SLS Has Problems That Money Alone Will Not Fix
GAO Testimony by Cristina Chaplain – Hearing on SLS and Orion
“In August 2014, NASA completed the review of the SLS program that sets formal cost and schedule baselines and, in doing so, delayed the first test flight to relieve schedule pressure and allow additional time to address design challenges. However, some of the concerns we raised about the cost estimates, mission requirements, and long-term affordability remain. In addition, our ongoing work has found that the three human exploration programs are pursuing inconsistent and unrealistic schedule goals and that the Orion program is facing significant technical and funding issues that may affect NASA’s overall schedule for its human exploration programs.”
After historic Orion flight, NASA still faces challenges, GAO says, Washington Post
“It took us less than a decade not only to go around the moon but to land on the moon under Apollo,” said Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.). Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) said it could cost at least $10 billion to develop “this monstrous rocket project.” Even then, he said, it “won’t have a real mission until we go to Mars, which could be two decades or three decades from now, depending on if we can ever get over the technological hurdles we haven’t gotten over yet.”
NASA Says SLS and Orion Will Slip to 2018 Despite Extra Funding, SpaceNews
At the hearing, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) asked how much funding would be required to bring the first SLS/Orion mission, called Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1), back to December 2017. “In terms of the technical work, I think we’ve really probably moved off of December 2017,” Gerstenmaier responded, “so I don’t think funding will pull us back to that date.”
All those who are surprised, raise your hand …
Chaplain was asked how much additional funding SLS/Orion would need to succeed. She said that the best available estimate was $3B/yr. No one questioned her estimate or suggested that such a funding increase was possible. As is common in such hearings, the information was recognized as probably accurate but embarrassing. Her statement was ignored.
So congress is spending 3 billion a year on SLS/Orion until at least 2022 that is another 21 billion on top of all the billions already spent, and the program needs another 21 billion over the next seven years. From Constellation to 2022 how much would have been spent on this nightmare? 100 billion+ ?
Jobs Vlad Jobs
Listening to the hearings reminds me a lot of “If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit”
Yes…people often confuse ANY additional information with information that has something to do with an important question. This just leads to confusion. If it’s in someone’s interest, and they are smart about it, this confusion is created on purpose.
I think there’s a good chance it won’t make 2018 either…
Wouldn’t that push the 2022 date to the right also?
Yes, that 2022 goal is not realistic.
The very big rocket to nowhere.
Get your popcorn! I remember Robert LeBranch telling me “you are wrong – there are no severe technical or fiscal challenges with SLS”. HA!
Dude how you feelin? Even money cannot help now… meanwhile the private sector quietly pushes on.
Great things are on the horizon and the SLS Titanic is not one of them.
If EM-1 is reliant on the ESM then 2018 is a challenge never mind 2017. We Europeans need to develop a whole shed load of stuff on top of the GFI hardware for the thing. It also has to be man rated and it has no significant heritage from ATV other than the RCT’s and SA’s. It is brand spanking new. OK it is a dumb truck compared to ATV (The brains are in the CM) but it has different environmental constraints and con-ops than anything done to date. The architecture is also out of this world. Look at it! You have RCT’s, 26kN OMS engine and Auxilliary engines. All capable of thrashing the mission through a failure. The FDIR on that alone will be a nightmare, never mind the design realization and justification. I am sure they will have a bit of a leg up given all the work LM did but still. This is the business end of the deal when the real challenges manifest themselves. Then there is the whole idling ATV organization to feed. Will these resources push or pull the project? They could do it but history is against them.
SDHLV’s day passed when the shuttle infrastructure was closed down (and scrapped with indecent haste). From that point on, either a low-cost new-build or a development of the EELVs became the most sensible option from a financial and technical standpoint. Unfortunately, the use of shuttle contractors remained the only viable political option. Hence we find ourselves here.
I sometimes think that a certain faction of NASA’s support for commercial is due to an analysis that reliance on SLS/Orion would equate to being permanently grounded.
Hopefully the faction supporting commercial crew isn’t underhanded by the likes of Mo Brooks when the committees are re-arranged come January. If that man becomes the chairman of the committee on SSP…well…let’s just say that commercial funding and NSF funding will be in grave danger. SMH
SDHLV’s day passed when the Shuttle became operational.
It is not very surprising that extra money will not help at this point. It takes consistent and appropriate funding over the course of the entire
development cycle. And Lord knows we haven’t had that. This is not exactly surprising news, except possibly to a politician. Right now we’re spending $3 billion a year to develop the country’s first BEO spacecraft and heavy lift booster. We’re spending almost $50 billion a year on foreign aid. I just happened to believe the country would be much better off if the numbers were $6 billion a year and $47 billion a year.
