Author Topic: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters (May 2023)  (Read 24687 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17776
  • Liked: 7466
  • Likes Given: 3165
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #20 on: 05/27/2023 12:13 am »
A couple of thoughts from someone that has been on the contractor side of government contracts:

1. NASA is already paying exorbitant prices for their hardware, so your logic doesn't hold up.

As usual you have misunderstood what I said by breaking down the sentences instead of reading the entire paragraph. For fixed cost to work properly, you need to have competition. If you don't, the sole-source company can ask whatever price that they want (fixed price or not). That is why I said that the whole procurement is flawed. A services procurement with competition would be better.

Quote
Don't pat yourself on the back too quickly, because you don't know what the incentive schedule was for the fixed cost plus incentives option.

Why would I pat myself on the back? I am not involved in any of this. In any event, from what I have read, the incentives under a cost plus incentive fee contract are incentives to reduce cost, so it is better than a regular cost plus contract. Here is how Wikipedia explains it:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Unlike a cost-plus contract, [under a cost-plus-incentive fee contract] the cost in excess of the target cost is only partially paid according to a Buyer/Seller ratio, so the seller's profit decreases when exceeding the target cost. Similarly, the seller's profit increases when actual costs are below the target cost defined in the contract.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2023 12:20 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17776
  • Liked: 7466
  • Likes Given: 3165
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #21 on: 05/27/2023 12:39 am »
Past time to can Free and Jackson…

And while you're at it, please show Nelson the door as well. He's in large part responsible for starting the bottomless pit that is SLS.

Apparently, there is rumors that Nelson would step down if Biden is re-elected and that Pam Melroy would then become the NASA administrator. I have nothing against Melroy but I find that a lot of her stuff relating to the Moon to Mars objectives and strategies sound a little bureaucratic. I have nothing against the goals or the strategies being proposed so far but I am not sure how much value it actually adds to the Artemis program.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4938
  • Liked: 2842
  • Likes Given: 1113
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #22 on: 05/27/2023 01:06 am »
...In any event, from what I have read, the incentives under a cost plus incentive fee contract are incentives to reduce cost, so it is better than a regular cost plus contract. ...

Yup. In the pecking order cost+incentive sems to be the best of the cost+whatever options. The specific failure here, as pointed out by the OIG was: (1) cost+whatever was not the best option; and (2) more specifically, failure to properly manage the cost+whatever contract. OIG has dinged NASA for that before. You would think NASA might learn, but apparently not.

<rant>NASA, while doing some great stuff, has shown that they are incapable of properly managing the $B of taxpayer funds they are entrusted with (SLS, JWST, ...). Their excuses are worn thin. Time for adults to take charge.</rant>
« Last Edit: 05/27/2023 01:13 am by joek »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17776
  • Liked: 7466
  • Likes Given: 3165
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #23 on: 05/27/2023 01:55 am »
Why? Most of this pre-dates them.

Free became Exploration AA in 9/21.  Before Free, BPOC was $199M.  Two months after Free, it was $3.2B.  And the contract still had undefinitized terms, which remain undefinitized to this day!  RS-25 Restart and Production tripled to $3.6B by 6/22.  There was another $102M of cost growth and 17 months of schedule slip thru 10/22.  IG testified 3/22 that each Orion/SLS thru Artemis IV would be $4.1B.  Now barely a year later it’s $144M more just from SLS increases alone.  Free’s budget profligacy is a long-standing issue.

It's hard for Free to look good with SLS and Orion as it relates to costs. But Free's interventions have not all been negative. Free has also been involved with Appendix P (he was the selecting officer) and the upcoming LTV (both services contract). He also insisted that NASA have more than one base camp which is an improvement. However, there is room for improvement in determining the contributions of each international partner. It's taking longer than expected to finalize the agreements. 

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1737
  • Liked: 5372
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #24 on: 05/27/2023 05:10 am »
It's hard for Free to look good with SLS and Orion as it relates to costs.

