Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space, Technology and Society

SLS/Orion

51 Comments

This is almost comical, or would be if it wasn’t such a tragic waste:

In an interview this summer, the engineer who oversees the development of SLS and Orion for NASA, Bill Hill, acknowledged that the vehicles were too costly now to be practical. “We’re just way too expensive today,” Hill told Ars. “It’s going to take some different thinking and maybe a little bit more risk taking than what we’re wanting to do today.”

Gee, if only someone had warned them about this. Or if only insane NASA boosters had realized that how much things cost really does matter.

51 thoughts on “SLS/Orion”

  1. A question: A problem of the solid rocket boosters on the shuttle was the flame leaking onto the central fuel tank from junctions in the boosters. Have they addressed this? Are the booster casings one piece? Are they still planing on making them far away, barging them down, and assembling them in place? Those seemingly shuttle SRB’s worry me.

    2. “A problem of the solid rocket boosters on the shuttle was the flame leaking onto the central fuel tank from junctions in the boosters. Have they addressed this? Are the booster casings one piece?”

      Large one-piece solids have their own problems, and it’s quite likely they would not be any safer, especially since there is little experience with such solids in the required size. Once poured, handling could cause a crack to form inside the grain, which could be difficult to detect. Such a crack could cause an explosion.

      1. “Once poured, handling could cause a crack to form inside the grain, which could be difficult to detect. Such a crack could cause an explosion.”

        Actually the real problem was the large grain debonding from the casing, from buckling if stored vertically and sagging if stored horizontally. That would form a void between the grain and the casing which would allow burnt propellant gasses to push into the propellant stream large chunks of the grain, plugging the nozzle and exploding the vehicle.

        This was solved by Aerojet, however. I talked with the guy who ran their project. He said they found that if you stored the filled engines at an angle of about 30 degrees from horizontal, while rotating them at about 1/60th Herz, it prevented both debonding and buckling in full up testing for at least a year. They were going to pour the grains at an AF base in Florida, and barge them straight the coast to Canaveral. However, that would have meant that Senator Jake Garn couldn’t take credit for all those nice jobs in Utah, and President Nixon owed him for many things, including the nominating speech at the Republican election in 1969. You couldn’t barge fully formed boosters out of Utah.

        1. Tom Billings: This was solved by Aerojet….

          Aerojet figured out how to make large monolithic solids safer. And after the Challenger accident, ATK figured out how to make segmented solids safer too. Aerojet’s monolithics may or may not be safer than ATK’s segmented SRBs, but ATK’s redesigned segmented SRBs have *demonstrated* high reliability in 200+ operational firings. Aerojet’s solution, on the other hand, may have introduced new failure modes — we don’t know.

          1. One of the issues is that the SLS won’t have its boosters recovered (to save money!). That means engineers won’t have post-flight inspects to detect and then ignore problems that arise.

    3. O-rings at launch aren’t a problem. The problem is they land in the ocean, thus requiring extensive renovation to be reusable. The refurbishment is in Utah. They are also fueled in Utah and shipped loaded to KSC. This makes them very expensive to refly and dangerous to anyone living along the rail back to Florida. The danger to the crew is limited abort modes during SRB boost, but Orion is supposed to rectify this.

  2. We’re seeing the usual failure modes again and again. Schedule slippage, little money for in space projects, poor risk management decisions (such as SRM risk to the VAB), and all the signs of yet another poorly thought out boondoggle that will hinder further NASA efforts in space.

    Who knew that this pork wasn’t going to result in progress in space?

    1. signs of yet another poorly thought out boondoggle

      I don’t know Karl. I always thought it was a short-sighted but excellently executed boondoggle. They produce nothing of value for years while taking home a paycheck, and still are given glory because the media will tell the masses that space is hard.

      1. Yes, but why? To have options during a transition. You don’t think NASA wanted an alternative to just cancelling Orion? NASA can’t be caught behind the curve with regard to funding. They had to be prepared for the possility of Trump.

        Which is why big corps are already reversing the trend to leave America even before Trump takes office.

        A similar thing in the other direction happened before Obama took office when hiring took a big drop.

  5. “My top number for Orion, SLS, and the ground systems that support it is $2 billion or less,” Hill said. “I mean that’s my real ultimate goal. We were running at about three-plus, $3.6 billion during the latter days of the space shuttle. Of course, there again, we were flying six or seven missions. I think we’re actually going to have to get to less than that.”

    Ugh.

  6. The very first sentence:

    With a new presidential administration promising to review its human spaceflight activities

    …illustrates what I believe is an inherent flaw with a government-run space effort in a democratic system. When the government changes hands every few years, the incoming administration looks to alter or cancel existing programs and institute new ones to make its own mark. It’s no wonder that we keep spinning our wheels and seem unable to make any real progress in space.

