Slashdot Mirror
NASA To Waste $150 Million On SLS Engine That Will Be Used Once
schwit1 writes: NASA's safety panel has noticed that NASA's SLS program either plans to spend $150 million human-rating a rocket engine it will only use once, or will fly a manned mission without human-rating that engine.
"The Block 1 SLS is the 'basic model,' sporting a Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS), renamed the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion System (ICPS) for SLS. The current plan calls for this [interim] stage to be used on [the unmanned] Exploration Mission -1 (EM-1) and [manned] Exploration Mission -2 (EM-2), prior to moving to the [Exploration Upper Stage] — also to be built by Boeing — that will become the workhorse for SLS. However, using the [interim upper stage] on a crewed mission will require it to be human rated. It is likely NASA will also need to fly the [Exploration Upper Stage] on an unmanned mission to validate the new stage ahead of human missions. This has been presenting NASA with a headache for some time, although it took the recent ASAP meeting to finally confirm those concerns to the public."
NASA doesn't have the funds to human-rate it, and even if they get those funds, human-rating it will likely cause SLS's schedule to slip even more, something NASA fears because they expect the commercial manned ships to be flying sooner and with increasing capability. The contrast — a delayed and unflown and very expensive SLS vs a flying and inexpensive commercial effort — will not do SLS good politically. However, if they are going to insist (properly I think) that SpaceX and Boeing human-rate their capsules and rockets, then NASA is going to have to hold the SLS to the same standard.
"The Block 1 SLS is the 'basic model,' sporting a Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS), renamed the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion System (ICPS) for SLS. The current plan calls for this [interim] stage to be used on [the unmanned] Exploration Mission -1 (EM-1) and [manned] Exploration Mission -2 (EM-2), prior to moving to the [Exploration Upper Stage] — also to be built by Boeing — that will become the workhorse for SLS. However, using the [interim upper stage] on a crewed mission will require it to be human rated. It is likely NASA will also need to fly the [Exploration Upper Stage] on an unmanned mission to validate the new stage ahead of human missions. This has been presenting NASA with a headache for some time, although it took the recent ASAP meeting to finally confirm those concerns to the public."
NASA doesn't have the funds to human-rate it, and even if they get those funds, human-rating it will likely cause SLS's schedule to slip even more, something NASA fears because they expect the commercial manned ships to be flying sooner and with increasing capability. The contrast — a delayed and unflown and very expensive SLS vs a flying and inexpensive commercial effort — will not do SLS good politically. However, if they are going to insist (properly I think) that SpaceX and Boeing human-rate their capsules and rockets, then NASA is going to have to hold the SLS to the same standard.
So what is the article objectively stating?
Propaganda against NASA?
For free libre whatever for something?
Mismanagement of funds?
The normal forgetting of that 150 millions is a drop in a bucket for a large enough corp?
I am just curious.
Also:
>plans to spend $150 million human-rating a rocket engine it will only use once
Why is this a bad thing? Its how prototyping works. Some years down the line, they might want a version 2 for something else.
That's enough to buy half an F-35C!
We know "we" can go to Mars. We can send whatever instruments we want to do whatever science we want. We can send whatever robots we want to operate those instruments. What do we get from sending a meat robot to mars, other than the sort of daredevil glory? We may as well load up the rocket with 1000 lbs of solid gold to raise the stakes even more and make it extra suspenseful.
I am all for NASA, and $150 Million is a drop on the bucket, but I just don't see the utility of sending human beings to mars. We won't learn anything new. We are just risking killing people and making the mission more expensive by trying to mitigate that risk.
One day it will be important for people to go to mars (e.g. like when we run out of space on earth). Until then, there is really no reason a machine can't do the job a human can do more safely and cheaper.
NASA is in a strange place right now. Commercial launch capability is growing quickly, but the recent SpaceX failure underlines the fact that they may not be ready for prime time just yet. So the question is - does NASA spend these dollars to develop a heavy launch capability, or do they wait, cross their fingers, and hope that there is a commercial capability in place during the desired timeline?
At best, they spend the money and have a redundant launch capability. At worst, they don't spend the money AND commercial launch capability dies on the vine, and we are then left with no heavy lift capability at all.
