, or do Y without assuming a significant increase in NASA’s budget), you could honestly say using Shuttle-derived hardware was not “possible.” That is, not possible while also satisfying other, congressionally-mandated requirements. If Congress asks a government agency to do two things which are impossible to do in combination, then government officials can say, “Doing X and Y at the same time is not possible, so we decided to do X but not Y.” It wouldn’t avoid political heat, and next year’s instructions from Congress might be more specific, but it would be legal and within the agency’s discretionary powers.
I would not use such harsh words. Most NASA managers are doing their best, unfortunately the program lacks clear practical goals and was directed to use the heritage designs. If human lunar flight is the goal, several contractors could provide spacecraft and launch vehicles.
Only NASA Would Spend Billions To Make A Reusable Engine Disposable
Ouch!
With all the back and forth wasted on making a shuttle-derived super heavy launch vehicle since 2005, it makes me wonder.
Rather than all the money spent on J2X and RS-25E, rather than all the money spent on entirely new structure main tank, and 5 segment SRB, might NASA have been better off with something less performance optimized and more cost & schedule optimized?
Four segment SRB + 3x RS-68 + 4x RL-10?
No, because the RS-68 simply cannot be used on SLS due to its ablative nozzle design which would overheat and fail. That’s why on Delta IV the nozzles of SRBs are aimed away from the central core. On Delta IV Heavy the cores allow for very wide spacing of the RS-68s, so they’re fine there.
The Merlin 1A and the never-flown 1B both used ablative nozzles. SpaceX implemented regenerative nozzles for the 1C, and then redid the design for the 1D. Upgrading the RS-68B with regenerative cooling really shouldn’t have been an insurmountable obstacle.
True, but Merlin 1A was designed to be packed into a square engine array. So it was designed with enough thermal margin to do that. RS-68 engines were never designed to be packed in closely. That’s why they were not used in SLS, despite being “off the shelf” and far cheaper than RS-25E.
My point is that redesigning the RS-68B (already a custom variant rather than an “off the shelf” RS-68A) to use regenerative nozzles should have been able to deal with that issue, and SpaceX has demonstrated that such an upgrade isn’t infeasible.
Not for SpaceX it isn’t. But remember, this is Old Space… I mean it should not cost billions to redesign a reusable engine to be a disposable one.
Yeah, but it’s not due to any mysterious technical capability that only they have…just will and leadership.
Ah, I see your point now. That was considered, but not pursued. My guess is that the decision to develop and use RS-25E instead of RS-68B was due to the perceived costs of development and the overall higher performance parameters of the RS-25E (i.e. what Henry Spencer used to call “performance uber alles” in the old sci.space Usenet Newgroups).
Choosing to maximize performance while ignoring reoccurring costs seems to be a hallmark of “old space”. This is doubly so when a cost plus contract is involved. I think RS-25E fits squarely in this hole.
Not SLS configuration.
More like Shuttle C.
You mean side-mount? I still think the RS-68 would not work because they would be very close together in a shuttle orbiter like “boat tail”. Again, note how far apart they are on Delta IV Heavy. That’s by design. Those ablative nozzles on the RS-68 simply can’t be right next to each other because they need to radiate away as much heat as possible. With them right next to each other, they will overheat and fail.
Some folks feel that ordinary citizens can ably serve as Administrator, or President. I’d say that recent experience has been shaky.
Consider the case where an Administrator is actually capable, and widely experienced, and enthusiastic, which is where the country finds itself now. Any Administrator, including our current occupant, faces intrinsic, structural headwinds not shared in the public sector. Here are a few:
1. The Administrator must set a longterm course in a very shaky funding environment, one apt to shift, and wildly, on 4 year cycles (indeed, 2 year cycles, sometimes).
2. NASA funds technological advancement at the same time that it funds big expensive projects. And it frequently funds both in the same project, without the freedom to learn from failure (more on that below).
3. While NASA is a point of pride that is recognized as the pinnacle of American science and technology, the NASA paymasters often by force of law dictate the very direction of technological advancement.
4. For many reasons, some obvious, some not, NASA is wildly, inextricably organized vertically. By-products of course include wide Congressional buy-in. But this organization denies the ability to break things, learn from mistakes, and go forward.
5. More than any other single aspect this limits his ability to learn from mistakes. Indeed, the often cited (too often, in my view) faults include over-analysis, timidity, and risk-aversion all result from vertical organization.
6. There is a boisterous and often arrogant community, informed by generalized animosity (i.e.: NASA “exists to gain funds…NASA Managers (sic) are corrupt…) that is completely less than useful. And, the Administrator is surrounded by numbskulls like me; picture barking terriers, each with a mouthful of trouser!
Now, who’s a good boy? 🙂
You’re the Administrator. What to do, what to do?
Do you surround yourself by smart, experienced people? Do you take a hit on the engines, knowing that so many other boxes are checked? Do you march forward on SLS, knowing that, price aside, this stunning bird will create a new era of glory days for some future Administrator?
This is an open-book test.
Show your work.
IMHO, Brienstine has done an excellent job navigating the political minefield of being NASA Administrator. At this point, SLS is relegated to being the launcher for Orion, and possibly Europa Clipper if Congress doesn’t relent on that. NASA has already said Europa Clipper could be launched on a Falcon Heavy or Delta IV Heavy, which seems the better approach since SLS will be struggling just to keep up with the planned Orion flight rate.
So, Bridenstine has maneuvered SLS into a corner. It’s still alive, but has as small a part of the Artemis architecture as possible. And since that part is so small, it’s conceivable that it could be replaced in the future.
And I was extremely skeptical of Bridenstine at first because of his (then) climate change denial position. How could anyone lead NASA if they didn’t believe the actual science of climate change? He seems to have come around on that. It’s even possible his former stance was political only (imagine that) and not at all grounded in what he believed the science to be.
“SLS into a corner”
He has. And it is brilliant. Why take the heat for killing SLS when it can kill itself?
“NASA Managers are groomed to be criminals..”
Sir, if I saw you in the street, I would slap you with a white glove and demand satisfaction at 20 paces. It kills me how you and so many others paint folks with a broad brush.
He has been banned.
*sigh* Contact your Senators and Representative and tell them to cancel the Space Launch System.
https://www.senate.gov/gene…
https://www.house.gov/repre…
We don’t get all that we ask for, but we don’t get what we don’t ask for (except, of course, stuff that we didn’t want or need in the first place).
We don’t get what we don’t ask for, but there are good and less good ways of asking. For Senators and Representatives who have no real interest in SLS, I think complaining about it would be a less good approach. Depending on your congressmen’s politics, it might be better to start off with a complaint about wasteful government spending, and then bring up SLS as a blatant example of it. Then say doing something about SLS would be an good example of the Congress being serious about clamping down on government waste. I’m not sure how well that would work, but it’s probably better than starting off with “Cancel SLS” to a congressional staffer who would probably think, “What’s SLS?”
Good advice, but keep the context-setting short and sweet, say, one paragraph. They’re not going to read a big screed.