As for commercial cargo, it’s moving along, not on schedule, but it’s moving along. Bravo. Commercial crew held one very impressive press event, and I agree the capsule would win a beauty pageant, but you really won’t know how well it will do until you put it in the cooker will you. You could fly the same flight profile as Orion did, but the Falcon Heavy isn’t ready to go yet, is it? BTW, when is it scheduled for the first flight test? Will it be before 2018? I wish you guys well, but let’s see what happens before we break out the bunting. Battle plans never survive first contact with the enemy.
The ‘wet” full dress rehearsal for FH is penciled in for July 1, 2015. If nothing goes south, then first flight is in July.
If that happens you will have my congrats. FH will take how many metric tons to orbit? Seven months from now you say? Bravo. I await the launch with bated breath.
Falcon Heavy
53mt LEO
21.2mt GTO
13.2mt to Mars
The SpaceX BFR is possibly going to fly by the end of the decade (after EM-1 and before EM-2)
The BFR V1.0 makes the Saturn V and the SLS B1 look small.
The crewed version of Dragon will have its first launch abort tests next year. Both providers plan to fly a full-up spacecraft, with crew, in 2016. That’s six years before the most optimistic estimate for the first crewed flight of Orion.
Oh, and, technically, Orion isn’t strictly needed for BEO missions, especially those beyond the Moon. It’s another bit of legacy from CxP.
From what I understand Boeing is looking at mid 2017 for the first manned launch of CST-100. I don’t know what SpaceX’s internal schedule is but I’d be willing to bet the first manned launch of Dragon V2 will be in 2017. So even though both have had an increase in funding this year they will still come in around 2 years later than planned (same as SLS/Orion).
Last I heard SpaceX was planning the first manned flight about summer of 2016. But they also stated that flight would involve at least one NASA astronaut. So, basically, SpaceX will probably launch when NASA wants them to launch.
That’s one of the negatives of putting your company under NASA control.
Your points on com-space are fair and (for the moment) accurate. It would not surprise me to see the schedule for FH and/or dragon V2 stretch out.
I think we both know that:
* com-space will be flying people before Orion/SLS
* com-space will be flying people at something like 1/40 the the cost of BigSpace
But my point won’t be proved until the near future plays out.
Since we all have an interest in sustainability and growth of space exploration, which effort makes the most sense going forward?
The country’s “First BEO spacecraft and heavy lift booster”? What were Apollo and the Saturn V?
I Just heard Elizabeth’s Warren Speech 🙂
How do we get her in the White House?
This country needs her Bad!
I wonder if she hates big porky Rockets as much as she hates big banks?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?…
Citigroup and Boeing have lot in common????
She sounds like Obama did before he got elected president.
Now he has failed to end two wars (his grand pronouncements, notwithstanding ) failing to close gitmo (because that’s a stupid idea anyway) and he hasn’t held any bank accountable for their part in the crash of 2009.
Bottom line, if you believe her, you are making the same mistake twice.
To compare her to Obama is not much of an argument. I agree you don’t pick a president on one speech alone. If she is truly a person that will go after the cronsium like she says, then we need her. Sad fact is, it doesn’t make difference who you vote for. Corporations like Citigroup and Boeing are controling our politians thus our country and we need someone like Teddy Roosevelt now!
What are technical issues for the delay
I repeat
Does any one know the technical reason why SLS is delayed another year or so????
It seems like its just a ploy for more money, but then I don’t know??????
The technical issue for the delay is that when Congress mandated that NASA build the SLS, they also specified that they use hardware and contractors from the Shuttle era to build it. they then proceeded to not allocate enough money to NASA’s budget to fund the work on it.
have you ever had to build something when the design includes obsolete parts? it’s a huge, time-consuming, and expensive pain in the rear. you are forced to pay for a maker of the obsolete part (there is usually only one maker, since the part is obsolete nobody else uses it, so nobody else makes it) to keep aging equipment operational and to secure supply chains of materiel that nobody else uses. this is part of why the SLS is so expensive. some of the things they have to build for it will take many years to make, and the orders for those parts should have been made years ago, but NASA didn’t have the money to be able to requisition them.
this is part of the problem with congressional underfunding of projects that they have directed NASA to build. underfunding produces a negative feedback loop. it’s part of the reason why the costs of a project (such as the Ares rockets, JWST, Curiosity, just to name a few. really you can pick any project that has ever been underfunded) increase dramatically over time.
Such as producing new copies of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (designed to be reusable and no longer in production) for a booster which is expendable?
yes, that’s one. one of a great many examples on the SLS.
Thanks Doug, Vulture 🙁