Boeing Gets its Next Big Contract for SLS
NASA and Boeing Sign Space Launch System Contract, Boeing
“Boeing has finalized a contract with NASA to develop the core stage of the Space Launch System (SLS), the most powerful rocket ever built and destined to propel America’s return to human exploration of deep space.
The $2.8 billion contract validates Boeing’s earlier selection as the prime contractor on the SLS core stage, including the avionics, under an undefinitized contract authorization. In addition, Boeing has been tasked to study the SLS Exploration Upper Stage, which will further expand mission range and payload capabilities.”
Thank God! At last.
Good news! Go SLS Go!
Where?
Beyond LEO.
That’s not a destination. That’s a concept. So, again, where? And with what payloads, to be built with what money, and fielded in what year?
NASA has made a great effort to document their systems engineering processes, resulting in an excellent document that brings together lessons learned in decades of human spaceflight experiences comprised of both triumphs and tragedies. I’m sure they will manage the development of a Space Launch System that will be an engineering marvel.
But, engineering marvels don’t make a sustainable, cost-effective, program (witness the financials for the “Heavy Lift” Airbus A380). The same type of careful, logical, systems engineering thought process should have been applied to our plan to venture beyond LEO, incrementally – and sustainably – bringing the solar system into our economic sphere (to channel John Marburger). Instead, we got the panicked representatives who are calling the shots being more interested in keeping the money spigot open to their districts than in taking a sensible approach. And – as I’ve written many times – taking a sensible approach could involve just as many jobs now, and more jobs in the future.
Yay, bring on the dividends!
Yeah another sole-source contract. No open tendering permitted. More pork fest. Yuk, this just makes me sick.
A contract for a vehicle with no mission, no baseline cost, no US, no nothing.
Cheers.
Not to worry as Shelby, shifty shill that he is, will gloss over any such details.
how big is the termination liability so when congress finally tires of delays, unsustainable costs and infrequent launches and puts this big rocket to nowhere out to pasture is it going to cost the taxpayers.
It’s over $500M, but the composition of the House and Senate Science committees would need to change dramatically for there to be any chance of SLS being cancelled. Being late and over-budget are fine for the current decision makers (Brooks, Wolf, Palazzo, Shelby, Hutchison, etc) because the jobs in their states/districts are what’s important to them, not human spaceflight. In fact, there’ve been two separate attempts (Brooks, Palazzo) to prohibit NASA from cancelling SLS/Orion without an act of Congress under the guise of letting them spend the termination liability fund on development.
If the “budget” is spending in your home district, then being “over budget” means that you did even better than expected.
Excellent question, especially in light of how unsustainable SLS is.
And let those Senators who are driving this debacle know that we are watching, that we will remember, and that we will make sure everyone else remembers, so that when this impending train wreck impacts the fiscal brick wall of reality, they will be held accountable to explain themselves in the face of years of warnings. The money that should be used for developing payloads (habitats, landers, etc.) is being thrown away on SLS. NASA should be permitted to solicit launch services from the private sector, but is instead being forced to ignore commercial launchers in direct violation of U.S. National Space Transportation Policy: “Refrain from conducting United States Government space transportation activities that preclude, discourage, or compete with U.S. commercial space transportation activities, unless required by national security or public safety;”
No, they’ll never be held accountable. Never. Because in the eyes of the people they represent (the voters in those specific states or districts), SLS/Orion is a huge windfall of jobs and money. And nobody ever got voted out of office for doing that. That’s what’s holding NASA back: provincial, short-term interests are trumping national, long-term interests.
To some degree, yes. But, what I’d like to see is the same people (roughly) being used to develop the payloads. I understand the political aims, but those do not preclude taking a better approach. Dump SLS, and direct MSFC to develop a lander and reusable in-space propulsion for crew cyclers, or something like that. I’m sympathetic to those who work hard in that geographic area. MSFC holds a lot of expertise. But, directing them to develop a rocket that does not support a sustainable, expanding, presence in space is a colossal waste – of money, resources, and talent.
Agree
How and who changes it
It has to be possible.
Isn’t that why we need a Space Plan and people to sell it.
