SLS - On the Scent of Inevitable Capitulation

[ecarfan]

Ouch indeed. This news of course does not surprise people like us who know that SLS costs are stratospheric. But at least now the costs are public record and undeniable.

SLS will continue. All I can hope for is that this year Starship reaches orbit and then demonstrates a successful landing. That will send shock waves through the entire global aerospace industry. And then, because SpaceX is hardware-rich, they will quickly do it again, and again, and again, and in a few years SLS will be cancelled.

 

[Electroman]

All I can hope for is that this year Starship reaches orbit

FAA, EPA, XYZ and every three or four letter Govt entities can delay SpaceX juggernaut, until SLS does its maiden successful launch, even if it is a few years away... just saying. Also SpaceX will have a few failures before it does a full orbit, orbital docking, in-orbit fuel transfer and such, and that will be used as an excuse to continue pouring money into the SLS money pit.

 

[miimura]

FAA, EPA, XYZ and every three or four letter Govt entities can delay SpaceX juggernaut, until SLS does its maiden successful launch, even if it is a few years away... just saying. Also SpaceX will have a few failures before it does a full orbit, orbital docking, in-orbit fuel transfer and such, and that will be used as an excuse to continue pouring money into the SLS money pit.

SLS will not die a quick death. It will continue to serve it intended purpose for at least several more years - it's a jobs program disguised as a space program.

 

[Grendal]

More delays. Shocking, I know.

NASA to roll back SLS for repairs

NASA announced late April 16 it will roll back the SLS from the launch pad for various repairs, further delaying the rocket's long-anticipated first launch.

spacenews.com

 

[Cosmacelf]

All is proceeding as … forecast.

 

[scaesare]

All is proceeding as … forecast.

 

[Nikxice]

I think future projections of NASA launching SLS once a year will prove overly optimistic. Whenever Boeing seems to get one hole plugged, eventually another area springs a leak.... If this thing were a ship, it'd already sunk to the bottom.
First posted here two years ago by @e-FTW, this Eric Berger article still holds water.

New report says SLS rocket managers concerned about fuel leaks

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

www.google.com

The USS SLS.........Supplier Launch System.

 

[jbcarioca]

Is Vladimir Putin the spokesperson? All is according to plan.
Would it not be more efficient to just give Aerojet, Rocketdyne, Northrup, Grumman, Boeing an annual subsidy of, say, $ 2 billion and skip the 'deliverables'?
That would save money for NASA because they would not need all the support for all that mass. They would not need to do any of that testing.
With the savings in NASA overhead they could hire SpaceX to do it all. Bad idea, they'd actually need to complete the mission then! /s (maybe)

 

[AudubonB]

I cannot conceive of more than just one single example of why SpaceX ever would show a "supplier map" like SLS's, but it would be fascinating to see one.

The one exception were it to be demanded by some Congressional committee, likely in an attempt to demonstrate how 'unfair' SpaceX is in spreading its largesse to only X number of states & subcontractors as opposed to the highly egalitarian SLS program.

Excuse me, I have to rinse out my mouth now.

 

[bxr140]

I cannot conceive of more than just one single example of why SpaceX ever would show a "supplier map" like SLS's

There is literally just one reason: They don't have to.

Conversely, SLS HAS to have a very open book with respect to budgets, suppliers, etc. That's how government cost plus programs work. Nobody on the program WANTS to have a massively horizontal supply chain like that--the rails set by big government contracts forces primes to cast that wide net. SLS, as often happens with big military contracts to one degree or another, is simply playing good politics by turning that map into a PR asset. The 47% of the country that is brainwashed into believing all manner of unnecessarily binary things like COAL MEANS JOBS, BIG GOVERNMENT IS BAD, and THE FLAG MEANS ITS PATRIOTIC sees that map of SLS, steps away from their crusade against the social boogieman du jour, stands up tall and proud, and gives a big old 'MERICA salute.

Put another way, is not SLS's fault that SLS is a dumpster fire.

 

[Grendal]

Cost plus is a result and fallout from WW2 and the race to the Moon with Russia. Both were considered national security endeavors. So they got the unlimited budgets needed to complete the job. The problem is that they incentivize delays and going far beyond the budget after the war was over and the race to the Moon was won. Such programs need an expiration date that they just don't have.

 

[miimura]

Cost plus is a result and fallout from WW2 and the race to the Moon with Russia. Both were considered national security endeavors. So they got the unlimited budgets needed to complete the job. The problem is that they incentivize delays and going far beyond the budget after the war was over and the race to the Moon was won. Such programs need an expiration date that they just don't have.