And for the anti-NASA crowd that will be chanting "Pork! Pork! Pork!" - note that NASA is also trying to slow a massive brain drain of experience and knowledge from the shuttle program (yeah, which happens to keep the district congress-critters happy). Not having a project to work will mean watching all that experience walking out the door, gutting NASA's capability to do anything in the future.
NASA has a lot of judgements to make, several of which in hindsight will be seen to be redundant and costly, but without a crystal ball they need to make the decisions based not on cost-efficiency, but what will leave them with a exploration lift capability. That sucks, but that is not NASA's fault; they have to ride the waves (with a period T of 4 years) of the political seas.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Is certifying an engine that will carry humans to be safe for carrying humans a "waste"?
.
And for comparison, how much money have we (all) spent on food we've only eaten once?
Not all money spent, even for something immediately disposed/destroyed, is a waste.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Because that should definetly be the benchmark, right?
Does [anyone else] find that this [summary] is (a bit) hard to read? The (highly)-disjointed nature gives [me] a "headache" ((H)-DNGMAH).
Please update the word "Waste" to "Spend" in the title:
Current: "NASA To Waste $150 Million On SLS Engine That Will Be Used Once"
Recommended: "NASA To Spend $150 Million On SLS Engine That Will Be Used Once"
Less biased.
Stuff at NASA tends be over budget and behind schedule because Congress mandates that they fund certain projects (even when NASA knows, and informs Congress, that the project in question is dead), while withholding funds for other projects. The projects where funding is withheld get delayed (due to a lack of funds), and eventually cost *more* when eventually funded because of factors such as inflation, and accumulated storage/maintenance costs incurred during said delays.
What do we get from sending a meat robot to mars, other than the sort of daredevil glory?
You get the most sophisticated tool we possess on Mars. One that can make discoveries orders of magnitude faster than any other tool we possess. You also learn a TON along the way about human physiology, botany, medicine, shielding, agriculture, and countless other subjects not relevant to mechanical robots that you would not otherwise discover. You'll also inspire a lot of people to get into science and engineering - far more than any robot mission ever could.
If you want to talk spinoff technology from manned spaceflight, so far we have infrared ear thermometers, ventricular assist devices, artificial limb enhancements, "invisible" braces, scratch resistant lenses, memory foam, enriched baby food, cordless tools, freeze drying techniques, water purification, pollution remediation technologies, food safety tech, and quite a bit more just from NASA alone. That is many billions of dollars worth of technological achievement that is directly attributable to manned spaceflight. The spinoff technologies alone have easily repaid the entire budget of NASA many times over.
There is nothing wrong with sending robots. We can and we should send more than we already are. But the notion that you gain nothing by sending people is demonstrably nonsense. The dumb thing to do would be to not send people. We don't have to do it tomorrow - I think it legitimately will take another 30-50 years at least to develop the technology to do it properly for an Apollo style mission to Mars. But if there is an investment with better bang for the buck in the long run I'm not sure what it is.
Commercial launch capability is growing quickly, but the recent SpaceX failure underlines the fact that they may not be ready for prime time just yet.
NASA has blown up plenty of rockets before SpaceX. This rocket failure won't be the last. Let's not get all chicken little because one rocket blew up.
Wow, someone who still believes in magic! And fairies. And probably ponies.
That peculiar notion of yours works right up until someone decides to save a bit of money. Because last year's dollars are worth much less than this year's dollars.
Which means saving up for a down-payment on a house becomes pretty much impossible. And setting money aside for retirement is a waste of the time filling out the paperwork.
So, proper behaviour becomes "as the end of the fiscal year approaches (and your new raise comes due), spend every penny you have, because prices are going to jump to match the new payscales".
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I see on wikpedia that the cost of an F-35a is $115M USD. Cancel the production of two of those pointless, massively overpriced and underperforming POS, and you've got a more than $50M to spare....
mark
"Everything at NASA is always overbudget and behind schedule." This is simply not true. Some programs at NASA are on time and under budget. Take a look at New Horizons or the Van Allen Probes. http://www.nasa.gov/news/budge... "made billions raping us of our tax dollars" is offensive to me. I think it's excessive language and it's not realistic. NASA's budget has remained 0.5% of the federal budget for decades, and NASA's results compare very favorably to those of other countries' space programs and with commercial efforts. I invite you to work in the space industry for a few years and then come back and tell us all how much more efficiently and accountably it could be working.