No, if Free had put even a modicum of effort into reining in Orion/SLS cost growth, he’d have a better look.  Instead, in his first press event with Nelson, Free passed along a multi-billion dollar overrun on his old Orion program.  A couple months later, Free let the boosters hemorrhage a few billion.  A couple years later, he still has not definitized the clauses that led to the bleeding in the first place.  A year or so ago, the IG testified that Orion/SLS was unsustainable at $4.1B per and that NASA had to reduce costs.  What’s happened under Free since?  Another $140M+ in cost growth per Orion/SLS.  All the recent ML-2 baloney.  The fact that the contract consolidation efforts are leaving production out of manufacturing costs (?!).  And on and on.   Free is the Exploration AA.  Has been for going on a couple years.  The buck has to stop with him.  If he doesn’t do his job, Orion/SLS will eat Artemis alive even more than it already has.  Free doesn’t have to succeed at every effort to contain/reduce cost.  But he must have at least some cognizance of what happening in his budget and try.  Seriously, Free is like an ER doctor whose patient is bleeding out on the table, and he’s still looking for a pulse.  Free is the wrong guy for the job.  Orion/SLS especially and Exploration generally needs a hard-nosed manager with proven experience bringing complex programs to the finish line who will, you know, actually manage — not a flaky leadership guru type whose main claim to fame was playing second fiddle on a capsule program that has yet to fly a crew after a couple decades of development and tens of billions of taxpayer dollars down the drain.

Quote
But Free's interventions have not all been...

This is the point.  What intervention?  What has Free done to reduce, or even just tried to do to contain, Orion/SLS costs?  Intervention?  Free could not spell “intervention” even with the intervention of an autocorrect function.

Quote
has also been involved with Appendix P

Free executed a plan that was put in place under the prior Administrator without pulling a Griffin, reversing course, and screwing it up.  I guess he gets a pat on the back for that, but it’s hard to imagine a lower bar for NASA leadership.

Quote
(he was the selecting officer)

Selecting officials are practically and usually figureheads.  The hard work, if any, is done by the source selection committee and the staff supporting them.  If you can write a cogent memo rubber stamping a committee’s conclusion, then you too can be a selecting official.

And usually there’s only hard work if there are fine differences between proposals.  That was not the case here.  Blue was always going to win on financial, Dynetics stubbed their toe again on technical/management, and no one else bid.

Quote
and the upcoming LTV

That effort also started before Free’s tenure.  Again, I guess Free gets kudos for not screwing it up so far, but not being as bad as the worst NASA Administrator ever (Griffin) is damnation by faint praise.

Quote
(both services contract).

The contract type doesn’t matter if leadership doesn’t have basic development program management chops.  Free does not.  If he sticks around for years to come, Blue Moon and LTV will augur in, too.

Quote
He also insisted that NASA have more than one base camp which is an improvement.

Last I knew, Free stated that they were looking at some camper model — not that he was insisting on one strategy over another.  And it’s all angels on the head of a pin anyway, because the program has no concrete, driving goals.  The camper model is probably better for dispersed science research, if that’s what the program is about.  But it’s probably not the right model for building up and demonstrating an ISRU capability at the south pole, if that’s what the program is about.  We don’t know what the program is about because the program’s goals are mostly not goals and when they are actual goals, they’re so generic and nonspecific that everything including the kitchen sink fits under them.  And that’s not necessarily Free’s fault given that the Deputy Administrator was given that task.  But it doesn’t help to have a flake in the Exploration AA’s position, either.

Quote
However, there is room for improvement in determining the contributions of each international partner. It's taking longer than expected to finalize the agreements.

Okay... I guess.  But compared to the other ginormous problems that Artemis is facing, this is so far down the list that it shouldn’t be taking up any Exploration AA time.  Free (or whoever replaces him) has much bigger issues on their plate.

Edit/Add:  Just to put a finer point on how disconnected and uninvolved Free is on the cost management of his projects, compare his tenure with Zurbuchen’s recently finished tenure as Science AA.  You can point to actions, usually proactive, that Zurbuchen took to rein in or contain costs.  Coronagraph on WFIRST downgraded to tech demonstrator.  ICEMAG instrument on Europa Clipper terminated.  Independent, non-agency review of Mars sample return architecture.  SOFIA finally put out of our misery,  Etc.  Zurbuchen gets at least an “A” for effort on cost management, if not a passing grade across the board.  By comparison, there’s no cost management on Orion/SLS.  Not even an iota or scintilla of effort.  Free is failing cost management all around.