Aren’t undefinitized contract authorizations meant to be for urgent works? What’s so urgent, and what part(s) of the contract are not agreed yet?
Interesting question. DOD says very specifically that only “urgent” requirements justify undefinitized authorizaitons. NASA only says the ‘exception’ must be approved by the Center Director or another authority, depending on the size of the contract. Apparently this started when frequent changes in the Shuttle program schedule and corrective actions required immediate new work. Sometimes even a verbal OK is enough! Nevertheless applying this to a major new development program with a timeline of years is strange to say the least.
“Our teams have dedicated themselves to ensuring that the SLS – the
largest ever — will be built safely, affordably and on time,” said
Virginia Barnes, Boeing SLS vice president and program manager.
I’m betting that if this thing ever launches, NASA and Boeing will have contractually re-defined what “safely, affordably and on time” means. Several times.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” – Inigo Montoya
I’ll help with the last part.
“Safely”: only crashes once in a while.
“Affordably”: some billions, but it is a small part of DOD budget!
“On Time”: we are time lords. We are never late!
Here is a visual guide:
If gandolf was saying it it would be Boeing is never late.. it arrives precisely when they mean to.
I wonder how much SpaceX spent to date on rocket engine development and if there’s a fair way to compare apples-to-apples, including thrust characteristics, control deices, etc.
Imagine if we had a real human space program with the goal of really moving us into space.
Wouldn’t a giant heavy lifter like SLS be very helpful?
What if the cost to develop a giant lifter only cost the me the taxpayer. About 20 percent of the cost to develop SLS.
What if the end product was reusable and the same main boosters, second stages could be flown over and over. Maybe 50 to a 100 times.
Wouldn’t such a vehicle be the door way to the inner solar system and the stars??
In the LDSD thread
I questioned NASA Testing the Mars landing System and was attacked for not thinking critically enough. I am very glad that NASA is doing that kind of research.
What if public and private commercial space could work together closer?
Example
What if NASA helped Spacex test Dragon 2 by lofting a test dragon on this balloon and sticking a rocket engine in the nose of the capsule to get it up speed to test the red Dragon concept here on earth.
I was also accused of thinking Spacex is the only solution to making us a multi planet Species.
Well I wish someone would provide convincing evidense otherwise.
Dreamer
As long as we continue to flush most of our valuable resources, money, time talent on old fashion throw away projects like this it doesn’t take a critical thinker or a rocket scientist to know that we are going no where!
Where is Mr. McCain on SLS is he afraid to attack these guys??
Why is this rocket being built cost plus??
With DOD, they used the excuse of assured access.
Is no one making the case that this rocket should be fixed cost with milestones?
Burning my tax money like this is truly criminal.
I doubt it. I am pretty sure that McCain doesn’t care too much anymore who he offends.
McCain is generally a straight shooter. However he tried to question Constellation once and was ignored, and he probably sees no benefit to putting more effort into it.
While I am not happy with a great many things on this, If it gets metal bent and wiring run then I say BUILD IT! We the Space Advocacy community keep griping and griping about “WHAT IT ISN’T” and why we hate this or that… Yet we expect the Power brokers to LISTEN to us. Why would/should they? We eat our own, we are as much to blame as the power brokers. They for wasting time, money and resources. Us for egging them on. We can’t keep fighting for the “perfect” rocket/mission when there NEVER WILL BE ONE. Mars first. Moon first. Mars & ONLY Mars. Moon & ONLY THE Moon. The Solar System, the Milkyway; hell the universe offer MANY worthy destinations. WHY are we trying to say we can & will ONLY go in one direction, to one place? If those who are butthurt about anything to do with SLS get their way and it is flushed, then we get to start over, AGAIN… How many MORE TIMES are we gonna START OVER? We have to support something if we are ever gonna get somewhere. We have to work WITH them if we want to effect the changes we want & know need to happen. Otherwise we’re bugsplat on the window of the bus they will back up over us. The power brokers are LAUGHING at us…
The flaw in your reasoning is the unstated assumption that the “power brokers” actually care about doing real missions in space. They don’t. They’re interested only in, as Tom Heppenheimer so pithily put it, “keeping the parking lots full.” So long as the right people stay on the government payroll it doesn’t really matter whether or not they accomplish anything.
