NASA's Space Launch System Searches For a Mission 53
schwit1 writes: Managers of NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) are searching for a mission that they can propose and convince Congress to fund. "Once SLS is into the 2020s, the launch rate should see the rocket launching at least once per year, ramping up to a projected three times per year for the eventual Mars missions. However, the latter won’t be until the 2030s. With no missions manifested past the EM-2 flight, the undesirable question of just how 'slow' a launch rate would be viable for SLS and her workforce has now been asked." Meanwhile, two more Russian rocket engines were delivered yesterday, the first time that's happened since a Russian official threatened to cut off the supply. Another shipment of three engines is expected later this year. In Europe, Arianespace and the European Space Agency signed a contract today for the Ariane 5 rocket to launch 12 more of Europe’s Galileo GPS satellites on three launches. This situation really reminds me of the U.S. launch market in the 1990s, when Boeing and Lockheed Martin decided that, rather than compete with Russia and ESA for the launch market, they instead decided to rely entirely on U.S. government contracts, since those contracts didn’t really demand that they reduce their costs significantly to compete.
Ooh I Got One! (Score:4, Insightful)
Screwed up Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
The same phony accounting that plagued the (Score:1, Insightful)
Space Shuttle. For decades, people complained about the high costs of operating the shuttles - with the "obvious" implication that cutting the shuttles would free-up lots of money for something better. After the shuttles stopped flying, however, two things became clear: [1] much of the cost was simply the fixed-costs of the agency (which by the screwed-up methodology politicians like, was assigned to the shuttles) and [2] each shuttle flight was actually remarkably cheap... cheaper per ton to orbit than Apollo or Gemini and cheap enough that the program cost was essentially the same per year whether we flew 6 missions or no missions (the bulk of the costs were fixed NASA costs, NOT the actual costs of the missions).
Now that SLS is NASA's big project, all the big costs of the agency are getting assigned to (blamed on) SLS and so it appears that SLS will be the most expensive rocket ever (even though it is essentially a shuttle stack minus the orbiter). NEWS FLASH: WHATEVER program NASA does will become the most-expensive program! If NASA cancelled SLS and flew all future missions on Dragons atop Falcons, suddenly all NASA overhead costs would be assigned to THAT program and IT would become too expensive to be sustained... ALL the fixed costs for the Kennedy Space Center, the Johnson Space Center, etc would get assigned to the "Dragon Exploration Program" or whatever it would be called. That's how the accountants in DC handle programs like NASA, the pentagon, etc.... they need to assign every expense of an agency to some program as part of getting congress to fund it.
Wrong way to do it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nasa: Hey, we have this great launch system
Everyone: Cool! What are you going to do with it?
Nasa:
No slight to Nasa (who've done amazing things) or to the States (ditto), but shouldn't you set a goal, and then go towards it with the right tools? (something like