One AA made hard decisions, managed costs, and earned his pay.  The other is not.  (Won’t happen but) Terminate the employment of the one who is not and conduct follow-on investigations.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2023 10:57 am by VSECOTSPE »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17776
  • Liked: 7466
  • Likes Given: 3165
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #25 on: 05/27/2023 01:32 pm »
The contract type doesn’t matter if leadership doesn’t have basic development program management chops.  Free does not.  If he sticks around for years to come, Blue Moon and LTV will augur in, too.

I disagree, I think that the procurement method makes the results predictable. I expect HLS Options A & B, Appendix P, the LTV and the spacesuits to be successes because they are services contracts with fixed prices. I don't think that SLS and Orion will be successes regardless who is the AA because they are not services contract with fixed prices. Perhaps, Free is to blame for SLS costing $200m more than before but it was already $4.1B before this new IG report came out. Lets face it, in terms of costs, SLS and Orion are a s*** sandwich.

Quote
Last I knew, Free stated that they were looking at some camper model — not that he was insisting on one strategy over another.

The camper model seems to be out. Free is now saying that the Italian Space Agency will likely be providing 3 separate habitats at different locations in order to have multiple landing locations which helps because of the lighting conditions on the south pole. NASA would likely be providing a fourth landing location with its foundation surface habitats. A nuclear power unit could make the lighting conditions less problematic but that is further down the road. 
« Last Edit: 05/27/2023 05:05 pm by yg1968 »

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1737
  • Liked: 5372
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #26 on: 05/27/2023 01:55 pm »
I disagree, I think that the procurement method makes the results predictable.

Not really.  See Starliner.

Fixed cost mainly limits the govt’s downside.  But bad managment at the contractor or agency level will still result in long delays, costly overruns that someone has to eat, and junky hardware.

Quote
I don't think that SLS and Orion will be successes regardless who is the AA because they are not.

Programmatic failure was baked in long ago, but if Orion/SLS can’t be turned off soon, then someone has to at least stop the bleeding.  That final tourniquet is the Exploration AA’s responsibility.

Quote
Perhaps, Free is to blame for SLS costing $200m more than before but it was already $4.1B before this new IG report came out.

There’s no “perhaps” here.  This has happened squarely on Free’s watch.  He can’t make Orion/SLS efficient, but he has to stop the cost growth.  Free has to take responsibility instead of sleepwalking through his management duties.  That IG testimony should have been a wake up call.  Free keeps hitting the snooze button.  He’s SES.  Fire him.

Quote
The camper model seems to be out.  Free is now saying that the Italian Space Agency will likely be providing 3 separate habitats at different locations in order to have multiple landing locations which helps because of the lighting conditions on the south pole.

Doesn’t matter.  They’re just bouncing from one idea or offer to another without thinking through what it is they’re trying to achieve.  Even without Orion/SLS, the program is turning into another white elephant.

It’s probably more the cold sink than the lighting, but there are fairly lightweight ways to safely beam power wirelessly at low weight/high-efficiency from one location to another.  If it doesn’t make sense otherwise, they don’t have to build in multiple locations just to get lighting.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2023 02:58 pm by VSECOTSPE »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9097
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10470
  • Likes Given: 12161
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #27 on: 05/27/2023 03:51 pm »
A couple of thoughts from someone that has been on the contractor side of government contracts:

1. NASA is already paying exorbitant prices for their hardware, so your logic doesn't hold up.

... For fixed cost to work properly, you need to have competition. If you don't, the sole-source company can ask whatever price that they want (fixed price or not). That is why I said that the whole procurement is flawed. A services procurement with competition would be better.

First of all this debacle was created by the Congress that created the SLS, including then Senator Nelson who is now NASA Administrator. They mandated that NASA use certain contractors, and that removed competition for the design and for existing components such as the SSME/RS-25. Shame on that Congress, and all the rest that have allowed this money pit to continue.

Second, the type of contract used is just a legal framework for assigning responsibility and defining payment. Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts are neither good nor bad, it is up to those that create the contracts and approve them that bear the responsibility of whether they are delivering value to the American taxpayer.

Third, while NASA can't force a contractor to take a contract, they could have managed the RS-25 program in a more incremental fashion so that the production contract was not awarded UNTIL AJR had proved that they were ready, and at that point an FFP contract could have been awarded based on the confidence that both sides understood the risks.