That being the case, why would any space advocate with sense support this corrupt charade? The only thing porkmeisters ever want is more pork. Having glommed onto a big chunk of NASA’s budget for their purposeless big rocket, they’ll only continue to agitate for still more NASA resources to be thrown into this particular fire.
We need to be discriminate in what we support. Commercial cargo and crew delivery to ISS is useful. ISS is useful and can be made still more so with a better and more stable supply infrastructure. Other platforms in LEO are imminent as well and should also be supported. The Falcon Heavy will be in service soon. To the extent any heavy lifting needs doing, this vehicle will be available years before SLS and in both much greater quantity and a much lower price.
Meanwhile, the on-paper performance of SLS continues to be further and further compromised as the “power brokers” cut the future of the program to keep current expenditures maximized. The Block II versions of SLS have now been abandoned. Even a return to the Moon is no longer possible for a single launch of SLS and Mars is completely out of the question. SLS and Orion are not useful, not affordable and should be opposed by anyone actually looking to see real deep space missions occur in a reasonable timeframe.
if you have full parking lots of talented people
Why is it not possible for them do stuff that gets us into Space??
I had to learn here that a BFR is not what is needed.
You have talent and money.
No Plan
The power brokers don’t care as long as they get money right
So transform what they do.
There has to be a way to do that
Don’t we need fuel depots landers junk robots to clean up Leo.
Someone needs create that plan and transform our Space program
My suggestion has been to support Spacexs lead.
We have money and talent so it is must be fixable
ADD
Mr. Squared There is nothing implied about the people in this post. You read it in
There again is your implication that people working at other aerospace companies are not talented: “if you have full parking lots of talented people.” Your implication fails any test of critical thought.
Why is not possible for those talented people to do stuff that “gets us into space?” It’s because they’re not assigned such work and problems. That thinking is assigned to managers, corporate heads, the people that offer contracts to aerospace companies, and politicians.
So all you have to do is have those thinkers, corporate heads, the people that offer contracts to aerospace companies and politicians create a reasonable workable plan which puts these people filling those parking lots to work.
So there is no good reason why we continue to go no where.
We have the resources and the capitablity.
So Mr. Squared and all the rest of you bright people What is the fix?
What’s the plan?
I’m an old cross cross country runner. I learned that if you want to run fast you have to train fast
run fast.
If you want to settle Space you have work on settling space not “exploring Space”.
The parking lots are full of deadbeats, not talented people. Or they are talented in skills we don’t need anymore, like operating the Shuttle program.
Lol
See Mr. Squared
I see you fall for the fallacy of nasa817’s comments. Do you really believe that all of the people working at companies and organizations other than SpaceX are “deadbeats’? That’s an immature, throw away belief. There is no factual evidence to support as much. It does however point to your difficulties with critical thinking. Here’s a helpful reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik… .
Rational discussions are no place for childish thinking.
Mr. Squared
Reread the above comments
Did I ever agree with nasa817s comments? No!
He was the one that has the wrong thinking!
What was my point?
That we have the money AND the talent to have a great Space program yet we don’t !?
We don’t need more money. We need to use our people and money better.
The joke was you miss understand me.
Go straighten nasa817 out, not me. That’s why I told him to see you after his outragous remark.
I figured you would go after me. And you did lol
Sir you appear to have prejuded me and your bias seems to make you read into my comments what is not there.
If you think NASA HSF has the talent to design and develop large-scale systems successfully, you are sadly mistaken. I know, I work there and struggle against the cluelessness every single day. There is plenty of money to do this, just not with the NASA that exists today. I doubt seriously if we could do it for any amount of money, certainly can’t do it efficiently or cheaply.
Mr. 817 Thanks for the comment
Learn more each day
And people give me a hard time when I say I feel Spacex is our only hope. Just heard Musk thinks there is good chance of fishing this booster out of water and re-flying it as a test I presume.
See that gives me hope.
