NASA Space Launch System (SLS)

Hopefully the Senate will squash it. The House just wants to stretch it to the point they can justify cancelling it.
 
www.moondaily.com

NASA Administrator Statement on Moon to Mars Initiative, FY 2021 Budget

Washington DC (SPX) Feb 11, 2020 - President Donald Trump's Fiscal Year 2021 budget for NASA is worthy of 21st century exploration and discovery. The President's budget invests more than $25 billion in NASA to fortify our innovative
www.moondaily.com

www.moondaily.com

NASA commits to returning astronauts to the moon by 2024

Washington DC (UPI) Feb 11, 2020 - The National Aeronautics and Space Administration plans to land the first woman and the next man on the moon by 2024. We are ushering in an unprecedented era of human spaceflight, NASA Admin
www.moondaily.com
 
Grey Havoc said:
Via Slashdot: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-puts-a-price-on-a-2024-moon-landing-35-billion/
Click to expand...

The White House also reiterated its call for using a commercial launcher—possibly a Delta IV Heavy rocket but more likely a Falcon Heavy—to boost its Europa Clipper mission to the Jovian moon in the mid-2020s. In the past, Congress has said this must go on NASA's Space Launch System rocket, but the White House budget says the agency would save "over $1.5 billion" by using a commercial launch vehicle.

Brian Dewhurst, a budget officer for NASA's Human Exploration and Operations program, said the savings was derived from subtracting the cost of a Delta IV Heavy rocket from the annual program cost of producing one Space Launch System rocket a year, which is $2 billion.
Click to expand...
 
The fundamental nature of the problem is the institutional "burn rate" of NASA on virtually all their projects. This is just the SLS rocket and does not include Orion. I would hope it includes lanch facility preparations.

NASA inspector general says SLS moon rocket costs continue to climb
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/03/...says-sls-moon-rocket-costs-continue-to-climb/

The powerful Space Launch System rocket being built for NASA’s Artemis moon program by Boeing, using solid-propellant boosters from Northrop Grumman and main engines from Aerojet Rocketdyne, will have cost more than $18 billion by the time it blasts off on its maiden flight in 2021, NASA’s Office of Inspector General reported Tuesday.

Already running two years behind schedule and some $2 billion over budget because of technical problems, changing requirements and contractor performance, potential delays for the rocket’s second mission — the first to carry astronauts — could push the SLS program’s cost to nearly $23 billion by 2023, the OIG reports.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder how Spaceflight Now determines that SLS is only 2 years behind schedule. The 2010 NASA authorization act, which created SLS, said it should have initial operational capability by 2016, implying a first flight before then. It's more like 5 years late.
 
astro said:
I wonder how Spaceflight Now determines that SLS is only 2 years behind schedule. The 2010 NASA authorization act, which created SLS, said it should have initial operational capability by 2016, implying a first flight before then. It's more like 5 years late.
Click to expand...

Spaceflight Now are actually just quoting the GAO. I believe the date their using as a benchmark is the 2018 target date, which was announced in 2014 when NASA actually started bending metal for SLS.
 
It seems SLS core stage has issue with leakage
arstechnica.com

New report says SLS rocket managers concerned about fuel leaks

“Should leaks or other issues be discovered, the program will need time.”…
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

NASA took three Company for Artemis landers
SpaceX Starship launch on Super Heavy and with refuel in orbit to Moon surface
Blue Origin/Lockheed-Martin launch by New Glenn / Vulcan to Moon orbit
Dynetics want to use commercial Launcher to get there lander to Moon orbit

means SLS loose more payloads

is Boeing now in panic mode ?
 
Michel Van said:
It seems SLS core stage has issue with leakage
arstechnica.com

New report says SLS rocket managers concerned about fuel leaks

“Should leaks or other issues be discovered, the program will need time.”…
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
Click to expand...

I'll make the same point I made in the Artemis thread: this article does not indicate that SLS is having actual issues with leaks. It's probably quoting some risk management language, possibly well out of context.