    I think this would be a problem even without SLS/Orion.

    1. illustrates what I believe is an inherent flaw with a government-run space effort in a democratic system

      It can be a flaw but also a strength. What if SLS or constellation were not endangered of being cancelled?

      Civilian oversight of government agencies is a good check and balance. What would NASA do if it was not accountable to the people who make their existence possible?

      It also isn’t just about Presidents. Congress has a lot of control over NASA and congress people can be around a lot longer than a single administration.

      There are two solutions here. One, Presidents and congresses could create a program that is successful so that their replacements don’t want to cut it. It is a leadership or management problem. It wouldn’t necessarily go away with an unaccountable NASA.

      Two, people who have their own ideas on what activities should take place in space form their own corporations to realize these ideas. The only way to do what you want, or group of like minded people, is to operate in an environment where that is possible. It isn’t possible with the government. The government will do what it wants to and there are a multitude of people pulling the government in different directions. This would only get worse if NASA’s budget increases.

      Solution 1 could happen. It should happen. But it also wouldn’t solve all the problems. Government can only do so much, so people are bound to be unhappy their idea of what NASA should do isn’t happening. Solution 2 could not have happened in the recent past but there is a confluence of maturing technologies, wealth, ideas, and people that make it more possible now, and in the future, than ever before.

    2. That’s only a flaw if the programs don’t actually make objective sense. If they make sense, the new administration’s review will conclude that and things will go on. There are plenty of government activities that ride smoothly over transitions because they aren’t ramshackle delusions.

      1. Paul,
        Exactly. Also, if presidents picked something that could make it to a useful milestone (not a stunt) before the next administration that would help too. Something that freed up enough money that the next president could take the next step, or pivot without having to cancel something over halfway done. But that would require being realistic.
        ~Jon

        1. SLS and Orion are just hardware. Cancelling them doesn’t mean cancelling any overarching strategy or goals. Of course, that could have been true for Constellation too.

          Is it a good or bad thing that there isn’t an overarching strategy or goal right now that can be cancelled?

    3. Rickl,

      Notice that a lot of programs (especially ones that are well-run, not bloated, over-budget, or behind-schedule) tend to do just fine in such reviews. The bigger problem is that bad programs typically can take a change in administration to cancel. Making it harder to cancel bad programs is a bug, not a feature IMO.

      ~Jon

  8. I wonder if it’s feasible to morph the ITS upper stage into a Saturn V-class 1st stage with a smaller reusable 2nd stage. (Maybe this has been covered ad nauseum here and elsewhere but pardon me, I haven’t been keeping up lately.)

    Advantages:
    -Development still forwards the full ITS.
    -Far less launch pad work required to start launches.
    -Direct, revenue-generating competitor to BO for both commercial and gov launches.
    -Sensible alternative to SLS.
    -Much smaller “and monkeys will fly out of my ass” reaction from industry, gov and public.

  9. NASA is nervous. Good.

    “Trump even went so far as to say that long-term exploration goals would depend upon the economic climate.”

    The went over budget on ARRM and were apparently hoping to have it rubber stamped by now.

  10. Now they got an RFI out for solutions to lowering costs. I got a solution, quit spreading the pork. Limit fabrication to a few (3 or less) sites. I’d say one, but even just 3 would be a vast improvement. And by 3, I mean total. Not 2 NASA sites (MSFC and KSC) hiding the 4 to 5 (more like a dozen, and more if you count small sub-assemblies) contractor sites. I also know that 2 NASA sites would be an improvement.

    1. I got a solution, quit spreading the pork.

      Baked in by LBJ. What we need to do is emphasize accountability which those responsible are pretty slick to avoid.

  11. Nothing will change if the old-style Apollo-deluded remain in power. More times than I can count it’s always the next coming generation that _will_ get to Mars. Or the moon. Or wherever.
    Scott Pace as Administrator would just refocus SLS/Orion on an Apollo cost-level program to Luna, trying to get Europe to build the landers.
    With Bridenstine there’s a better chance to get out of the cycle, but don’t underestimate the ability of the traditionalists at NASA and contractors to revoke such attempts. They got to Obama on the Constellation canceling attempt, they got Lori tossed from the Agency.
    There is a chance to “buy off” the Senator from SLS (Shelby) with different pork but there has to be enough motivation to make the effort.

    2. “There is a chance to “buy off” the Senator from SLS (Shelby) with different pork but there has to be enough motivation to make the effort.”