I don’t know whether nasa817 is right or not. I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by NASA. Still, NASA has a lot of high-mileage employees. NASA has also managed to design and build a grand total of zero new human-carrying space vehicles since it finished Shuttle in the late 70’s. That means nearly everyone now working at NASA has spent all or a significant fraction of their careers working for an organization that has clearly long ago lost its mojo. As they are still working there, you have to figure that this sad state of affairs is okay with all or most of them – I certainly know of a lot of people who have left NASA over this same interval. The combination of these facts doesn’t suggest that the average NASA staffer is a first-rater.
Why should public Space follow Spacex? Because Spacex as a long range Goal and plan, a real human space program! While our public space program goes this way and that way from year to year.
Not childish thinking Mr. squared
What has happened is since NASA/public space can’t layout a human space program. Elon Musks plan leads by default.
Sorry I didn’t read the whole thread. I was talking about NASA, and I work there so I know the place is full of people who have no idea what they are doing. At least at the center where I work. I don’t think all centers are as bad, but mine is hopelessly lost in gross incompetence from top to bottom. There are good and smart people, but they are vastly outnumbered and marginalized.
OK Mr. Squared what do you take from Nasa817 comments
Is he shooting straight I would say yes.
Is his judgement correct? I would guess yes
Is the sample of his experience big enough to make a generalization?
Here YOU say I imply that people here aren’t talented. You are incorrect. You read into my point.
In your second paragraph you support my point by pointing out that it managers etc. Which I agree with.
Again Mr. Squared
We have the money. We have the talent which means we could fix this expensive do little mess yet it doesn’t happen? Why?
How do we change it? How do we convince the power brokers?
Who will make a plan that can convince them??
There is a way to change things Mr. Squared and its not just blaming congress or blaming the management.
And no I don’t know the answer, but I know there is one.
I do support the efforts of the commercial entities. That I didn’t convey that is not Germaine to my points. In other threads about SLS I have commented that commercial in concert with SLS is a viable way to proceed. Use SLS to loft the cores for fuel depots. Use SLS to loft the work packages to build on orbit a “true” spacecraft. Use commercial vehicles to loft crews and research packages that are time sensitive to quick turns. Also because the commercial launchers would offer an economy of scale that allows for more launch options than SLS will. SLS should only be used/configured much like freighter aircraft are by airlines now. The Power brokers can be brought to bear in our endeavors IF we offer them a compelling argument to do so. That argument is: The Commercial development of the inner solar system for our economic benefit. As the private sector begins to “see” the viability of the CIS-Lunar market and beyond too the Asteroid belt will they then do what they do best. Develop said market AND get the politicos attention via the all mighty Buck in the form of campaign donations…
Or we can just use commercial vehicle to launch heavy payloads instead of paying the exorbitant cost of SLS launches. Falcon Heavy will be flying payloads far before SLS. Even if you have to fly more commercial missions than you’d otherwise have to fly with SLS, you’d still likely come out ahead on cost.
agree for the most part. Still feel that in the long run we’ll need SLS. Falcon Heavy won’t be able to loft as much as SLS “Heavy” config. 143K vs 117K As I’ve said many times, SLS is not a perfect solution for many reasons. Commercial IS the way to go, but I also believe the Country needs a HLV capability it controls.
Won’t Spacex’s raptor rocket be ready about the same time SLS would be?
I see no point in doing expensive Heavy lift at all.
SO, you’d rather we have to launch only small to possibly medium sized payloads requiring many more launches which will only ADD to the cost of doing a specific mission? With that rational, we should ban all semi’s too. No NEED for such big trucks clogging the HWY’s…
You don’t seem to get what people are saying here. SLS is unaffordable. Period. Full stop.
Boeing’s just-awarded contract to build two SLS BLock I core stages is for $2.8 billion. That’s $1.4 billion apiece. Perhaps serial nos. 3 and above would be cheaper but there’s also more to an SLS than just the core stage. These vehicles will cost billions apiece and are completely expendable. And the initial Block I SLS only has about 30% more lift capacity to LEO than a Falcon Heavy which costs only $85 million. SLS simply isn’t affordable.
