SLS Project Coming Up $400 Million Short 132
schwit1 writes: A GAO report finds that the Space Launch System is over budget and NASA will need an additional $400 million to complete its first orbital launch in 2017. From the article: "NASA isn't meeting its own requirements for matching cost and schedule resources with the congressional requirement to launch the first SLS in December 2017. NASA usually uses a calculation it calls the 'joint cost and schedule confidence level' to decide the odds a program will come in on time and on budget. 'NASA policy usually requires a 70 percent confidence level for a program to proceed with final design and fabrication,' the GAO report says, and the SLS is not at that level. The report adds that government programs that can't match requirements to resources 'are at increased risk of cost and schedule growth.'
In other words, the GAO says SLS is at risk of costing more than the current estimate of $12 billion to reach the first launch or taking longer to get there. Similar cost and schedule problems – although of a larger magnitude – led President Obama to cancel SLS's predecessor rocket system called Constellation shortly after taking office." The current $12 billion estimate is for the program's cost to achieve one unmanned launch. That's four times what it is costing NASA to get SpaceX, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada to build their three spaceships, all scheduled for their first manned launches before 2017.
In other words, the GAO says SLS is at risk of costing more than the current estimate of $12 billion to reach the first launch or taking longer to get there. Similar cost and schedule problems – although of a larger magnitude – led President Obama to cancel SLS's predecessor rocket system called Constellation shortly after taking office." The current $12 billion estimate is for the program's cost to achieve one unmanned launch. That's four times what it is costing NASA to get SpaceX, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada to build their three spaceships, all scheduled for their first manned launches before 2017.
According to Wikipedia (Score:4, Informative)
They're short more money than SpaceX spent to develop the Falcon 9.
Re:According to Wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)
SpaceX doesn't have to build facilities in every state to appease Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX doesn't have to build facilities in every state to appease Congress.
why don't we just send Congress to orbit??
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All the hot air would destroy the near-vacuum in space?
Re: (Score:2)
Look at it this way, politicians produce so much hot air that you don't need a life-support system.
Re: According to Wikipedia (Score:2)
Because the UN Space Treaty forbids deploying weapons of mass destruction in space.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
It stimulates the economy, and our childrens' imaginations.
Small price to pay.
especially considering it's tech, one of things we excel at in America.
Re:According to Wikipedia (Score:4, Informative)
It stimulates the economy
So we meet again. [investopedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me, those aren't windows you're looking at, they're rockets. haha what do you propose, giving to welfare? What a joke.
Re: According to Wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)
The falacy is related to destroying things to create work. It does not apply here.
The fallacy is related to making a decision by looking only at the parties directly involved in the short term, rather than looking at all parties (directly and indirectly) involved in the short and long term.
Thats a direct quote from the link that you do not understand but amazingly had to balls to act like an expert on. Dont open your mouth when ignorant unless its to ask questions to reduce your level of ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
People who cannot think on a systemic level will never understand things like this. It is not an education thing; it is a problem solving thing. You either see the world as a set of systems, or you don't and can only focus on what is directly observable as consequence. You may be wasting your time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The falacy is related to destroying things to create work.
Exactly. When you take wealth from some to pay others to do useless or even harmful things, you're destroying value and creating opportunity costs. Just because you don't see the window, doesn't mean it wasn't broken.
equivalent to destroying nine rockets (Score:2)
For the same price, NASA could have SpaceX build and launch ten rockets.
Alternatively, they could spend the same money to have SpaceX build ten rockets, then throw nine away and launch one.
That's what they've done, spent resources that can build ten rockets and ending up with one. That's PRECISELY equal to building ten rockets, then destroying nine of them.
Alternatively, they could have paid SpaceX to build the one rocket, then burned a few billion dollars in cash. They'd end up in the exact same position -
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, the SLS is supposed to be more powerful than the Falcon 9. On the other hand, an extra $400M would probably be plenty for SpaceX to get the Falcon Heavy flying, which will be capable of most of the things that the SLS is supposed to handle and at a vastly lower per-launch price even if they *don't* manage to make the launcher reusable. Hell, an extra $400M would probably go much further toward SpaceX managing to build their interplanetary craft (the one that's supposed to ferry people to Mars)
no, the opportunity cost = flushing billions (Score:2)
I'll go through this with you one step at a time.
For the same price, NASA could have SpaceX build and launch ten rockets.