      That is where Obama fell down. Space was not important enough for him to reinforce the Senator from a State he knew a progressive administration/Party would never win over to support the things he was interested in. Trump, by contrast, may view Shelby as a man from the Party he wants to move to the inside track on, (Trump is still “the Outsider” in the Republican Party, though with YUUUGE potential for taking it over). Shelby can help him in other areas, and is worth bribing in the sorts of negotiations with him that Obama was never interested in. MSFC can do work on propellant depots, power sats for lunar/martian power, and a laundry list of useful programs for space settlement that can replace the SLS money.

      If Shelby makes SLS an ego trip he will not let go of in his committee, that can all still die.

  13. On ITS: While personally a big fan of Elon Musk’s vision, audacity, and accomplishments, AFAIK he’s no friend of Trump. My gut tells me there won’t be as many solar and electric car subsidy dollars coming his way, which could be very bad news for him, and I have no clue how the new administration is going to handle ITS or other SpaceX endeavors.

    I’m saddened by the waste in time, money, and effort we’ve seen from CxP and its offspring these last 10+ years, but am not ready to believe SpaceX will just swoop in and take over. SLS cancellation does not mean ITS as a replacement. We might end up with nothing…

    1. Right. Presently both SpaceX and Blue Origin have presented plans for heavy lift launchers. I’m afraid both of them are plain vaporware at the moment. The only thing NASA/NRO/etc have to do to energize the heavy lift market is to purchase flights. But I can kind of understand that they don’t want to spend a lot of money on a capability that isn’t on the table yet. So it’s the typical bootstrapping issue. What I hope is that once the JWST boondoggle goes up NASA will start investing more on something like the Discovery Program missions taking advantage of the lower costs of the Falcon Heavy and the ilk to do missions that couldn’t be done before with that kind of $300-450 million budget.

      On another note, now that Long March 5 is available, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Chinese start launching space station modules this decade.

      What I am surprised is at how much SpaceX improved Falcon 9 performance over the years. Just look at the performance of Falcon 9 v1.0 vs v1.1 vs FT. It’s gone from like 4.5t to 8.3t to GTO. Without the Raptor 2nd stage. That must diminish the need to use the Falcon 9 Heavy a lot.

      1. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Chinese start launching space station modules this decade.

        Isn’t this happening within the next year?

      2. Unless Trump decides to attack and dismantle Amazon by antitrust action – quite possible he’d make such an attempt, he’s expressed some such inclination before AND hates Bezos’ WaPo – Bezos doesn’t need any outside money to build New Glenn (at least) and probably New Armstrong as well.

        OTOH, SpaceX depends upon keeping strong market confidence and income. And part of that market is NASA – though not nearly as much as the disingenuous SLS supporters like to contend.

        1. Until this last explosion, SpaceX was on track to increase flight rates to the point of eating the competition. They remain profitable, but that could change. Mars is the key to their future, but perhaps not the vehicle they’ve chosen.

          I think mars is done in my lifetime. Which saddens me because it’s just a flip of a switch, mindset, that opens up the wealth of the entire solar system.

    2. Solar and electric car subsidies never should have existed in the first place. If Elon built his business model based on their availability, he made a big mistake.

      Tesla is already experiencing financial difficulties. If it goes under, I hope it doesn’t take SpaceX with it. That would be a terrible tragedy, and it is something I worry about.

      I recently read that SpaceX owns some SolarCity stock.

      I have said all along that I wish Elon would forget about Tesla and SolarCity and concentrate on SpaceX. But he seems to be a true believer in global warming, and solar power as the cure for it.

      1. Well of the three SpaceX is the company Elon invested himself into the most. AFAIK Tesla was supposed to have someone else as the CEO, and SolarCity was started by his cousins, he was meant to have been just an investor on both Tesla and SolarCity.
        The whole business of SolarCity is clearly dependent on subsidies. It’s dependent on a lot of things. The price of electricity, feed-in tariffs, subsidies, interest rates, among others.
        As for Tesla they should take a hit if the government drops the electric car subsidies, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some states, like California, actually retained some subsidies. You have to remember that several large cities, like LA, have air quality issues (smog) and increasing the amount of ZEVs makes sense regardless of how low oil prices are. Also Tesla sells their cars on vehicle performance, namely speed, so the subsidies while important aren’t the main factor in that business IMHO. Regarding Tesla I’m more concerned about the large capital expenditures necessary to produce the Model 3. He’s risking a cash crunch. The SolarCity merger deal makes no sense to me unless he wants to sink them both together.

    3. As for the other comments; it’s probably right that this administration will cut the subsidies for solar and electric. With the lower oil prices that was almost inevitable regardless of who got in.
      I don’t see the government funding ITS, the whole proposal seems a bit grandiose to me. I’m still waiting for their real rocket. I doubt SpaceX will just go straight from Falcon 9 to the ITS. There has to be something in between.
      As for political favor Elon probably distributed funds over both parties as nearly all rich people do. He most likely funded Dana Rohrabacher’s campaign for example. As for getting the inside track, or whatever, remember that one of Elon’s best friends is Peter Thiel. Thiel quite often funds Elon’s ventures.