Program risk assessments often have sections for possible problems, their impact, and the suitable mitigation. So you do some analysis scoping out the worst (and, separately, the most likely) problems you might encounter, how badly they could impact your program, and what steps you can take to limit that impact. AFAICT, the SLS documentation here acknowledges that leaks are a possibility (because large cryo tanks are not trivial to get right) and lays out the possible impacts if they do occur. That's not the same as reporting that leaks are definitely happening or even likely to happen in the future.
 
Michel Van said:
It seems SLS core stage has issue with leakage
arstechnica.com

New report says SLS rocket managers concerned about fuel leaks

“Should leaks or other issues be discovered, the program will need time.”…
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

NASA took three Company for Artemis landers
SpaceX Starship launch on Super Heavy and with refuel in orbit to Moon surface
Blue Origin/Lockheed-Martin launch by New Glenn / Vulcan to Moon orbit
Dynetics want to use commercial Launcher to get there lander to Moon orbit

means SLS loose more payloads

is Boeing now in panic mode ?
Click to expand...

Did you not watch the Dynetics video which shows their lander being launched on SLS. Their lander can use Vulcan which means it has to be launched in bits, but when launched on SLS it can be launched in one piece.

If you did watch the video and you’re still saying this then I can only assume you to be inserting an anti-SLS spin into your post.

I have no problem people criticising SLS for its actual failings and problems, I do have an issue with people distorting or misinterpreting facts to criticise.
 
May 01, 2020
RELEASE 20-050

NASA Commits to Future Artemis Missions with More SLS Rocket Engines

NASA has awarded a contract to Aerojet Rocketdyne of Sacramento, California, to manufacture 18 additional Space Launch System (SLS) RS-25 rocket engines to support Artemis missions to the Moon.

The follow-on contract to produce 18 engines is valued at $1.79 billion. This includes labor to build and test the engines, produce tooling and support SLS flights powered by the engines. This modifies the initial contract awarded in November 2015 to recertify and produce six new RS-25 engines and brings the total contract value to almost $3.5 billion with a period of performance through Sept. 30, 2029, and a total of 24 engines to support as many as six additional SLS flights.

“This contract allows NASA to work with Aerojet Rocketdyne to build the rocket engines needed for future missions,” said John Honeycutt, the SLS program manager at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “The same reliable engines that launched more than 100 space shuttle missions have been modified to be even more powerful to launch the next astronauts who will set foot on the lunar surface during the Artemis missions.”

Each SLS rocket uses four RS-25 engines, providing a total of 2 million pounds of thrust to send SLS to space. The SLS rocket leverages the assets, capabilities, and experience of NASA’s Space Shuttle Program, using 16 existing RS-25 shuttle engines for the first four SLS missions. These engines were updated with new controllers – the brains that control the engine – and upgraded and tested to fly at the higher performance level necessary to launch the SLS, which is much larger and more powerful than the shuttle.

The rocket engines are mounted at the base of the 212-foot-tall core stage, which holds more than 700,000 gallons of propellant and provides the flight computers that control the rocket’s flight. The engines for the Artemis I mission to the Moon have already been assembled as part of the core stage, which is undergoing Green Run testing.

“We’ve already begun production on the first six new RS-25 engines,” said Johnny Heflin, the SLS engines manager. “Aerojet Rocketdyne has restarted the production lines, established a supplier base and is building engines using advanced techniques that reduce both the cost and time for manufacturing each engine.”

The engines are built at Aerojet Rocketdyne’s factory in Canoga Park, California. Working with NASA, Aerojet has implemented a plan to reduce the cost of the engines by as much as 30% by using more advanced manufacturing techniques to modify some of the rocket components. Some of these modified components have already been tested during engine tests that replicate the conditions of flight.The new digital controllers are built by Honeywell Aerospace in Clearwater, Florida, a major subcontractor to Aerojet Rocketdyne.