And the proof of this is that AJR was NOT ready for production, and NASA ended up paying AJR contract awards for unfinished units regardless. So it is hard for you to argue that NASA would have been paying more for a FFP contract when it is clear that NASA is paying a lot under a non-FFP contract.

While the SLS contractors should be shamed, let's remember that it was Congress that originally created this pig trough, and subsequent Congresses that have continued to dump in American taxpayer money with very little oversight or concern. Which is why NASA doesn't have much leverage to keep costs down, but they also don't seem to be using the few they have to any real effect - which is a NASA management problem.

This is why it is hard to have any enthusiasm for the Artemis program as currently structured. No amount of praise for the non-SLS hardware can overcome the shear amount of waste the SLS program is, and will continue to be.  >:(
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17776
  • Liked: 7466
  • Likes Given: 3165
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #28 on: 05/27/2023 05:23 pm »
I disagree, I think that the procurement method makes the results predictable.

Not really.  See Starliner.

Fixed cost mainly limits the govt’s downside.  But bad management at the contractor or agency level will still result in long delays, costly overruns that someone has to eat, and junky hardware.

Despite its problems, Starliner is still a lot better than SLS and Orion. Having said that the Starliner problems does show the importance of having more than one award.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9097
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10470
  • Likes Given: 12161
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #29 on: 05/27/2023 08:32 pm »
I disagree, I think that the procurement method makes the results predictable.

Not really.  See Starliner.

Fixed cost mainly limits the govt’s downside.  But bad management at the contractor or agency level will still result in long delays, costly overruns that someone has to eat, and junky hardware.

Despite its problems, Starliner is still a lot better than SLS and Orion. Having said that the Starliner problems does show the importance of having more than one award.

Boeings issues with the Starliner program are based on Boeing management incompetence. They were awarded the amount of money THEY said it would take to produce the crew spacecraft THEY had designed. They have only themselves to blame for their results.

And let's not forget that NASA was considering only awarding a Commercial Crew contract to one provider, with Boeing considered the "safe choice" at the time. So yes, competition is good, but so is defining the requirements properly at the beginning, which didn't happen with the congressionally-defined, single-sourced SLS.

The issues with the SLS RS-25 and SRM are indicative of the constraints that Congress put on the SLS program when it was created - NASA was not allowed to define the goals of the SLS, nor were they able to competitively bid part or all of the vehicle itself. Congress pretty much locked in who the major suppliers were, and that removed a great deal of leverage that the U.S. Government normally has when negotiating contracts of any type, including Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus, etc.

Beyond defining the scope of work, procurement methods are just a way to define liability and define how/when payments are made. ALL methods of procurement can be manipulated in the favor of the contractor, which is why the customer must always remain not only vigilant, but proactive in managing their contractors.

It is clear that throughout the history of the SLS program that NASA management has been unable or unwilling to properly manage their major SLS contractors, such as with the RS-25 contractor being given award fees for work that wasn't completed per the contract.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17776
  • Liked: 7466
  • Likes Given: 3165
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #30 on: 05/28/2023 12:16 am »
This is why it is hard to have any enthusiasm for the Artemis program as currently structured. No amount of praise for the non-SLS hardware can overcome the shear amount of waste the SLS program is, and will continue to be.  >:(

I disagree. I think that the HLS program will do the same to the Moon as commercial crew is doing for LEO. Create an economy for these destinations by encouraging private non-NASA missions. The Appendix P award is another step in the right direction in that respect.
« Last Edit: 05/28/2023 12:18 am by yg1968 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9097
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10470
  • Likes Given: 12161
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #31 on: 05/28/2023 03:06 am »
This is why it is hard to have any enthusiasm for the Artemis program as currently structured. No amount of praise for the non-SLS hardware can overcome the shear amount of waste the SLS program is, and will continue to be.  >:(

I disagree. I think that the HLS program will do the same to the Moon as commercial crew is doing for LEO.

As long as NASA is mandated to use the SLS+Orion to take humans to the Moon, there can never be robust Moon program. And increasing the number of SLS+Orion flights per is simply too expensive.

Quote
Create an economy for these destinations by encouraging private non-NASA missions.