That would be ten times as many scientific experiments launched or whatever good thing the rocket is doing.
Alternatively, they could spend the same money to have SpaceX build ten rockets, then throw nine away and launch one.
That's virtually exactly the same as what they're doing - taking billions of dollars from taxpayers and ending up with one rocket.
It ends up exactly the same as throwi
pfft, 3.5% overrun (Score:5, Insightful)
if the 400 million is really the only overrun that's an astonishing record for the federal goverment
Re:pfft, 3.5% overrun (Score:4, Insightful)
if the 400 million is really the only overrun that's an astonishing record for the federal goverment
of ALL the government programs worth blowing money on, I think NASA should be one of them. It stimulates the economy with relevant tech spending, inspires our children, and sets a rocket ahead of other nations.
NASA is of the things we can look back at over the last 50 years and be immensely proud of. Proud to a NASA supporting American.
Re:pfft, 3.5% overrun (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It stimulates the economy with relevant tech spending, inspires our children, and sets a rocket ahead of other nations.
So what you are saying is that if they were $400 billion short instead of only $400 million short, then that would be even better.
(translation: Your broken window fallacy isnt any more correct the second time that you post it)
Re: (Score:3)
The goal of NASA is worthy, but the reality is a little off. The people working for NASA are intelligent and capable, but management is a major issue. Not the management at NASA, the management of NASA. There is no reason that politicians, including the president, should have anything to do with assigning the projects that NASA works on. They should just give them a budget and let NASA manage their goals and spending. I can't imagine how demoralizing it is to spend years working on a project that would
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I can't imagine how demoralizing it is to spend years working on a project that would ultimately succeed"
None of NASA's major manned spaced projects are even remotely likely to succeed, they are not intended to do so any more. They are just a place to blow money, create jobs and put money in Lockheed and Boeing pockets. More importantly they buy votes in the critical swing state of Florida.
They are designed to run 4-8 years, produce nothing except votes, paychecks and contractor profits, then they get ca
Re: (Score:2)
Lockheed and Boeing also need to be completely removed from the process. They are making a mint milking DOD contracts, they don't need to be in middle of the civilian space program fleecing NASA and taxpayers there too. They do not use money wisely, they devour everything thrown their way and produce as little as possible in return.
I beg to differ, having worked on the Space Station program for Boeing. Pound for pound the station hardware costs the same to design as passenger airplanes of the same era. That is not surprising, because they are both aluminum structures full of mechanical and electrical components, designed by the same people, using the same methods and knowledge base. The big difference is when Boeing designs a passenger airplane, they typically make 1000 copies. We only made 1 copy of the Space Station hardware. S
Re: (Score:2)
I am nearly speechless that you would try to use the ISS as an example of a "success story". It was mind boggling behind schedule and over budget, though turning it in to an international project is partially to blame. The core is based on existing Russian design. If they had just launched that and kept it simple it would have cost a tiny fraction of what it did and accomplished nearly all the science ISS has done.
The fundamental problem with the ISS is its bled NASA and the manned space program white. N
Re: (Score:2)
"no, see, you SpaceX just proves politicians should be MORE involved...."
Re: (Score:1)
The 400 million is the funding they'll need to accurately calculate the overrun.
Re: pfft, 3.5% overrun (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
if the 400 million is really the only overrun that's an astonishing record for the federal goverment
This. Compared to the James Webb Space Telescope - a ten-year, $500 million project that has turned into a 21-year, $8.8 billion project so far, that's chickenscratch.
(But I still want them to finish JWST and launch it.)
Re: (Score:2)
They only started actually building something now. Before that it was paper studies in an office. That cost millions a year.
"congressional requirement" (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, I see the problem!
fixed price vs cost plus award (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been on both sides of this transaction: working for a vendor selling to the government and working for the government buying stuff.
The government CAN go out to bid on a fixed price (binding) basis as you propose. The problem is that any sensible contractor will raise the price above their expected costs to cover the inevitable risks that something goes wrong, or their estimates were wrong. This is particularly so when doing something that has literally never been done before.
So the government buyer has a choice: high fixed price or lower cost based price. With cost based contracts, the contractor gets a fixed fee (cost plus percentage of cost government contracts are illegal). As the cost goes up, the contractor's percentage profit drops, but at least they're not losing money if something goes wrong. The government almost always has the right to cancel at their convenience, too, if things are really going bad rapidly. On pretty much every job, there's a continual computation and reporting (in both directions) of the "termination liability", or what it costs to stop work today, pack everything up, and move on. (Such computations became VERY important during the government shutdown fiasco last fall).