The SLS rocket, Orion spacecraft, Gateway and Human Landing System are part of NASA’s backbone for deep space exploration. Work is well underway on both the Artemis I and II rockets. The Artemis I core stage and its RS-25 engines are in the B-2 test stand at NASA’s Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. Here, the stage is undergoing Green Run testing, an integrated test of the entire new stage that culminates with the firing of all four RS-25 engines. Upon completion of the test, NASA’s Pegasus barge will take the core stage to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida where it will be integrated with other parts of the rocket and Orion for Artemis I.

The Artemis program is the next step in human space exploration. It’s part of America’s broader Moon to Mars exploration approach, in which astronauts will explore the Moon and experience gained there to enable humanity’s next giant leap, sending humans to Mars.

For more information about SLS visit:

www.nasa.gov

Space Launch System (SLS) - NASA

Combining power and capability, NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket is part of NASA’s backbone for deep space exploration and Artemis.
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov
 
I very seldom say much about costs, but in this case I must. The amount of money being paid for the RS-25 and support is absolutely insane! This is far more than paying for hardware or a service, this is a "lets keep Aerojet in business" payment. I guess with the congressional attitude that money has not cost, a trillion here and a trillion there, what is 3 or 4 billion in the whole scheme of things. I would be not at all surprised if there is a change of administration next year, the SLS will be history. Over a decade and billions later, we are still trying to re-invent Saturn ....... pretty pathetic.
 
djfawcett said:
I very seldom say much about costs, but in this case I must. The amount of money being paid for the RS-25 and support is absolutely insane! This is far more than paying for hardware or a service, this is a "lets keep Aerojet in business" payment. I guess with the congressional attitude that money has not cost, a trillion here and a trillion there, what is 3 or 4 billion in the whole scheme of things. I would be not at all surprised if there is a change of administration next year, the SLS will be history. Over a decade and billions later, we are still trying to re-invent Saturn ....... pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...

SLS doesn’t care about administration changes, any attempts to cancel or de-fund it will be blocked by Congress (see the current admin’s attempts to defer Block 1B as evidence).
 
E-V Bomber said:
djfawcett said:
I very seldom say much about costs, but in this case I must. The amount of money being paid for the RS-25 and support is absolutely insane! This is far more than paying for hardware or a service, this is a "lets keep Aerojet in business" payment. I guess with the congressional attitude that money has not cost, a trillion here and a trillion there, what is 3 or 4 billion in the whole scheme of things. I would be not at all surprised if there is a change of administration next year, the SLS will be history. Over a decade and billions later, we are still trying to re-invent Saturn ....... pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...

SLS doesn’t care about administration changes, any attempts to cancel or de-fund it will be blocked by Congress (see the current admin’s attempts to defer Block 1B as evidence).
Click to expand...
They don't call it the, "Senate Launch System" for nothing.
 
SLS has done one thing for us: It's shown what a useless system we have in government mandated space missions and assignment of companies to build the hardware to support those stupid missions.

The fix, of course, is term limits. A government were lobbyist have no incentive to bribe Congress Critters; failed lawyers and dog-catchers who will be on scene for just one term. Let the market-place dictate what systems get built. If There's a real need, private industry will come to the fore.

Elected office should be for smart people, not career hacks. SLS is sweet-nectar to government hacks and the lobbyists that wine and dine them.

NASA should do one thing: pure research in the aero-space sector. Period!

David
 
merriman said:
SLS has done one thing for us: It's shown what a useless system we have in government mandated space missions and assignment of companies to build the hardware to support those stupid missions.

The fix, of course, is term limits. A government were lobbyist have no incentive to bribe Congress Critters; failed lawyers and dog-catchers who will be on scene for just one term. Let the market-place dictate what systems get built. If There's a real need, private industry will come to the fore.

Elected office should be for smart people, not career hacks. SLS is sweet-nectar to government hacks and the lobbyists that wine and dine them.

NASA should do one thing: pure research in the aero-space sector. Period!

David
Click to expand...

Sad thing is people think government is any better in any other area.
 
merriman said:
SLS has done one thing for us: It's shown what a useless system we have in government mandated space missions and assignment of companies to build the hardware to support those stupid missions.

The fix, of course, is term limits. A government were lobbyist have no incentive to bribe Congress Critters; failed lawyers and dog-catchers who will be on scene for just one term. Let the market-place dictate what systems get built. If There's a real need, private industry will come to the fore.