NASA is fighting a losing battle. They work to put people in space because that's what gets the public willing to spend money on space. But the public also thinks it should be done without danger of death. This is endemic of how Americans have become risk averse. They are so afraid of losing their money that they have become risk averse in every way -- losing the very qualities that made the country rise in the first place. Traditionally it was the conservatives who took risks to start businesses. Now look who is challenging the space industry: Musk, Bezos, Branson -- all liberals. The conservatives have allowed their fears to rule them. It's not going to end well.
Apples and oranges. Single use rockets are one thing, but a single use design is another. It would be like spending $1000 to design and build a burger completely different from anything before, and then only making one. When you spend that much on something, you would hope the fixed costs would get spread out.
Because that should definetly be the benchmark, right?
Not in the way you meant it, but yes, it should!
If it disgusts us to hear about $150M wasted on an endeavor that enriches all of humanity, how much more disgust should we feel over F-35s that cost twice as much and don't even work? How much more disgust should we feel over spending trillions on a never-ending war on terrorism? How much more disgust should we feel about paying 250 times that much to oppress our own citizens in a show of Security Theatre?
Yes, NASA wasting $150M disgusts me - Because of all the complete bullshit our taxes go toward, NASA shouldn't even need to blink at the cost to human-rate this thing.
It works just if you removed taxes on work and income and replaced them completely with taxes on property. It is logical that this will cause people to behave in ways that are suboptimal for society as a whole.
Just be aware that income taxes ALSO cause people to behave in ways that are suboptimal for society as a whole. The proper solution is to try to spread the tax load over income/consumption/pollution/property/inheritance/... in such a way that overall harm is minimized. Most governments do so but obviously with very different emphasis on which tax they prefer.
Moderate inflation tends to be correlated with decent economic growth. Printing money is a completely valid way to pay for a part of the government budget. Alas, a fairly small part in normal economic times.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
And at a trivial fraction of the price-tag. If the Mars-mission roboticists had the same budget as it'd take for a good manned mission, things might look very different.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
You know whats worse than todays pilots flying ancient airplanes, a brand new extravegantly expensive F-35 that cant match an F-16 or F-15E built in the 80s, planes built for a fraction of the price.
The F-35 might be an OK successor to the F-117 as a mostly stealth small bomber, but all indications are its completely worthless in a close in dogfight, you just have to read the leaked report from a recent test against an ancient F-16.
The F-35 simply doesnt have enough power, cant turn fast enough and bleeds off to much energy. The pilot found one manuever he could use to shake the F-16 but it consumed so much energy he had to run away and try to get the energy back.
The F-35 will also be horrible in the close air support role at which the A-10 excels, again at an even smaller fraction of the price tag.
F-35 is a classic jack of all trades and master of none.
There might have been a place for a few hundred of them but for the U.S. and every allied air force to think they are going to use one horrible design to replace every fighter they have is complete insanity. If it ever reaches full deployment, one accident or problem and the entire western world will have no air force. At least the Navy has the sense to keep the F-18 alive.
The F-35 is a tribute to the extent Lockheed has seized total control of Congress and the Pentagon, they could literally sell the Air Force actual turkeys for a hundred million a pop and get away with it.
Those B-52â(TM)s still flying today is because Northrop, has also seized control of the Air Forces generals made the B-2 so expensive and so few in number the Air Force canâ(TM)t afford to risk it in combat.
Besides the U.S. has been fighting people living in mud huts who have no air force and air defenses for over a decade, B-52â(TM)s and A-10â(TM)s work incredibly well in that role.
@de_machina
There's a ton of basic science getting done for that $150 mil you're ignoring. I don't even get too made at the F-35s. At the end of the day it's all just socialism. Military Spending is about the only way we lower castes have ever managed to pry money away from the 1% (not counting a few minor victories with Unions that really only happened thanks to the Cold War).
Eisenhower talked about it in his memoirs. He and a bunch of progressives created the Military Industrial Complex as a way of redistributing wealth. It was the only way he could keep the US Economy going instead of grinding to a halt when the 1% took everything for themselves. As I recall he was guilty over it and thought the harm done was worse than the help, but the only folks I know doing OK right now have gov't jobs that either are or depend on the Military...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We should be alarmed that NASA is spending such a large fraction of one thousandth of a percent of the budget on such a useless thing like advancing scientific understanding in space travel. Who do they think they are, rocket scientists?