Since the folks in government want to get the best bang for the buck, they tend to like "cost plus award" contracts.. odds are, it will come in lower than they would have paid for fixed price, because government contracting (for technology) has a fairly hefty risk premium. Yeah, if you're buying case lots of toilet paper, or carloads of gravel, fixed price is probably a better strategy on both sides. The contract negotiator on the govt side isn't going to allow profit on a fixed price contract that is more than 10%. (Yes, indeed, even with fixed price, you can't just charge any old price.. you have to justify it after the bid is accepted, and they can and do negotiate, if only because there are inevitably differences between exactly what you proposed to do and what the government wants)
Note well, too, that you probably don't know how much SpaceX thought they were going to spend to develop Falcons and what they actually spent. They're not publically traded, nor do they publish that level of detail. For all you know, SpaceX thought $100M and spent $300M, and Elon's coming up with the difference out of his pocket (or out of payments against future operations).
SLS and comparing to spacex (Score:1, Insightful)
You can not compare spacex vehicles with the damn SLS. The SLS is a deep space vehicle. When spacex is building a vehicle to send to mars or beyond, then yes, they can compare the SLS to spacex A manned launch into low earth orbit is not even close to deep space. Not bashing SpaceX, but apples and oranges here...
Re:SLS and comparing to spacex (Score:4, Insightful)
The SLS is a deep space vehicle.
Uh, no, it's not. There's nothing 'deep space' about SLS that's not 'deep space' about Falcon 9. You can launch a deep space probe on Falcon 9, and you could launch a deep space probe on SLS if it's ever built.
SLS, as designed, is just a very expensive way to put 70 tons into orbit. Maybe, at some point, if Congress funds it, it might become a very expensive way to put 100-130 tons into orbit. Well before then, Falcon Heavy should be putting 50 tons into orbit for less than 5% of the cost of an SLS launch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True.
But the SLS should be able to lift twice as much as SpaceX's future Falcon Heavy and 10 times the current Faclon 9. If we want to launch man into deep space, we are going to need something close to SSL than the Falcon 9.
Re: (Score:2)
True.
But the SLS should be able to lift twice as much as SpaceX's future Falcon Heavy and 10 times the current Faclon 9.
Nope. The SLS will launch up to 70 tons. It may one day launch more, but that'll require a whole load more development funding.
If we want to launch man into deep space, we are going to need something close to SSL than the Falcon 9.
Nope. You just need more launches. If NASA are going to send humans to Mars, they're not going to do it with a single 130 ton launch.
Re:SLS and comparing to spacex (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the SSL will start at 70t and move forward to (maybe) 155t.
But no, 10 13 ton lauches of the Falcon 9 does probabbly does not get you the same thing as a single lauch of 130t. Assemble is a issue. Some things are better built and have less wastage in large intergated units on the ground than assempbled in space.
We should compare apples to apples, not oranges. Which leads me to my biggest gripe about NASA (and by extension, the American government) – their plans are so murky and ill defined. Each stage of the program was like a rung on a ladder – leading to the eventual goal. How does the ISS fit into going to Mars? How does the SLS? How come we are always punting this thing down the road by 20 years. It is almost a program in search of a mission. Please don't take this as an attack on basic science and research – just how NASA does it.
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't take this as an attack on basic science and research â" just how NASA does it.
Which thing? Your post or how NASA "does it"?
Re: (Score:3)
The 70 ton version won't be finished until at least 2021, work won't start on the >130t version until after 2032. The "Block 0" version might fly by 2017 (if, the GAO reports, they receive more funding.)
Falcon Heavy likewise is supposed to fly by 2015. So allowing for the usual SpaceX delays, probably around 2017/2018, same as SLS-Block-0.
The difference is, Falcon Heavy will cost the tax payers almost nothing to develop and less than $100m p
Re: (Score:2)
The SLS is not a deep space vehicle. It's a vehicle to divert tax payer money into the pocket of private enterprises that give a share to politicians. Assuming it ever takes off, it'll be an outdated overpriced piece of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
The SLS is not a deep space vehicle. It's a vehicle to divert tax payer money into the pocket of private enterprises that give a share to politicians. Assuming it ever takes off, it'll be an outdated overpriced piece of shit.