Looking down the road, it also lacks growth potential. SLS was supposed to evolve to a Block II configuration, but it needs advanced liquid-fueled boosters and a high-thrust upper stage to do that. Both would have cost billions to develop the old-fashion, cost-plus NASA way. Both have been cancelled. The best SLS configuration now in prodpect is an upgraded Block I that uses an upper stage with four RL-10 engines. This version of SLS can put 93 metric tons into LEO. Two Falcon Heavies, costing $170 million could beat that by 13 metric tons. The SLS is not cost-effective.
Even if, for the sake of argument, there is some massive component for future space endeavors that weighs more than 53 metric tons, but not more than 70 – or 93 – the SLS is not an economical choice. SpaceX could boost the Falcon Heavy’s LEO lift capacity to 70 metric tons or even beyond by simply adding more tankage and a second Merin 1-D vacuum engine to the existing second stage now shared with Falcon 9. Even if SpaceX only ever made one of these for a special mission and included no reusability of the stage, it would still be far cheaper than an SLS mission. An even larger FH upper stage using the upcoming Raptor engine would boost the FH’s lift capacity still more – probably exceeding the maximum SLS figure of 93 metric tons. FH has a lot of stretch potential for modest development outlays. The SLS has none.
You cannot simply ignore monetary considerations or the scalability of chosen solutions when talking about space missions. No bucks, no Buck Rogers. But too many bucks, also no Buck rogers.
Exactly. For half the cost of the SLS development and other costs through the first two flights, NASA could have done a public/private partnership with both ULA and SpaceX to accelerate development of heavy lift commercial rockets, and used the other half to buy tens of launches of these vehicles, and start design/development of payloads such as landers and in-space habitats.
I hope, hope, hope that someday we will need such a heavy lift capability as SLS could offer, but that time is not now, and it won’t be for ten or twenty years at this rate. Everything in order, incremental and sequential – that’s what we need, but it’s not what we’re getting.
Mr. Schwartz
The main reason for heavy lift is to bring the project cost down. SLS is so expensive there is no way it does that. Better to design for falcon Heavies.
Also I suspect that Spacex will have some version of MCT out there near the time or soon after SLS is operational. Most likely it will be a giant reusable falcon heavy that can fly heavier payloads at a fraction of the cost of SLS. MCT even has a mission plan already. So there is no reason to fly SLS at all. What is needed is the money wasted on SLS to create useful missions/building programs for the affordable vehicles we will soon have.
I don’t see the need for a 143K payload, other than to justify the existence of a giant rocket.
A better option would be design payloads to fit heavy lift capabilities in existence or soon to be in existence (like Falcon Heavy).
As said earlier; the 143K capability allows for building on orbit large systems i.e. Inter planetary spacecraft, fuel depots. If we don’t have that capability who is going to design/build payloads of that magnitude?
Spacex is doing that now. How many tonnes can nine raptors get into Leo? And after Spacex flies falcon H a while isn’t up scaling to a 3 core giant pretty easy. And Spacex will already have tested first stage booster recovery with FH so this monster will have flyback reusable boosters and with the methane engines of raptor less coaking problems , likely the boosters will have a life of 50 100 flights before major over haul is needed.
How many tonnes can a 27 raptor engine lift to Leo?
More of less than SLS 143k capability??
Exactly how is that not possible with something like Falcon Heavy? We managed to build a pretty huge on orbit system (i.e. the ISS) without the need for a 143K payload capacity, and I’m willing to bet that anything larger can be designed to be put together with pieces smaller than 143K.
Further in no way will we be able to fly SLS frequently enough to justify its expense. I’ll refer you to the Augustine Commission’s comments on expensive, unsustainable launch systems.
Look up the Sunk Cost Fallacy.
It’s about time they awarded a contract to develop the core stage. Design of the ground systems is nearly complete and fabrication and construction are in full swing.
They’ve been working on the core stage for awhile (and getting paid for it). They just haven’t bothered with a contract. Why should they? The fix was in.
Right now nearly every part of what Falcon Heavy will consist of has already flown, piecemeal, as part of a Falcon 9. The only part of SLS that has flown is the Centaur upper stage. That is slated for, at most, only the first two SLS flights – possibly only one. Now, between these two rockets that have never flown, which one is the more imaginary?