Eric Berger reports on the long lead time for new (expendable) SSMEs.
23 thoughts on “The Latest SLS Nonsense”
Six years for six engines? Are they hand-made, with files and watchmake tools?
I understand that it’s a job program, but if they are going to pay through the nose, why not get something out of it? Why are they working on a solved problem (the launcher) when they could be building a spinning space station, a spaceship, a lander or surface hab? The amount of money would be the same!
The amount of money could be made the same, but the *number*of*votes*, and thus the number of favors owed, in Congress would increase. The nice thing about SLS, for the LBJian politicians backing it, is that it is a single line item vote. You need so many votes to get it through each committee, and so many votes to get it through each house of Congress, and then you’ve got $2 Billion for this year for your vassals back in your home districts. By contrast, the several different programs you mention are also each a single line item vote, and to total $2 Billion coming to them in the Budget, you may need between 5 and 20 times the number of favors owed eing expended inside Congress to get you those votes.
When resources are allocated by politics instead of markets, you get several different economies involved, and all are focused on politics instead of productivity. You have the economy that buys votes to re-elect the officeholder as the one who provides beneficial jobs for his vassals. You have the economy internal to the state delegations as to whose districts get sub-contracts. You have the economy of favors inside Congress for votes on the line items involved in committee and on the floor of each house. Lastly, you have the economy of favors inside each Party apparatus that keeps our political coalitions we call Parties stuck together for each election.
This is why an industrial economy described by Arnold Toynbee is so much more effective at stimulating productivity:
“When a society moves from allocating resources by custom and tradition (moderns read here, by politics) to allocating resources by markets, they may be said to have undergone an industrial revolution” Arnold Toynbee-1884
As long as we have political allocation of resources, we will have to accept the agency costs of the political hierarchies. To the extent we do so, the industrial revolution is not complete. This is yet another good reason to settle the Solar System.
Absurd. SpaceX will be cranking out Raptors like sausages by then in comparison and that’s with frequent re-use.
I always fear the worst during these long absences. Hopefully, it is no worse than an extended hospital stay like the last time.
Yes, though unfortunately, he did say that he thought the end was near.
I miss his comments.
I wish and hope for the best, but I can’t say I miss his comments.
I tried sending an e-mail a while back, but no reply. I’m worried too, and I’ll try again.
Guessing here:
Well they need to test them to make sure they are reliable. And they are expendable, so it will probably take 5 test samples for every one flight ready engine. This will mean keeping test pads at Stennis and Marshall fully funded. But it is fake news that it is only 6 total.
In terms of number of engines, what if SLS has reusable first stage?
Suppose first launch is expendable, but subsequent launches attempt to land the first stage, would eventually allow more launches per year?
And considering costs of engines and they are reusable engines, it hard to imagine they are not planning on doing this.
It’s harder to imagine they are planning on doing that. SLS is about spending money, not saving money.
Having a first stage be reusable is about spending money.
It seems if had middle engine, it would be easier.
But main issue of article is lack of engines [and expensive engines] and SLS will die with one launch [or less] per year,
so one could imagine they want to continue the pork.
How about something like strap-on engines to land the first stage?
Alright, I guess I have to jump in here now and post yet another link to my piece about Reusable SLS that ran in The Space Review awhile back (Feb. 12).
Dick Eagleson suggested this and it is frightening to contemplate because it would take business away from the private sector.
Not really. With 10 Block 5’s wrapped around the SLS core stage and a cluster of BE-3’s in its center, Both SpaceX and Blue Origin would get more business, especially if R-SLS was entirely transferred to the private sector for operations. Even if USAF ran operations in addition to my suggested takeover of R-SLS development from NASA, though, most of the current SLS contractors would still have some work. LockMart would be the big loser because I advocate scrapping Orion outright. ULA would be a modest loser as there would be no on-going money for more ICPS stages.