      1. I’m not sure the Trump administration will need to cut any subsidies. At least for cars, my understanding is that those subsidies are already sunsetted. Subsidies aren’t a significant driver of Tesla’s business anyway.

        Solar City is in the process of becoming fully vertically integrated by producing its own high-efficiency panels. Elon needs these to continue building out the nationwide free recharging network for Tesla.

        It’s also possible these panels will have somewhat the effect of “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you” with respect to comparative advantage vs. other solar installation companies once all subsidies go away. I don’t think any of the home and small business-oriented solar installation companies have any significant Snow Belt business and Sun Belt business in a lot of places is going to be iffy without subsidies because of cheap fracked gas.

        But California is the biggest solar panel market in the Sun Belt and the state government is still firmly in the hands of radical Greens. That seems unlikely to change soon, if ever. CA’s state government will continue to ban fracking, refuse any other significant power generation projects on California soil and will preside over the continuing Third World-ization of California’s already increasingly dodgy power infrastructure.

        If Solar City’s looked-for economies from low-cost, higher-efficiency panels pans out, it could still wind up doing a decent “last man standing” business in California as things go even further to hell out here. The selling proposition would rely less on cost vs. The Grid and more on reliability vs. The Grid. If current plans to shut down Diablo Canyon’s reactors without any baseload replacement capacity proceed, Solar City could find themselves doing turnaway business once brownouts and blackouts become endemic. Brownouts aren’t good for the health of refrigerators. Random lengthy blackouts aren’t good for household food budgets.

        Typical installations would also involve Tesla PowerWall batteries as well as Solar City panels. Solar City’s main competitors aren’t likely to be any of the other solar panel outfits, but standby generator vendors such as Generac. Limits of existing natural gas distribution infrastructure in California may sharply limit such solutions.

        As for rockets, ITS is SpaceX’s real rocket. The thing between Falcon 9 and ITS will be Falcon Heavy. Sure ITS is grandiose. But I would argue that Falcon 9 was more grandiose 10 years ago, given where SpaceX was then, than ITS is now, given where SpaceX is currently.

        I agree that NASA is unlikely to fund the thing. But, given SpaceX’s margins and backlog, the company should be able to fund at least half of ITS out of operating earnings and either borrow or find outside capital for the rest.

        ITS is only going to cost a fraction of what SLS is going to soak up over the next few years – assuming the latter isn’t cancelled during that interval. Even if NASA manages to keep SLS away from The Reaper, it might want to put at least a bit of money into ITS simply to buy a seat at the table. If SLS gets cancelled, of course, look for NASA to be even more eager to put some money into ITS as well as Blue Origin’s New Glenn and New Armstrong.

        Bezos, of course, doesn’t need a dime of NASA money and he could well decide to shine NASA on if they come calling. Musk, given his existing relationship with NASA, is less likely to do the same, but he might still see fit to limit NASA financial involvement in ITS to preserve his autonomy as to its future uses. Should NASA have future involvement in any of these projects it would be as a backseat passenger, not a driver.

        As for “vaporware,” both the engine and LOX tank for ITS exist and are currently in test. That makes ITS roughly equal to SLS in terms of actual hardware. SLS is ahead of ITS mainly in having an established production site for structure. That difference is likely to disappear in 24 months or less. Neither SLS nor ITS yet has a production facility for new engines. SpaceX will have a Raptor line up and running years before AR can do likewise for the RS-25E – assuming that ever happens at all.

        As for Bezos, SpaceX’s Raptor appears to be further along than the BE-4, but probably not by more than a year or so. New Glenn trails both SLS and ITS in its “realness,” but all three rockets have long since left the CAD-files-and-CGI-only stage behind.

        Finally, to politics. There’s no need to speculate about Elon’s political contributions, they’re readily findable on-line. Elon, indeed, gives to individual Congresscritters and Senators. Dana Rohrabacher has, indeed, been one of the recipients of Elon’s rather modest largesse. The others are mostly Congressional space cadets and/or space movers and shakers. Elon also contributes to both political parties. Historically, he has given more to the Republican Party than the Democratic Party.

        Anent Presidential campaigns, Elon contributed modestly to Hillary, Obama and Bill Richardson’s Democratic primary campaigns in the 2008 cycle. He did likewise to the Hillary and Rubio primary campaigns in the 2016 cycle. Elon’s biggest Presidential contribution was roughly 40 grand to Obama during the 2012 cycle. He contributed small amounts to both GWB and Kerry in the 2004 cycle. I see no evidence he ever gave any money at all to McCain, Romney or Trump.

Comments are closed.