Understanding this provides predictive capability - that there's basically zero chance that the project will be canceled or defunded, for the reasons you stated.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasnt Elon Musk saying that he could send people to Mars for a fraction the cost of SLS or a NASA system and that he was going to work on the problem?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Was that before or after he finds cures for all diseases, solves the worlds energy and transportation problems and turns water into wine?
If Elon was really smart he'd start a church given how much people on slashdot worship him.
Re: (Score:2)
If Elon was really smart he'd start a church given how much people on slashdot worship him.
I do not worship him. I "like" him though. He became a billionaire and decided to build rockets and electric cars amongst other things. Every other billionaire is boring as hell, just trying to collect more money: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Walton family, etc etc. What the fuck are they doing? Reveling in luxury and power. What is Elon Musk doing?
Yeah, there is a reason Elon Musk is talked about more than most other billionaires... well, talked about positively anyways. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have
Re: (Score:3)
He did state publicly that he promised NASA that he could build a rocket comparable to the SLS on a fixed-price $2 billion contract (meaning NASA would not pay a dime for budget overruns), although that price didn't include any second-stage upgrades NASA might require to meet its needs.
SpaceX is actually going ahead with their SLS-like competitor (Codenamed "BFR", I think you can guess what that stands for), and they're supposed to start testing on the methane-powered engines (Raptor) soon, which are suppos
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase "deep space vehicle" is misleading - it's the payload, not the launcher, that has to be deep-space. However, the SLS is a heavy lift vehicle (70Mg to LEO for the Block I configuration, 130Mg in Block II), while Falcon 9 is a medium lift vehicle (10Mg to LEO). However, the planned Falcon 9 Heavy is also a heavy lift vehicle (53Mg to LEO), and seems much more likely to actually fly.
For comparison on those numbers, the Saturn V was 120Mg, the Space Shuttle was 25Mg, Proton is 20Mg, and Delta IV-H (t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Marlin 2 and Falcon XX were hypothetical, and SpaceX didn't go that direction. They're currently building the Raptor, a methane engine with more thrust than the Saturn V's F-1 engines, and the "BFR", which is basically the same idea as Falcon XX.
Re: (Score:2)
As an addition to 0123456's reply here, there isn't even a concrete plan yet to use the SLS to launch deep-space manned missions. The orion project, as it's currently being developed and funded, will not send humans outside of Earth orbit.
Am I the only one who mis-read the headline? (Score:2)
The immediately previous story was about new SSL server rules. I read that, and then reloaded and saw this new story. My first reaction was "why on earth does the 'SSL Project' need anywhere near $400 million dollars?!"
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
suborbital
You keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX will be flying astronauts in their Dragon capsule. I believe the CST100 is designed to be Falcon-compatible, but it's unlikely to ever fly on one.
As for SLS, there isn't a single budgeted mission outside low orbit. And there's not likely to be, when it will cost billions of dollars every time it flies, due to the high development costs, low flight rate, and standing army and facilities required to launch it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
' when it will cost billions of dollars every time it flies, due to the high development costs, low flight rate, and standing army and facilities required to launch it.'
This is as I understand it a vile calumny on the SLS program.
Most realistic estimates say it's only going to cost one billion per launch, not several.
Re: (Score:2)
Most realistic estimates say it's only going to cost one billion per launch, not several.
It's going to fly once every couple of years, if you're lucky. It's going to require thousands of people to prepare it for launch. It's going to require all the facilities for those thousands of people, and more who aren't involved in the launch, but are involved in the rest of the program.
If you think NASA can fund that for $500,000,000 a year, I've got a bridge you might like to buy. Remeber, a shuttle launch didn't cost $1,500,000,000 because of the variable costs of each launch, it cost that much becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Sierra Nevada: building what nasa did 30 years ago, this is designed for cargo and people. it is strictly suborbital. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
they make a great beer [beeradvocate.com] though! The hops alone will send you to the moon!
Re: (Score:2)
sure, the project is expensive but people need to understand there are immense differences between NASA's vehicle and the others. Not to mention all three companies are standing on the shoulders of a giant, NASA, and their projects are all dwarfed by what nasa is attempting to create.
SpaceX: hopefully delivering the CST-100 version 2, but honestly hasnt contributed a whole lot other than a sexy brand to the effort. CST100 was delivered by Boeing.
