Only NASA Wants To Buy Its Own SLS Rocket
Keith’s note: According to the new NASA OIG Report “NASA’s Transition of the Space Launch System to a Commercial Services Contract“ … “NASA’s ability to reduce SLS costs and negotiate a fixed-price contract with DST will be impeded by a lack of competition for heavy-lift launch services, a characteristic that historically has helped drive down costs. Further, NASA has permitted current SLS contractors to incorporate limited rights data into the design of the core stage and Exploration Upper Stage, effectively blocking other contractors from competing to build the SLS system. That said, inclusion of several Federal Acquisition Regulation provisions in EPOC such as incentive fees may assist NASA in contract negotiations, mitigate the impact to schedule and cost overruns, and ensure remaining data rights are retained to the fullest extent possible by the government. Finally, while DST intends to reduce costs by increasing economies of scale by building more SLSs, its efforts to find customers outside of NASA have been unsuccessful to date. Although the SLS is the only launch vehicle currently available that meets Artemis mission needs, in the next 3 to 5 years other human-rated commercial alternatives that are lighter, cheaper, and reusable may become available. Therefore, NASA may want to consider whether other commercial options should be a part of its mid- to long-term plans to support its ambitious space exploration goals.”
3 responses to “Only NASA Wants To Buy Its Own SLS Rocket”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
NASA adopting “cost consciousness“ toward SLS at this stage of the game borders on hilarity. Pinching pennies on the slsexy toys has never been in the Agency’s DNA. . . But I remain optimistic.
No one, including NASA, can afford the SLS rocket. Each SLS rocket uses up a substantial portion of the NASA human spaceflight budget. The fact they can afford to launch one only every 2-3 years means its more dangerous. One has to wonder why it is so much more expensive than, for example, a Space Shuttle? Most of the rocket is a big mainly empty, relatively lightweight tanks. The SRBs are existing pieces, and so mainly require just a little refurbishment. So far the main engines come from Space Shuttle. So the ‘cost’ is fictitious, aimed only at giving cash hand-outs to the centers/states who are participating. And assuming either the Space X Super Heavy/Starship or the Blue Origin New Glenn are successful, SLS is totally unnecessary. SLS might have been a good idea 15 years ago when there was still a Shuttle infrastructure and when other similarly large boosters were not in the plan but now SLS is totally superfluous and not-required. It will look downright funny when a Starship the size of ISS goes into orbit and a picture is taken of it, next to the ISS and the pipsqueak Orion capsule. Then people will ask why. Just think of what could be done with that money if it were puit towards something like the infrastructure of a base on the Moon or a mission to Mars.
The only surprise in this report is that someone had to pay for a study to figure it out. DOH!