Putting an expiration date on a massive jobs program is not a good political strategy. Just saying. Recognize it for what it is. Cost-Plus government contracting is a political endeavor.

 

[Electroman]

Would it not be more efficient to just give Aerojet, Rocketdyne, Northrup, Grumman, Boeing an annual subsidy of, say, $ 2 billion and skip the 'deliverables'?

I have wondered many times, would it be more efficient and cost effective, if NASA simply pays these ULA employees directly, and they are free to stay at home or take another job. It is a jobs program and it should be run like one, instead of the smokescreen of trying to build something.

 

[bxr140]

Putting an expiration date on a massive jobs program is not a good political strategy. Just saying. Recognize it for what it is. Cost-Plus government contracting is a political endeavor.

Yeah, that's a fair perspective. Its definitely a big problem to solve that has no easy answer. The strength of the US perpetually leans on the ever-fluctuating balancing act between public and private entities, and limiting the ability for a public project to execute would certainly throw a big wrench at that monkey.

I have wondered many times, would it be more efficient and cost effective, if NASA simply pays these ULA employees directly, and they are free to stay at home or take another job. It is a jobs program and it should be run like one, instead of the smokescreen of trying to build something.

Indeed. Its unfortunate that many folks in this country simply refuse to have conversations around topics like this for fear of 'being wrong', but what you're talking about is a very practical case study for a type of UBI. Like any Big Thing there's (again) no easy solution, but there's a lot of value in teasing out the thought experiment: Would the country be better off simply paying a salary to affected jobs in lieu of having those jobs produce an irrelevant product?

While far from comprehensive, consider that a 0th order sanity check finds that combining the 16k SLS jobs from the image linked above with ULA's headcount of 2500-3000 lands at a hand-wavey ~20k people on SLS. SLS budget is something like $2.5B/year. If you paid those 20k people a US average of $50k salary to NOT work on SLS, you're looking at $1B/year. Then, let's go crazy and say we'd instead pay SpaceX a whopping $500M a year for Starship to serve the mission. Maths all that out and the country is in the black $1B/year AND has a better final product (including corollary technology) AND all the affected people still get to live their lives the way they want to.

 

[mspohr]

Yeah, that's a fair perspective. Its definitely a big problem to solve that has no easy answer. The strength of the US perpetually leans on the ever-fluctuating balancing act between public and private entities, and limiting the ability for a public project to execute would certainly throw a big wrench at that monkey.



Indeed. Its unfortunate that many folks in this country simply refuse to have conversations around topics like this for fear of 'being wrong', but what you're talking about is a very practical case study for a type of UBI. Like any Big Thing there's (again) no easy solution, but there's a lot of value in teasing out the thought experiment: Would the country be better off simply paying a salary to affected jobs in lieu of having those jobs produce an irrelevant product?

While far from comprehensive, consider that a 0th order sanity check finds that combining the 16k SLS jobs from the image linked above with ULA's headcount of 2500-3000 lands at a hand-wavey ~20k people on SLS. SLS budget is something like $2.5B/year. If you paid those 20k people a US average of $50k salary to NOT work on SLS, you're looking at $1B/year. Then, let's go crazy and say we'd instead pay SpaceX a whopping $500M a year for Starship to serve the mission. Maths all that out and the country is in the black $1B/year AND has a better final product (including corollary technology) AND all the affected people still get to live their lives the way they want to.

Interesting how many people don't have a problem with government pork but get absolutely apoplectic at the thought of UBI.

 

[Electroman]

Sorry, what is UBI?

 

[SO16]

Sorry, what is UBI?

Universal basic income

 

[Cosmacelf]

Sorry, what is UBI?

Universal basic income. Basically free money from govt.

 

[adiggs]

Sorry, what is UBI?

What Is Universal Basic Income (UBI), and How Does It Work?

Universal basic income is a system in which the government provides every adult citizen with a set amount of money on a regular basis, regardless of their need or desire to work.

www.investopedia.com

My quick read is that this seems like a pretty good discussion of the larger idea of UBI.


Yay for Wikipedia. A more complete discussion about the history and reasons for UBI consideration these days.

Universal basic income - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Grendal]

Back in the barn.

Artemis 1 vehicle heads back to VAB while NASA discusses what to do next - NASASpaceFlight.com

NASA’s Artemis 1 flight vehicle is headed back to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at…

www.nasaspaceflight.com