You are just repeating NASA PR with the "economy" word. The only economy NASA will ever create with the Artemis program is here on Earth, by feeding money into NASA contractors. You can't create an economy in space until there is an exchange of currency IN SPACE that stays IN SPACE. NASA is not doing that with the Artemis program.

Quote
The Appendix P award is another step in the right direction in that respect.

Again, as long as NASA is mandated to use the 4-person SLS+Orion, the Artemis program will never be able to fully take advantage of ANY non-NASA operated hardware. Four people once a year for a few weeks on the Moon is not a very robust Moon program - it pales in comparison to what Apollo did.

But if it inspires some non-NASA organization to build a crew transportation system to the Moon that bypasses the SLS+Orion, and causes Congress to finally cancel the SLS+Orion, that would be nice. Don't expect it this decade though, because the contractors that make the RS-25 and SRMs have too close of ties to Congress, and Congress is fine overpaying for what they do - which the NASA OIG report proves.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17776
  • Liked: 7466
  • Likes Given: 3165
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #32 on: 05/28/2023 04:43 am »
You are just repeating NASA PR with the "economy" word. The only economy NASA will ever create with the Artemis program is here on Earth, by feeding money into NASA contractors. You can't create an economy in space until there is an exchange of currency IN SPACE that stays IN SPACE. NASA is not doing that with the Artemis program.

An economy isn't defined by where money is exchanged. You keep using your own definition of words that are not based on any dictionary meaning. We keep having the same discussion over and over. An economy can be producing and consuming things (goods or services) in space, it doesn't matter where the money is exchanged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy

Private lunar missions wouldn't use Orion and SLS.
« Last Edit: 05/28/2023 05:28 am by yg1968 »

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1737
  • Liked: 5372
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #33 on: 05/28/2023 05:13 am »
I’m not sure HLS does anything for SX and Starship that SX and Starship weren’t going to do eventually.  HLS certainly accelerated Lunar Starship by some years, but I don’t think NASA funding is enabling for Lunar Starship like NASA funding enabled F9/Dragon at a much earlier point in SX history.

Blue is not the dynamic, risk-taking company that SX is, so I think an argument can be made that HLS funding is enabling for Blue Moon.  But unlike Starship, Blue Moon is not an end-to-end human transport system.  Unless Blue is also funded to develop a crew transport element to lunar orbit  (which is probably dependent on Orion/SLS being drawn down), NASA’s investment in Blue Moon doesn’t open up the Moon, even if it is enabling for that lander.

I struggle to find (as in I want to believe there is) a benefit to Artemis that outweighs the $50 billion sunk into Orion/SLS/EGS through last year:

https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-sls-and-orion

I just don’t see it.  The relative pittance planned to be spent on landers ($6 billion) and other surface systems (few billion?) is bass ackwards.  And even if it wasn’t, those lunar activities are heavily constrained by a mission rate of one crew of four every year or two.  And even if there was a better ratio of transport to actual lunar activity, there’s no clear articulation in Melroy’s goals of what that lunar activity is suppossed to deliver, certainly nothing worth some handful of tens of billions of dollars.

I wish it were otherwise, but so far, no justification/rationale or capabilty/achievement for Artemis has been put forth that is commensurate with its cost.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17776
  • Liked: 7466
  • Likes Given: 3165
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #34 on: 05/28/2023 01:09 pm »
I’m not sure HLS does anything for SX and Starship that SX and Starship weren’t going to do eventually.  HLS certainly accelerated Lunar Starship by some years, but I don’t think NASA funding is enabling for Lunar Starship like NASA funding enabled F9/Dragon at a much earlier point in SX history.

I am not sure that I agree with that. Starship will cost at least $10B to develop, having a customer such as NASA that pays you $4B for a variant of Starship is incredibly important to Starship's development and success.

Quote
Blue is not the dynamic, risk-taking company that SX is, so I think an argument can be made that HLS funding is enabling for Blue Moon.  But unlike Starship, Blue Moon is not an end-to-end human transport system.  Unless Blue is also funded to develop a crew transport element to lunar orbit  (which is probably dependent on Orion/SLS being drawn down), NASA’s investment in Blue Moon doesn’t open up the Moon, even if it is enabling for that lander.

I think that the speculation is that LM's space tug could be used to ferry propellant or crew to Blue's lander. A commercial crew spacecraft (Starliner, Dream Chaser or Blue's own capsule) could be used to reach the space tug in LEO.
« Last Edit: 05/28/2023 01:15 pm by yg1968 »

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1737
  • Liked: 5372
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #35 on: 05/28/2023 06:11 pm »

Yeah, I can imagine a crew coming up on a Dreamchaser, transferring to a Blue Lagoon station, and then to a fueled Blue Moon landing stack and vice versa for a round trip to the lunar surface, a la 2001: A Space Odyssey.  But that’s just me projecting desires, not reality.  Until there’s a plan to do something like that with Blue Moon and that plan is funded, I’d stay skeptical.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17776
  • Liked: 7466
  • Likes Given: 3165
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #36 on: 05/29/2023 02:28 am »

Yeah, I can imagine a crew coming up on a Dreamchaser, transferring to a Blue Lagoon station, and then to a fueled Blue Moon landing stack and vice versa for a round trip to the lunar surface, a la 2001: A Space Odyssey.  But that’s just me projecting desires, not reality.  Until there’s a plan to do something like that with Blue Moon and that plan is funded, I’d stay skeptical.

I think that you mean Orbital Reef, there is no Blue Lagoon.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12302
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18965
  • Likes Given: 13142
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #37 on: 05/29/2023 02:20 pm »
And while you're at it, please show Nelson the door as well. He's in large part responsible for starting the bottomless pit that is SLS.

I wish.  Senator Administrator Monster Rocket has been an adequate caretaker of what was essentially the Bridenstine plan at exit, i.e., onboard a second lander contractor.  But besides publicly grouching about ML-2, he’s done little to improve the survivability of the Artemis Program going forward.  And by letting the cancer of Orion/SLS cost growth spread unabated, he’s arguably leaving Artemis in a worse position than when he started.  His deputy’s effort on Artemis “goals” (and I use that term loosely) have also not positioned the program well for coming budget battles.
Agreed on Pam Melroy. She also is a major disappointment so far.
When will the USA finally learn that the two kinds of people who should NOT run NASA are (ex)-politicians and (ex)-astronauts.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9097
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10470
  • Likes Given: 12161
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #38 on: 05/29/2023 03:18 pm »
You are just repeating NASA PR with the "economy" word. The only economy NASA will ever create with the Artemis program is here on Earth, by feeding money into NASA contractors. You can't create an economy in space until there is an exchange of currency IN SPACE that stays IN SPACE. NASA is not doing that with the Artemis program.

An economy isn't defined by where money is exchanged...
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy

Actually if you read that Wikipedia article, it does. But going into it would OT, so move along...  ;)

As to the RS-25 and SRMs, and the very clear evidence that the contractors are milking the U.S. Taxpayer, does anyone think Congress will care? That this will be a "straw", to be added to the many that could eventually lead to a "last straw" for the SLS?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1284
  • Liked: 1895
  • Likes Given: 1512
Re: OIG report on SLS RS-25 and boosters
« Reply #39 on: 05/29/2023 04:14 pm »
As to the RS-25 and SRMs, and the very clear evidence that the contractors are milking the U.S. Taxpayer, does anyone think Congress will care? That this will be a "straw", to be added to the many that could eventually lead to a "last straw" for the SLS?
This is the bottom line. Very cogent arguments here, but the bugs we see are the features that Congress sees. Nelson and Free (who always looks like he’s heartily tired of having to deal with mere humans) are doing exactly what they were put there to do. Congress represents the People, sorta/kinda, but 99% of the voters have more immediate concerns.

Despite your and VSECOTSPE’s logic, there is absolutely no hope that this mess will be reformed from within. The only answer is the end run, and frankly (distastefully to many) that means Musk/SpaceX. SpaceX is no longer a little company dependent on NASA. It can forge its own path regardless of the USG. Not without difficulties, whether technical or political; but there is a track record of success that cannot be ignored, no matter how heroic the attempt. Musk might decide to fulfill his contractual obligations and concentrate fully on Mars, but once SS/SH is flying routinely, I’m guessing there are more NASA contracts in store for lunar Starship. Meanwhile, SLS will roll on until Congress finds a convenient way to shift their favorites onto other lucrative pit-digging operations for taxpayer dollars.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1