There’s a scenario where this could work out well for Boeing and AJR. Let’s say SLS continues long enough for these engines to get manufactured, thus re-starting the RS-25 parts chain. Let’s further say XS-1 is a success. Then let’s say someone talks the relevant politicians into supporting a plan for USAF to have its own reusable National Security LV. Let’s call it XS-7, because it uses 7 AR-22 engines in the first stage (built from new RS-25 parts, of course) and an expendable ACES second stage. Such a vehicle would be somewhat more capable than either Falcon Heavy or New Glenn. Let’s say there’s 11 XS-7 flights a year, with new airframes coming on line annually, plus one SLS launch a year. AJR gets to sell 11 AR-22/RS-25 variants and 48 RL-10s a year for just those. And let’s remember BFR is not a given and New Armstrong is still a paper rocket. All AJR really needs is for the right skids to be greased.
We don’t need to worry about Boeing, they will be OK no matter what.
AJR is in a little bit more precarious situation but they are still selling engines and if they are really concerned about their future, they could find other products and services to sell to the government and to customers other than the government.
What is the value in the government running a launch system though? If they really need reusable launch vehicles for national defense, why not just buy some from SpaceX and BO?
I’m certain the DoD will buy plenty of launches from SpaceX and Blue in the coming decades. In fact I think spaceport capacity is likely to pinch fairly soon. If new launch and recovery pad(s) for R-SLS were built north of the LC-39 pads, the total tonnage-to-LEO capacity of the Kennedy-Canaveral complex would take a huge upward jump without needing to push total yearly launch ops into three figures before the rest of the infrastructure is suitably upgraded. If what DoD really needs to do goes forward, all the existing SpaceX and Blue Origin pads will be working heel-and-toe anyway, including BFR-BFS ops out of Boca Chica when that site comes online.
To address the SLS 1st stage reuse potential, that’s easy, it has none. It’d require a total redesign.
IMHO, Falcon Heavy is an ideal near-term alternative. It has close to SLS block 1 performance to LEO, but, SLS doesn’t have LEO as a destination, and Falcon Heavy’s upper stage lower ISP hits it hard beyond LEO. Centaur as a third stage is a possible but costly option there, as is in-orbit rendezvous.
I also have a wild hunch that Falcon Heavy will fly before SLS does. 🙂
The RS-25 is looking ever more a boondoggle, so it should go well with SLS. 1.16 billion to start production, and then an additional 340 million (at least) for 6 engines? That’s 56.6 million per engine, not counting that 1.16 billion! And SLS 1 and 1b will use 4.. 225 million in engines alone. And they are still claiming an SLS launch will cost “only” 500 million? Baloney.
The fixed costs, such as R&D, production line startups, etc, have to be rolled into the price, just as they are for anything commercial.
If they’re still looking for a new same for SLS, might I make a modest proposal: Porkzilla.
To address the SLS 1st stage reuse potential, that’s easy, it has none. It’d require a total redesign.
Wouldn’t that be an advantage for SLS? Its not like they are too worried about how long the program takes to be completed and they just might like a reason to make it take longer 😉
The fixed costs, such as R&D, production line startups, etc, have to be rolled into the price
Rolled into the cost. There is no price because no one is buying SLS rides. This really distorts the whole analysis of SLS vs its competition.
One of the distortions I have noticed from space cadets recently is that we could have a certain number of companies like SpaceX if we just spent the SLS money on the something like the COTS/CCDev programs but this ignores the market and there isn’t a market for dozens of SpaceX’s in that market segment.
Another distortion is the claim that NASA could have developed a launcher for similar costs to SpaceX if only they used the same development strategy. But NASA couldn’t do that because they can’t use revenue to supplement development costs. And NASA couldn’t iterate design changes because they can’t build or launch in the volume that SpaceX did. If NASA tried to emulate what SpaceX did, it probably would have been far more costly and taken more time.
Trying to analyze commercial products vs government programs is really hard because of the intrinsic differences between what those two groups can do. The private sector, even when it partners with government, is much less complex and provides much clearer choices and feedback than a government program.
Six years for six engines? Are they hand-made, with files and watchmake tools?
