Report: NASA May Miss SLS Launch Deadline

An anonymous reader writes: A post at the Planetary Society's blog summarizes a report from NASA's Office of Inspector General which says the agency will struggle to get launch facilities up and running in time for the Space Launch System's November 2018 launch deadline. "Ground systems are a critical piece of the SLS-Orion infrastructure. All three elements are tightly integrated, with ground systems requiring significant input from the rocket and capsule designs." To be more specific, NASA has found 462 separate inter-dependencies, less than two-thirds of which have been resolved so far. "The Mobile Launcher must be moved into the Vehicle Assembly Building for testing prior to the delivery of SLS and Orion. When it comes time to stack the rocket and capsule for the first flight, there may be a 'learning curve,' said the OIG, where engineers work through unforeseen glitches." They're also worried about having to develop all the software to run these systems before the hardware is in place to test.

Comments

This is why NASA needs to privatize

[Karmashock]

Outsource the whole operation to SpaceX or Boeing and then have them be responsible for hitting the deadline.

It won't cost more then what it currently costs, the US will retain the internal capability to do the work... and we'll be able to put real pressure on the whole institution to actually hit deadlines.

They want to get paid? Deliver on the contract.

Re:This is why NASA needs to privatize

[Guspaz]

Boeing is doing SLS on a cost-plus contract. SpaceX' work for NASA is a fixed-price contract.

What that means is that, with a cost-plus, if a contractor goes over budget, then NASA will pay for the overage, no matter how much it is. With a fixed-price contract, NASA pays a fixed amount, and any overages are up to the contractor to absorb.

There are certain justifications for cost-plus, for example a small company where a fixed-price contract could bankrupt the company if something goes wrong. In that case, NASA gets nothing, because there is no opportunity to fund the overage. But with a cost-plus, the safety net is there, where NASA would have the choice to either terminate the contract, or pay the overage.

The problem comes when you have big companies like Boeing doing cost-plus contracts, who are perfectly capable of absorbing cost overruns without going bankrupt. They have no incentive to stick to any sort of budget or schedule.

Re:This is why NASA needs to privatize

[PPH]

To add to all of this, NASA is taking on a large part of the responsibility for "systems integration" for SLS/Orion. This is where major cost overruns originate. And when Boeing has a cost plus contract, every requirements clarification NASA produces represents a change order Boeing can bill for.

This is the wet dream of every government contractor.

Re:This is why NASA needs to privatize

[Karmashock]

If you offered them a chance to take boeing's contract they'd make it work. The money is too good.

Re: This is why NASA needs to privatize

[K. S. Kyosuke]

They should be afraid. They aren't offering competitive service.

Boeing/ULA has already announced the retirement of Delta IV Medium. It could be either because Delta IV Medium was utterly uncompetitive already, or because Delta IV Medium will have even fewer chances to get any contracts after Falcon 9 gets certified, or because ULA wants to blackmail the Congress into re-allowing the import of RD-180 for national security payloads.

Re:CUT THE FEDERAL BUDGET

[ganjadude]

we should cut the budget

that has nothing to do with nasa, who brings in some .5% of the budget.

We can still cut the budget in other areas that are rife with abuse, and not touch (or give more to) nasa

Unacceptable

[cmdr_klarg]

You must find and itemize any and all unforeseen problems that could crop up, complete with solutions and procedure to minimize their impact.

Re:budget

[kellymcdonald78]

It's not the size of NASA's budget, (Bolden keeps saying they have all the money they need for SLS), it's the unholy mess of earmarks that ties NASA's hands at just about every step. These days NASA can't take a shit without some congressional earmark telling them what brand of toilet paper to use. NASA is no longer about space, it's about launching money into key congressional districts

Re:NASA missing a date is not news

[Megane]

Launching is not the priority, maintaining Shuttle-era pork is the priority. So SNAFU.

Re:budget

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

And on that score, the Senate Launch System has apparently been performing as designed.

Re: Space Czar

[Redbehrend]

Deadlines ruin projects, NASA is known to never make a deadline lol. Musk doesn't have the greatest record but when he does hit the milestone there is some extra. Example rocket landing at sea created the new ocean launch\landing pad program with automation research, docking, etc.. That will help more than just the rocket landings.

Re:Space Czar

[cheesybagel]

Well they can also do three Falcon 9 launches with the same amount of cores for a single Heavy which I expect gives them a lot more profit for roughly the same amount of manufacturing work.

It also helps clear their launch backlog and build a customer base. So it is not unreasonable that spend the first one or two years just doing Falcon 9 launches.