What the hell? SpaceX has the Dragon (and Dragon 2), not the CST100. SpaceX has had several successful, on-schedule, on-budget flights of the Dragon for cargo (including safe reentry) which has demonstrated the functionality of many subsystems that will be used in the manned version. The Dragon 2 has potential to be the safest manned capsule of the bunch - it can abort at literally any point in the launch profile, land with pinpoint accuracy, and has a strong enough heatshield for a return from Mars. Not to
Re: (Score:2)
Sierra Nevada: building what nasa did 30 years ago, this is designed for cargo and people. it is strictly suborbital. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
30 years ago NASA was building space shuttles. If Sierra Nevada were doing that, I would be impressed.
Re:putting OP's bullshit into context (Score:5, Informative)
You are factually wrong on several counts.
SpaceX is not working on any version of the CST-100, and their only relation is that the CST-100 is supposedly designed to be compatible with the Falcon 9 launcher (I have reasonable doubt that will happen). They delivered the Dragon cargo capsule, and are working on the manned Dragon V2.
Boeing's CST-100 is orbital, not suborbital. Suborbital means it will not complete a single orbit, like a missile.
Sierra's Dream Chaser is also not suborbital. It also uses many non-NASA technologies, such as the hybrid rocket engines.
You further have many logical errors, the most persistent being the conflation of the launch vehicle with the crew vehicle. SLS, Falcon 9 and Atlas V are launch vehicles. Orion, Dragon, CST-100 and Dream Chaser are crew vehicles.
Orion is NASA's crew vehicle (actually, Lockheed Martin's, but I'll get to that in a bit). It is not suitable for missions beyond the Moon - it has a designed mission length of only three weeks (21 days), which is unsuitable for anything beyond Earth orbit. You are correct that manned deep-space missions will need a super-heavy launch vehicle such as SLS, but Orion itself will not be the crew vehicle.
You also make a mistake in your history. NASA did not produce the Apollo landers or the Saturn V (what I assume you refer to as "what nasa did 30 years ago" or "other NASA firsts"). They set the requirements, and solicited bids from private companies. Just as they're doing now - Orion is being made by Lockheed Martin, the SLS boosters are being made by ATK, Rocketdyne is making the core engines, Boeing is making the upper stage. Really, all NASA is doing is assembling the entire thing, and of course setting the specs and requirements.
Let's look at the Apollo command module, the closest equivalent to Orion/CST-100/Dragon. It was developed by North American Aviation. They merged with Rockwell-Standard during the 1967 to form North American Rockwell, later renamed to Rockwell International, under which name they produced the Space Shuttle orbiter. The Rockwell International space division was sold in 1996 to... Boeing.
Boeing isn't "ripping off from NASA firsts". They're building off work that they did for NASA in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. If anything "NASA" is ripping of them, but I remind you that Lockheed Martin is the one actually building the thing you want to attribute to NASA.
Sierra Nevada is building off SpaceShipOne technology, not any NASA programs. Just because it looks vaguely like the Space Shuttle, that does not mean it actually works the same way. The engines are completely and fundamentally different, as is the aerodynamic design.
And SpaceX is developing everything on their own. The only thing they used from another company is some software/control design from Tesla Motors, a company not coincidentally also owned by Elon Musk. I personally doubt much was even borrowed there except for the basic idea of a single big touchscreen, but I guess it makes for good brand advertising.
tl;dr you're wrong in your terminology, you're wrong in your facts, you're wrong in your logic, and you're wrong in your conclusions.
Re: (Score:3)
Mortal Combat announcer: Brutality
Wish I had mod points for you right now. Well said.
Just (Score:1)
Flush it down the drain.
5 billion per launch already looking optimistic (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.thespacereview.com/... [thespacereview.com]
Doesn't the old saying go "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" ?
What is it when it is fool me endlessly ? NASA does not bring down the cost of space access period. The shuttle didn't none of their boosters ever have. If we get really lucky we get commercial enterprises able to do end runs around them to actually make a little progress.
Really we should have NASA do what it is good at, robotic exploration and high risk high payoff research. Let commercial companies do what they are good at mass production and perfecting technologies.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey we need to accomplish A Mission, what are all the ways we have done something like that before? blah blah blah mission X, Y, Z blah blah blah. Great! Some of those were great successes. Now let's brainstorm a completely new way of doing something like this that nobody has every thought of before....