I understand that it’s a job program, but if they are going to pay through the nose, why not get something out of it? Why are they working on a solved problem (the launcher) when they could be building a spinning space station, a spaceship, a lander or surface hab? The amount of money would be the same!
The amount of money could be made the same, but the *number*of*votes*, and thus the number of favors owed, in Congress would increase. The nice thing about SLS, for the LBJian politicians backing it, is that it is a single line item vote. You need so many votes to get it through each committee, and so many votes to get it through each house of Congress, and then you’ve got $2 Billion for this year for your vassals back in your home districts. By contrast, the several different programs you mention are also each a single line item vote, and to total $2 Billion coming to them in the Budget, you may need between 5 and 20 times the number of favors owed eing expended inside Congress to get you those votes.
When resources are allocated by politics instead of markets, you get several different economies involved, and all are focused on politics instead of productivity. You have the economy that buys votes to re-elect the officeholder as the one who provides beneficial jobs for his vassals. You have the economy internal to the state delegations as to whose districts get sub-contracts. You have the economy of favors inside Congress for votes on the line items involved in committee and on the floor of each house. Lastly, you have the economy of favors inside each Party apparatus that keeps our political coalitions we call Parties stuck together for each election.
This is why an industrial economy described by Arnold Toynbee is so much more effective at stimulating productivity:
“When a society moves from allocating resources by custom and tradition (moderns read here, by politics) to allocating resources by markets, they may be said to have undergone an industrial revolution” Arnold Toynbee-1884
As long as we have political allocation of resources, we will have to accept the agency costs of the political hierarchies. To the extent we do so, the industrial revolution is not complete. This is yet another good reason to settle the Solar System.
Absurd. SpaceX will be cranking out Raptors like sausages by then in comparison and that’s with frequent re-use.
Amusingly, I recently learned that Volkswagen cranks out sausages like cars.
http://newsroom.vw.com/company/meet-the-sausage-thats-one-of-volkswagens-most-popular-products/
Anybody ever heard from Ken A?
Anybody ever heard from Ken A?
I always fear the worst during these long absences. Hopefully, it is no worse than an extended hospital stay like the last time.
Yes, though unfortunately, he did say that he thought the end was near.
I miss his comments.
I wish and hope for the best, but I can’t say I miss his comments.
I tried sending an e-mail a while back, but no reply. I’m worried too, and I’ll try again.
Guessing here:
Well they need to test them to make sure they are reliable. And they are expendable, so it will probably take 5 test samples for every one flight ready engine. This will mean keeping test pads at Stennis and Marshall fully funded. But it is fake news that it is only 6 total.
In terms of number of engines, what if SLS has reusable first stage?
Suppose first launch is expendable, but subsequent launches attempt to land the first stage, would eventually allow more launches per year?
And considering costs of engines and they are reusable engines, it hard to imagine they are not planning on doing this.
It’s harder to imagine they are planning on doing that. SLS is about spending money, not saving money.
Having a first stage be reusable is about spending money.
It seems if had middle engine, it would be easier.
But main issue of article is lack of engines [and expensive engines] and SLS will die with one launch [or less] per year,
so one could imagine they want to continue the pork.
How about something like strap-on engines to land the first stage?
Alright, I guess I have to jump in here now and post yet another link to my piece about Reusable SLS that ran in The Space Review awhile back (Feb. 12).
Dick Eagleson suggested this and it is frightening to contemplate because it would take business away from the private sector.
Not really. With 10 Block 5’s wrapped around the SLS core stage and a cluster of BE-3’s in its center, Both SpaceX and Blue Origin would get more business, especially if R-SLS was entirely transferred to the private sector for operations. Even if USAF ran operations in addition to my suggested takeover of R-SLS development from NASA, though, most of the current SLS contractors would still have some work. LockMart would be the big loser because I advocate scrapping Orion outright. ULA would be a modest loser as there would be no on-going money for more ICPS stages.