Elected office should be for smart people, not career hacks. SLS is sweet-nectar to government hacks and the lobbyists that wine and dine them.

NASA should do one thing: pure research in the aero-space sector. Period!

David
Click to expand...

What a bizzare comment as NASA has always been more than research into the aero-space sector. Have you not been paying attention the last fifty years or something as the sheer amount of science that NASA has generated about our planet, the rest of the solar system and universe is worth the relatively small cost alone. It really grinds my gears when people use criticising SLS as a way of criticising NASA as a whole failing to notice that NASA isn’t one monolithic entity but rather multiple organisations with competing interests. Don’t assume everyone at NASA is somehow onboard with full support for SLS.

And somehow thinking that the private sector automatically has all the right answers is more bizarre thinking. Often the best results come from a combination of private and public working together. Space X certainly wouldn’t be where they are today with prior NASA support especially financially.

The kind of thinking your putting forward is just as bad in my view as that which you are criticising.
 
Flyaway said:
What a bizzare comment as NASA has always been more than research into the aero-space sector. Have you not been paying attention the last fifty years or something as the sheer amount of science that NASA has generated about our planet, the rest of the solar system and universe is worth the relatively small cost alone. It really grinds my gears when people use criticising SLS as a way of criticising NASA as a whole failing to notice that NASA isn’t one monolithic entity but rather multiple organisations with competing interests. Don’t assume everyone at NASA is somehow onboard with full support for SLS.
Click to expand...

IMHO, it would be better if NASA would be reorganized to concentrate more on research side of question, as it was initially supposed to be.
 
Flyaway said:
What a bizzare comment as NASA has always been more than research into the aero-space sector. Have you not been paying attention the last fifty years or something as the sheer amount of science that NASA has generated about our planet, the rest of the solar system and universe is worth the relatively small cost alone. It really grinds my gears when people use criticising SLS as a way of criticising NASA as a whole failing to notice that NASA isn’t one monolithic entity but rather multiple organisations with competing interests. Don’t assume everyone at NASA is somehow onboard with full support for SLS.

And somehow thinking that the private sector automatically has all the right answers is more bizarre thinking. Often the best results come from a combination of private and public working together. Space X certainly wouldn’t be where they are today with prior NASA support especially financially.

The kind of thinking your putting forward is just as bad in my view as that which you are criticising.
Click to expand...


NASA of 1965 is not NASA of today. Its not just SLS. Try listing out the total program cost for all major NASA projects and compare vs the original estimates and to the absolute standard of was it worth that much.

NASA does have a culture that permeates all its various branches and it is now ingrained to the point it can't be rooted out. I would abolish NASA outright specifically to RIF as much of the culture as possible before taking the individual parts and assigning them to either DOD or to a dedicated DARPA like organizational structure. They would be prohibited from anything other than pure research. All design and build projects would follow the COTS model.

The main takeaway for government is that it is immune to corrective action for bad behavior (ie, bankruptcy). Indeed, it usually rewarded for it. IBM once had a million employees and controlled the computer market. Today it doesn't even rate as a shadow of its former self. No government bureaucracy would be subjected to such punishment for failing to adapt.

One final pet peeve, taxpayers have paid for the right to criticize. Those whose income isn't affected by NASA waste should recognize that.
 
fredymac said:
Flyaway said:
What a bizzare comment as NASA has always been more than research into the aero-space sector. Have you not been paying attention the last fifty years or something as the sheer amount of science that NASA has generated about our planet, the rest of the solar system and universe is worth the relatively small cost alone. It really grinds my gears when people use criticising SLS as a way of criticising NASA as a whole failing to notice that NASA isn’t one monolithic entity but rather multiple organisations with competing interests. Don’t assume everyone at NASA is somehow onboard with full support for SLS.

And somehow thinking that the private sector automatically has all the right answers is more bizarre thinking. Often the best results come from a combination of private and public working together. Space X certainly wouldn’t be where they are today with prior NASA support especially financially.