So.... NASA isn't good at perfecting technology, making it efficient and cost effective because that is iterative and evolutionary, but if you need to dream up a new way to land on Mars or do a one-off science experiment, then they have the brain boxes to do it.
Personally I'd rather see NASA funding other people and institutions doing much of the science and setting some higher level requirements for systems and missions and seeing what different companies ca
Luck? (Score:3)
If we get really lucky we get commercial enterprises able to do end runs around them to actually make a little progress.
Then I guess we've been extremely lucky, because SpaceX has actually made a lot of progress.
Re: (Score:1)
Going over budget?
Re: (Score:2)
NASA employes about 15k full time employees. That's about $3 Billion out of a $18 Billion budget. All the rest goes to contracts of various types. NASA isn't designing all of SLS. Most is contractors.
NASA needs to fix it's Org. . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't just a silly mistake. NASA bases its budgetary decisions on the price sub-contractors give for various jobs. These sub-contractors often give an intentionally misleading cost underestimate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> Private industry already designs and builds basically everything they do
Indeed, and dishonest cost estimates from private companies are usually the main reason for things going way over-budget.
And this is exactly where it needs to restructure itself. Dismantle the SLS program, pour more funds into research and facilities like JPL.
Re: (Score:2)
> Private industry already designs and builds basically everything they do
Indeed, and dishonest cost estimates from private companies are usually the main reason for things going way over-budget.
And this is exactly where it needs to restructure itself. Dismantle the SLS program, pour more funds into research and facilities like JPL.
I'm not convinced that all the restructuring in the world will fix NASA as long as congress keeps using them as a jobs program with some technical objectives stapled on top as an afterthought.
Better deal than the F22 (Score:3)
For how many billions (trillions?) that the F22 has gone over budget, underperformed, and doesn't really have any particular need except politically, 400 million is a drop in the bucket. Give NASA the F22 budget and prepare to be amazed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
At a bare minimum the F35 program was far more of a boondoggle than the F22 program but even it had severe cost overruns (Development ballooned from $12.6 B to $26.3 B, Fighter Construction $149 M to $412), significantly decreased capabilities (high maintenance, canopy degradation) & major design flaws (asphyxiating pilots, flaking off stealth skin). The only reason it didn't cost far more was they only built 187 operational aircraft, far less than originally intended, because it was FAR cheaper to sim
For 5 billion you could do a lot of real science (Score:3)
And people get mad (Score:2)
And people get mad when I say NASA has devolved into a collection of risk adverse mid-managers loosely connected to a rusting theme park endlessly replaying clips of their glory days. Their best days are behind them and it's time to think about reorganizing the entire agency.
Kill SLS (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm one of the biggest spaceflight enthusiasts you'll find, and I've been saying for years: kill SLS. We'll get more results by using 20% of the money to expand SpaceX contracts, and applying the other 80% toward deficit reduction.
Musk isn't in it for the money; he enjoys the engineering challenges, and bringing launch costs down by one or more orders of magnitude is one of those challenges. (Yes I realize the irony; despite not being in it for the money, he has become quite wealthy.)
Re: (Score:2)
80% of SLS devoted to deficit reduction is a trivial change in the deficit (Better to split it between SpaceX and Orbital Sciences and mission development. Allowing $3B per year for mission development, that leaves enough to pay for development of Falcon9R, Falcon9 Heavy, and Orbital's equivalents.
Or just buy Dragon flights from SpaceX - $5B per year would pay for a Dragon lau
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect grandparent has ideological reasons for wanting to give money to a private contractor rather than a government agency. 80% of NASA's yearly budget will barely slow the deficit's rise, and it's a suspiciously /round/ number.
Ideology coincides with progress for humanity (Score:2)
I suspect grandparent has ideological reasons for wanting to give money to a private contractor rather than a government agency. 80% of NASA's yearly budget will barely slow the deficit's rise, and it's a suspiciously /round/ number.
The private contractor has a track record of delivering far more bang for the buck than the government agency. Yes, I do have an ideology -- because I have observed time and time again that private enterprises operate far more efficiently than the government -- but it is a true ideology with a foundation of factual, objective observations. What is the foundation of your ideology?
Sorry for using a round number. I don't know why you'd be happier if I had said "apply the other 78.57% toward deficit reductio
Re: (Score:2)
The private contractor has a track record of delivering far more bang for the buck than the government agency. Yes, I do have an ideology -- because I have observed time and time again that private enterprises operate far more efficiently than the government -- but it is a true ideology with a foundation of factual, objective observations
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That's adorable, yet so lacking in self-awareness.
Re: (Score:2)
...and the recent annoucement of layoffs there does not bode well.
It bodes quite well. It was the end of a review period and it was less than 5% of the work force. Specifically, the ones who really weren't cutting it. SpaceX has stated they expect to end the year with a 20% increase in head count, even after this week's trimming. In other words, they're choosy about who works for them. Not especially news. They wouldn't be doing what they're doing if their hiring practices worked any other way.
Pork (Score:2)
Yes, pork-barrel spending is a huge problem; see http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
But you can't say that money spent on SpaceX contracts won't go to SpaceX. By definition, it does.
they have so-far demonstrated no ability to either reliably launch on-schedule, or leaunch at any sustained rate
The amazing thing about SpaceX is that even while their costs are at least an order of magnitude lower than ULA's, their development cycle is far more rapid and the capabilities they are adding are far more advanced. Fi
In other words (Score:2)
Its not a rocket. Its racket.
Sad (Score:4, Insightful)
NASA to Congress: We want to build a launch system that will be the single most important component in the US presence in space for the nest several generations. We need $20B for it from planning to first launch.
Congress to NASA: Screw that, you get $12B.
NASA to Congress: We can almost do it with $12B, we need an additional $400M
Congress to NASA: Justify the additional $$
Military to Congress: We need $10B to build a new strike fighter that no-one really wants.
Congress to Military: Here ya go
Military to Congress: Oops. We've crashed a bunch of prototypes, and still have major design flaws and systems failures. Another $10B should get us on track.
Congress to Military: Here ya go
Military to Congress: Supplier problems, we need another $10B
Congress to Military: Here ya go
Why are we so damned willing to spend money to kill people more efficiently and not to do science that positively impacts all our lives every day?
Re: (Score:2)
See: Machiavelli's The Prince.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes but from what I have heard SLS isn't exactly the best bang for buck and has a lot of pork of its own, nonetheless, it is still small compared to other government waste. SLS has little credibility since basically, its repackaging of the shuttle technologies to keep the boondoggle going. SpaceX has found ways to do things much more cheaply because it can think outside of the box and is not bound into using a certain technology because it gets a congressman a kickback. They can do things based on technica
One Has to Wonder (Score:2)
And congress is doing their best to sabotage CCDev (Score:3)
"SpaceX, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada to build their three spaceships, all scheduled for their first manned launches before 2017."
And surprise, surprise. There are serious attempts to pillage that program (CCDev), which is on time, on budget, and (comparatively) insanely cheap, for funds to prop up SLS.
http://arstechnica.com/science... [arstechnica.com]
Another lesson in crony-capitalism and monopoly (Score:1)
In the aftermath of the Cold War, the federal government allowed the biggest defense contractors to "consolidate" by going on a feeding-frenzy gobbling-up smaller defense contractors. Now, we essentially have [1] Boeing, [2] Lockheed-Martin, and [3] Northrop-Grumman (there are many little subcontractors and vendors on small niche items, but for any significant weapons system we have just those 3 vendors. As a further wrinkle, those three vendors (for whatever reason, I have my suspicions but I cannot read
"..program is making solid progress..." (Score:1)
You would never know it from the summary above.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/664970.pdf
Simple answer. (Score:1)
Stop funding the global warming cargo cultists. Use that money for SLS.
Re: (Score:2)
The rules are designed to try to prevent embezzlement
So...the rules designed to prevent spending more money than necessary that would end up in the pockets of people who'd have no business getting their hands on it in a sane world...cause more money than necessary being spent and ending in the pockets of other people who'd have no business getting their hands on it in a sane world? *double facepalm* [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:3)
So...the rules designed to prevent spending more money than necessary that would end up in the pockets of people who'd have no business getting their hands on it in a sane world...cause more money than necessary being spent and ending in the pockets of other people who'd have no business getting their hands on it in a sane world?
Yes, thats why big government is bad. Bigger government means bigger amounts of money does this.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more, then that.
FTFY and I see what you did there.
Re: (Score:2)
Much more lucrative than the less organized organized-crime.
Ho-hum; it's apples and oranges though; when you control the game, you're quids-in.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if only we could have warned primitive man to completely master cave life before venturing out.