There’s a scenario where this could work out well for Boeing and AJR. Let’s say SLS continues long enough for these engines to get manufactured, thus re-starting the RS-25 parts chain. Let’s further say XS-1 is a success. Then let’s say someone talks the relevant politicians into supporting a plan for USAF to have its own reusable National Security LV. Let’s call it XS-7, because it uses 7 AR-22 engines in the first stage (built from new RS-25 parts, of course) and an expendable ACES second stage. Such a vehicle would be somewhat more capable than either Falcon Heavy or New Glenn. Let’s say there’s 11 XS-7 flights a year, with new airframes coming on line annually, plus one SLS launch a year. AJR gets to sell 11 AR-22/RS-25 variants and 48 RL-10s a year for just those. And let’s remember BFR is not a given and New Armstrong is still a paper rocket. All AJR really needs is for the right skids to be greased.
We don’t need to worry about Boeing, they will be OK no matter what.
AJR is in a little bit more precarious situation but they are still selling engines and if they are really concerned about their future, they could find other products and services to sell to the government and to customers other than the government.
What is the value in the government running a launch system though? If they really need reusable launch vehicles for national defense, why not just buy some from SpaceX and BO?
I’m certain the DoD will buy plenty of launches from SpaceX and Blue in the coming decades. In fact I think spaceport capacity is likely to pinch fairly soon. If new launch and recovery pad(s) for R-SLS were built north of the LC-39 pads, the total tonnage-to-LEO capacity of the Kennedy-Canaveral complex would take a huge upward jump without needing to push total yearly launch ops into three figures before the rest of the infrastructure is suitably upgraded. If what DoD really needs to do goes forward, all the existing SpaceX and Blue Origin pads will be working heel-and-toe anyway, including BFR-BFS ops out of Boca Chica when that site comes online.
To address the SLS 1st stage reuse potential, that’s easy, it has none. It’d require a total redesign.
IMHO, Falcon Heavy is an ideal near-term alternative. It has close to SLS block 1 performance to LEO, but, SLS doesn’t have LEO as a destination, and Falcon Heavy’s upper stage lower ISP hits it hard beyond LEO. Centaur as a third stage is a possible but costly option there, as is in-orbit rendezvous.
I also have a wild hunch that Falcon Heavy will fly before SLS does. 🙂
The RS-25 is looking ever more a boondoggle, so it should go well with SLS. 1.16 billion to start production, and then an additional 340 million (at least) for 6 engines? That’s 56.6 million per engine, not counting that 1.16 billion! And SLS 1 and 1b will use 4.. 225 million in engines alone. And they are still claiming an SLS launch will cost “only” 500 million? Baloney.
The fixed costs, such as R&D, production line startups, etc, have to be rolled into the price, just as they are for anything commercial.
If they’re still looking for a new same for SLS, might I make a modest proposal: Porkzilla.
To address the SLS 1st stage reuse potential, that’s easy, it has none. It’d require a total redesign.
Wouldn’t that be an advantage for SLS? Its not like they are too worried about how long the program takes to be completed and they just might like a reason to make it take longer 😉
The fixed costs, such as R&D, production line startups, etc, have to be rolled into the price
Rolled into the cost. There is no price because no one is buying SLS rides. This really distorts the whole analysis of SLS vs its competition.
One of the distortions I have noticed from space cadets recently is that we could have a certain number of companies like SpaceX if we just spent the SLS money on the something like the COTS/CCDev programs but this ignores the market and there isn’t a market for dozens of SpaceX’s in that market segment.
Another distortion is the claim that NASA could have developed a launcher for similar costs to SpaceX if only they used the same development strategy. But NASA couldn’t do that because they can’t use revenue to supplement development costs. And NASA couldn’t iterate design changes because they can’t build or launch in the volume that SpaceX did. If NASA tried to emulate what SpaceX did, it probably would have been far more costly and taken more time.
Trying to analyze commercial products vs government programs is really hard because of the intrinsic differences between what those two groups can do. The private sector, even when it partners with government, is much less complex and provides much clearer choices and feedback than a government program.