The kind of thinking your putting forward is just as bad in my view as that which you are criticising.
Click to expand...


NASA of 1965 is not NASA of today. Its not just SLS. Try listing out the total program cost for all major NASA projects and compare vs the original estimates and to the absolute standard of was it worth that much.

NASA does have a culture that permeates all its various branches and it is now ingrained to the point it can't be rooted out. I would abolish NASA outright specifically to RIF as much of the culture as possible before taking the individual parts and assigning them to either DOD or to a dedicated DARPA like organizational structure. They would be prohibited from anything other than pure research. All design and build projects would follow the COTS model.

The main takeaway for government is that it is immune to corrective action for bad behavior (ie, bankruptcy). Indeed, it usually rewarded for it. IBM once had a million employees and controlled the computer market. Today it doesn't even rate as a shadow of its former self. No government bureaucracy would be subjected to such punishment for failing to adapt.

One final pet peeve, taxpayers have paid for the right to criticize. Those whose income isn't affected by NASA waste should recognize that.
Click to expand...

I noticed you didn’t even bother actually answering any of the points I raised such as Space X wouldn’t be where they are now without NASA. Instead you just went off on some tedious political rant. Trying to use the SLS program as a stick to beat NASA with shows both a lack of understanding of how NASA works and the fact SLS is more of a case of something imposed on NASA than of NASA. It’s also absolutely politically disingenuous to use it as a stick to beat NASA with in these circumstances and it’s certainly no excuse for trying to completely reorganise NASA because of it.

As an aside it’s no secret that one program alone from someone like the NRO is probably greater than the total annual budget of NASA. As an example the total cost of each KH-11 satellite in the last generation was equivalent in cost of that of an aircraft carrier. And that doesn’t include the launch cost just the build cost.
 
Last edited:
Dilandu said:
Flyaway said:
What a bizzare comment as NASA has always been more than research into the aero-space sector. Have you not been paying attention the last fifty years or something as the sheer amount of science that NASA has generated about our planet, the rest of the solar system and universe is worth the relatively small cost alone. It really grinds my gears when people use criticising SLS as a way of criticising NASA as a whole failing to notice that NASA isn’t one monolithic entity but rather multiple organisations with competing interests. Don’t assume everyone at NASA is somehow onboard with full support for SLS.
Click to expand...

IMHO, it would be better if NASA would be reorganized to concentrate more on research side of question, as it was initially supposed to be.
Click to expand...
The 1950s want their thinking back. Again it’s almost like people just ignore everything NASA has done for the last five decades and think by saying some nonsense like this no one is going to call them on it.
 
Last edited:
Flyaway said:
I noticed you didn’t even bother actually answering any of the points I raised such as Space X wouldn’t be where they are now without NASA. Instead you just went off on some tedious political rant. Trying to use the SLS program as a stick to beat NASA with shows both a lack of understanding of how NASA works and the fact SLS is more of a case of something imposed on NASA than of NASA. It’s also absolutely politically disingenuous to use it as a stick to beat NASA with in these circumstances and it’s certainly no excuse for trying to completely reorganise NASA because of it.

As an aside it’s no secret that one program alone from someone like the NRO is probably greater than the total annual budget of NASA. As an example the total cost of each KH-11 satellite in the last generation was equivalent in cost of that of an aircraft carrier. And that doesn’t include the launch cost just the build cost.
Click to expand...


Yes I did. Spacex exists as a COTS project which was politically imposed on NASA. SLS exists as NASA pork which wouldn't be viable without the NASA lobbying presence in various states and congressional districts. Today, I suspect NASA would kill all COTS projects if they could. The political appointees at the head currently stand in the way. Within congress, COTS has marginally even support (and I suspect less without administration backing).

The reason to abolish NASA stands on their past record of around 40 years. All good things come to an end. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for bad and NASA persists on that side.

I find your cost estimate for KH-11 to be suspect. Please provide a reliable reference.

If you like NASA so much and are not on the tab to pick up their bills, you can send your personal checks directly to them. I doubt they will have trouble cashing them.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom