OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract

[VSECOTSPE]

Just to clarify, Orion/SLS direct costs are about $4.5B in FY 2024.  There’s another $3.5B in FY 2024 for other Artemis and Moon-to-Mars elements, but most of that is in early development and/or not launching on Orion/SLS missions (Artemis I, Artemis II, Artemis III, etc.).  So you can get to ~$8B per year for the overall effort if that’s what you’re after.  But assuming Artemis missions — the crew transport element on Orion/SLS — go off once a year, they’ll be about half the total.  Most of the rest flies on Falcon Heavies (major Gateway elements and resupply), is HLS launches, or would be payloads on the HLS launches (suits, rovers, surface habs, etc.).

Absent change, it’s doubtful that Artemis missions ever hit a cadence of one per year.  Just based on the existing manifest, Artemis I thru IV will struggle not to fall below an average rate of one mission every two years.  And between Orion/SLS costs growing with every IG report from below and a fiscal environment that will flatten or reverse budget growth from the top, the budget wedge to support developments for Artemis V and later missions will be squeezed, causing those missions to stretch out beyond the notional one per year on the FY 2024 manifest.

Personally I think a rate of even two missions a year is sub-par.  Apollo did that half a century ago.  The mission rate should be driven by research, economic development, or Mars prep goals.  But since the program doesn’t have such a driver, I’d be aiming for four missions a year, double Apollo.  If we can’t be allowed to make intelligent decisions to do better than we did 50 years ago with an investment of $8B annually, then what the heck are we doing?

[yg1968]

The best scenario to hope for is to have redundancy for SLS and Orion through a commercial option. I don't think that Congress is going to kill SLS and Orion in the short term especially if a commercial replacement isn't yet available.

I agree that this is likely the best case, but there's a huge problem:  Both SLS and Orion have been carefully crafted, and their launch cadences set, so that they keep the existing workforces employed just enough that nobody feels any particular pain.  If the cadence increased, the incumbents would have to hire more people and add more manufacturing infrastructure--which could result in a costly loss if NASA then had to reduce the cadence for budgetary reasons.  But if the cadence is reduced, then the staff they currently have is unsustainable.

I'm a big fan of the "second source" strategy, but everybody should understand that the existence of a second source probably causes the entire SLS/Orion supply chain to collapse.  That is, indeed, what should happen.  But if a commercial effort is adopted, claiming that it's a second source is a con job.  It's a con job that might work, because there are only a handful of geeks in a NASA basement somewhere who understand the supply chain.  But the second source framing of the problem is fundamentally dishonest.

That makes it... distasteful.  However, almost everything to do with the US government's budget is distasteful if you look close enough.

I am not sure that I understand, the cadence of SLS and Orion would be the same: once per year. The commercial option would also be once a year. So you would have two lunar surface missions per year.

OK, either you have been conned or you are colluding in the con. When we have one SLS/Orion mission per yr at $8 Billion and one "alternate" mission per year at $1 billion, and the alternate mission has a bigger crew and a longer stay, what do you think will happen?

That will eventually happen either way when crewed Starship comes online. SLS isn't getting canceled any time soon and you are "conning" yourself if you think that it is. How about you introduce some realism in your what if scenarios. I suppose that you can argue that adding a commercial option isn't that realistic either but it's more realistic than thinking that SLS is about to be cancelled, it's just not. It has always been a political rocket with broad support and the latest OIG Report won't change that. How about we stay away from this con nonsense, it's rude and doesn't add anything to the conversation.

[DanClemmensen]

I am not sure that I understand, the cadence of SLS and Orion would be the same: once per year. The commercial option would also be once a year. So you would have two lunar surface missions per year.

OK, either you have been conned or you are colluding in the con. When we have one SLS/Orion mission per yr at $8 Billion and one "alternate" mission per year at $1 billion, and the alternate mission has a bigger crew and a longer stay, what do you think will happen?

That will eventually happen either way when crewed Starship comes online. SLS isn't getting canceled any time soon and you are "conning" yourself if you think that it is. How about you introduce some realism in your what if scenarios. I suppose that you can argue that adding a commercial option isn't that realistic either but it's more realistic than thinking that SLS is about to be cancelled, it's just not. It has always been a political rocket with broad support and the latest OIG Report won't change that. How about we stay away from this con nonsense, it's rude and doesn't add anything to the conversation.

I apologize. Let me rephrase. I do not know if the magical " commercial option" can ever be created by congress. Your scenario seems to imply that you believe it will and that SLS/Orion and "commercial option" will fly, each once a year. I was attempting to say that I do not believe that this would be a stable situation, because of the very large differences in cost on the one hand and capabilities on the other. Thus, I cannot understand why you believe that it would be a stable modus vivendi.

As to the timeframe for the commercial option: I (perhaps mistakenly) think that it will fly quite quickly after it is funded, because is can be based on hardware that is already in development and that must already be available for Artemis III.

[yg1968]

Getting back on topic, here is what is being proposed in terms of commercial alternatives:

Recommendation 5: Include contract flexibility on future SLS acquisitions that will allow NASA to pivot to other commercial alternatives.

Management’s Response: NASA concurs. The procurement strategy for EPOC has not been established, pending performance under the pre-EPOC evaluation and readiness effort. However, at that time, NASA will ensure appropriate flexibilities through the use of contract options or other means to explore the use of commercial alternatives, if feasible.

Estimated Completion Date: December 31, 2027.

It seems that the OIG is simply recommending that NASA doesn't lock itself in future SLS acquisitions. The OIG appears to think that this would give NASA more leverage when negotiating future SLS acquisitions. It should be noted that NASA added a big disclaimer at the end of their response: "if feasible".

[yg1968]

I do not know if the magical " commercial option" can ever be created by congress. Your scenario seems to imply that you believe it will and that SLS/Orion and "commercial option" will fly, each once a year. I was attempting to say that I do not believe that this would be a stable situation, because of the very large differences in cost on the one hand and capabilities on the other. Thus, I cannot understand why you believe that it would be a stable modus vivendi.

As to the timeframe for the commercial option: I (perhaps mistakenly) think that it will fly quite quickly after it is funded, because is can be based on hardware that is already in development and that must already be available for Artemis III.

I started out by saying that the best thing to hope for would be for NASA to add a commercial option, I didn't say that it was going to happen. I am not convinced that Congress would accept it. But it might be worth for the President to recommend it in their budget. From a cost cutting point of view, an entirely commercial option would obviously be better but is less likely to be accepted by Congress. In any event, it seems that the OIG is starting to see that SLS may have a limited life, so I guess that is the good news. The fact that both NASA and OIG agree that NASA needs to keep its options open is an interesting development in and of itself.   

[yg1968]

The best scenario to hope for is to have redundancy for SLS and Orion through a commercial option. I don't think that Congress is going to kill SLS and Orion in the short term especially if a commercial replacement isn't yet available.

I agree that this is likely the best case, but there's a huge problem:  Both SLS and Orion have been carefully crafted, and their launch cadences set, so that they keep the existing workforces employed just enough that nobody feels any particular pain.  If the cadence increased, the incumbents would have to hire more people and add more manufacturing infrastructure--which could result in a costly loss if NASA then had to reduce the cadence for budgetary reasons.  But if the cadence is reduced, then the staff they currently have is unsustainable.

I'm a big fan of the "second source" strategy, but everybody should understand that the existence of a second source probably causes the entire SLS/Orion supply chain to collapse.  That is, indeed, what should happen.  But if a commercial effort is adopted, claiming that it's a second source is a con job.  It's a con job that might work, because there are only a handful of geeks in a NASA basement somewhere who understand the supply chain.  But the second source framing of the problem is fundamentally dishonest.

That makes it... distasteful.  However, almost everything to do with the US government's budget is distasteful if you look close enough.

I am not sure that I understand, the cadence of SLS and Orion would be the same: once per year. The commercial option would also be once a year. So you would have two lunar surface missions per year.

That is an assumption that Congress would just add a commercial version onto the existing Program of Record (PoR), but that is just your assumption. We don't know what Congress would actually fund, or de-fund in such a case.

It's not really an assumption, I just said (in my first post) that it is the best thing to hope for. Do I think that it likely to happen, from a political point of view? Not really. I think that NASA will only start to use commercial options after they are commercially available. I don't expect the President and NASA to be proactive on this issue in the next few years (at least not during this administration).

[deltaV]

I am not sure that I understand, the cadence of SLS and Orion would be the same: once per year. The commercial option would also be once a year. So you would have two lunar surface missions per year.

Your plan requires a major funding increase since it includes SLS/Orion, the gateway (which IIUC Orion requires), the commercial SLS/Orion alternative, and twice as many lunar landers as the program of record. In the current political climate such a big funding boost is not at all realistic. Also even if NASA could miraculously afford all that they'd only be able to afford one commercial SLS/Orion alternative provider. That's unfortunate since commercial only works well with competition.

Only SLS/Orion cancellation unlocks the funding for a healthy program. Even with SLS/Orion cancellation and careful planning we'd likely have 3-5 years without any lunar missions while the commercial replacements are developed. That's life with constrained budgets.

[yg1968]

I am not sure that I understand, the cadence of SLS and Orion would be the same: once per year. The commercial option would also be once a year. So you would have two lunar surface missions per year.

Your plan requires a major funding increase since it includes SLS/Orion, the gateway (which IIUC Orion requires), the commercial SLS/Orion alternative, and twice as many lunar landers as the program of record. In the current political climate such a big funding boost is not at all realistic. Also even if NASA could miraculously afford all that they'd only be able to afford one commercial SLS/Orion alternative provider. That's unfortunate since commercial only works well with competition.

Only SLS/Orion cancellation unlocks the funding for a healthy program. Even with SLS/Orion cancellation and careful planning we'd likely have 3-5 years without any lunar missions while the commercial replacements are developed. That's life with constrained budgets.

The more likely scenario is that NASA and the President will wait for crewed Starship to be online before proposing a commercial option. I hope to be wrong but I don't see NASA and the President being proactive on the commercial HLV and spacecraft option.

[Asteroza]

I am not sure that I understand, the cadence of SLS and Orion would be the same: once per year. The commercial option would also be once a year. So you would have two lunar surface missions per year.

Your plan requires a major funding increase since it includes SLS/Orion, the gateway (which IIUC Orion requires), the commercial SLS/Orion alternative, and twice as many lunar landers as the program of record. In the current political climate such a big funding boost is not at all realistic. Also even if NASA could miraculously afford all that they'd only be able to afford one commercial SLS/Orion alternative provider. That's unfortunate since commercial only works well with competition.

Only SLS/Orion cancellation unlocks the funding for a healthy program. Even with SLS/Orion cancellation and careful planning we'd likely have 3-5 years without any lunar missions while the commercial replacements are developed. That's life with constrained budgets.

The more likely scenario is that NASA and the President will wait for crewed Starship to be online before proposing a commercial option. I hope to be wrong but I don't see NASA and the President being proactive on the commercial HLV and spacecraft option.

A successful Dear Moon mission would probably be enough to get the conversation started.

[Coastal Ron]

I am not sure that I understand, the cadence of SLS and Orion would be the same: once per year. The commercial option would also be once a year. So you would have two lunar surface missions per year.

Your plan requires a major funding increase since it includes SLS/Orion, the gateway (which IIUC Orion requires), the commercial SLS/Orion alternative, and twice as many lunar landers as the program of record. In the current political climate such a big funding boost is not at all realistic. Also even if NASA could miraculously afford all that they'd only be able to afford one commercial SLS/Orion alternative provider. That's unfortunate since commercial only works well with competition.

Only SLS/Orion cancellation unlocks the funding for a healthy program. Even with SLS/Orion cancellation and careful planning we'd likely have 3-5 years without any lunar missions while the commercial replacements are developed. That's life with constrained budgets.

The more likely scenario is that NASA and the President will wait for crewed Starship to be online before proposing a commercial option. I hope to be wrong but I don't see NASA and the President being proactive on the commercial HLV and spacecraft option.

There is no need to wait for "crewed Starship", which implies that Starship meets NASA's safety goals for carrying crew from Earth, and returning to Earth. No such certification program exists, and Starship is so different from any other type of space transportation system that has existed that it would be impossible to predict when NASA would feel comfortable with flying crew on Starship.

And we don't need to wait for "crewed Starship" because there are ways to move crew to space today without the use of Starship - Commercial Crew. There is a whole thread devoted to this topic, so I won't duplicate it, but there are a variety of missions enabled by using Commercial crew to launch crew from Earth, rendezvous with a Starship for various missions, and once the missions are done Commercial Crew will return the crew to Earth.

All we need is leadership devoted to stopping the waste of so much taxpayer money...

[VSECOTSPE]

When the White House/Executive Branch has wanted to terminate a major human space flight program, Congress has always followed that lead and it’s always happened.  Nixon Administration nixed Apollo.  Bush II Administration set STS termination after ISS Core Complete.  Obama Administration put Constellation out of its misery.  If the Biden or next Administration decided to kill off Orion/SLS, it would happen.  Aside from a handful or two of appropriators, no Congress-critters will fight these terminations and the vast majority will go along to get along.  The big question is if/when the Administration decides to kill off Orion/SLS.  With the two-year budget agreement basically flatlining the discretionary agencies like NASA and leaving them to their own devices, I don’t see the White House taking an interest until at least the FY 2026 cycle.  And even then, they’ll need a strong reason to do so.  Successful dearMoon-type missions are probably not enough.

The other big question is what replaces the terminated program.  This is where successive Administrations have failed to formulate effective programs and/or align the NASA workforce accordingly.  The Nixon Administration took the ginormous Apollo workforce and threw it at a single spaceplane project to ensure a political win in California while simultaneously engaging in the magical thinking that this spaceplane would dramatically reduce launch costs while still employing that ginormous Apollo workforce.  The Bush II Administration started off with a reasonable exploration plan and then took their eyes off the ball and let a self-dealing missile defense manager and his highly conflicted former astronaut juke studies and sole-source the bulk of the funding towards a poorly conceived, highly duplicative medium-lift launcher that had little to do with (and was actually ruled out by) that exploration plan.  And while the Obama Administration also had a reasonable plan focusing on much-need technology investment and commercial transitions, they didn’t have a plan for the workforce, leaving a void that Congress filled with the overreaching 2010 NASA Authorization, saddling the agency with yet another white elephant launcher.

Maybe we’ll get it right someday, fully think through what comes after before setting the next termination in motion, and actually follow through.

[hektor]

I have difficulty to imagine Biden II or Trump II killing SLS/Orion. So we can reopen this discussion in 2027.

Now there is a potential Administration with another third guy, but as time passes by, it seems less and less likely.

[yg1968]

I am not sure that I understand, the cadence of SLS and Orion would be the same: once per year. The commercial option would also be once a year. So you would have two lunar surface missions per year.

Your plan requires a major funding increase since it includes SLS/Orion, the gateway (which IIUC Orion requires), the commercial SLS/Orion alternative, and twice as many lunar landers as the program of record. In the current political climate such a big funding boost is not at all realistic. Also even if NASA could miraculously afford all that they'd only be able to afford one commercial SLS/Orion alternative provider. That's unfortunate since commercial only works well with competition.

Only SLS/Orion cancellation unlocks the funding for a healthy program. Even with SLS/Orion cancellation and careful planning we'd likely have 3-5 years without any lunar missions while the commercial replacements are developed. That's life with constrained budgets.

The more likely scenario is that NASA and the President will wait for crewed Starship to be online before proposing a commercial option. I hope to be wrong but I don't see NASA and the President being proactive on the commercial HLV and spacecraft option.

There is no need to wait for "crewed Starship", which implies that Starship meets NASA's safety goals for carrying crew from Earth, and returning to Earth. No such certification program exists, and Starship is so different from any other type of space transportation system that has existed that it would be impossible to predict when NASA would feel comfortable with flying crew on Starship.

And we don't need to wait for "crewed Starship" because there are ways to move crew to space today without the use of Starship - Commercial Crew. There is a whole thread devoted to this topic, so I won't duplicate it, but there are a variety of missions enabled by using Commercial crew to launch crew from Earth, rendezvous with a Starship for various missions, and once the missions are done Commercial Crew will return the crew to Earth.

All we need is leadership devoted to stopping the waste of so much taxpayer money...

I hope to be wrong but I don't see these political changes happening until there are private astronauts landing on the Moon. I am not convinced that SpaceX will ever offer a crew Dragon and HLS-Starship option for private lunar surface missions. However, I do expect SpaceX to offer a crewed Starship-HLS-Starship option for private lunar surface missions at some point (after Artemis III or IV).

[DanClemmensen]

I hope to be wrong but I don't see this happening until there are private astronauts landing on the Moon. I am not convinced that SpaceX will ever offer a crew Dragon and HLS-Starship option for private lunar surface missions. However, I do expect SpaceX to offer a crewed Starship-HLS-Starship option for private lunar surface missions at some point (after Artemis III or IV).

You may be right, but SpaceX and Jared Isaacman may be crazy enough to try a Crew Dragon-to-HLS mission. Agreed: after Artemis III, but possibly before Artemis IV. It would only fly before Artemis III if the Artemis program gets into serious non-HLS funding or technical trouble.

[VSECOTSPE]

There’s no causal link between the first commercial human space flights around/to the Moon and a policy or political decision for NASA to use those capabilities and/or terminate Orion/SLS.  Governments do not work on economic principles.  There’s no competitive market or pricing pressure on the federal government that requires the government to use a (much) lower cost or efficient provider.

The decision will emanate from the Executive Branch/Administration, and it will driven by programmatic or policy pain that can no longer be ignored.  A flight accident.  A multi-billion dollar cost increase that can no longer be absorbed.  A schedule that has slipped past irrelevance.  Lack of funding for much higher R&D/S&T priorities.  A major economic/fiscal contraction.  Etc.  Those are the kinds of things that force the White House to spend political capital.  An Isaacman flight or landing does not.

They’re also the kind of things that can’t be predicted, especially from the outside.  A crisis may be brewing in the next couple months, or it may take years for such a crisis to emerge.  The two-year budget agreement raises the bar for such a crisis to force the Administration’s hand during that timeframe.  But there’s nothing that absolutely rules it out over the next couple years, either.  Anyone who says “I don’t see it happening until X is flying” doesn’t understand what actually drives these decisions.

Lastly, because these decisions are forced by crises, the decision may not be the logical one to substitute a (much) lower cost provider while maintaining or enhancing the rest of the program.  The decision may also be to dramatically downscale the overall effort or terminate it completely and redirect the savings.

[Greg Hullender]

Since people are going to ride HLS down to the moon, I gather the problem with certifying Starship for humans is not the upper stage but the lower one (plus staging). Is that correct? Or is going from Gateway to the lunar surface and back that much easier than going to LEO after staging?

[DanClemmensen]

Since people are going to ride HLS down to the moon, I gather the problem with certifying Starship for humans is not the upper stage but the lower one (plus staging). Is that correct? Or is going from Gateway to the lunar surface and back that much easier than going to LEO after staging?

I think the critical issues are launch from Earth (with a launch Abort system) and EDL (entry, descent, landing) on Earth. These are historically the most dangerous parts of a mission. HLS does neither of these.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Just to clarify, Orion/SLS direct costs are about $4.5B in FY 2024.  There’s another $3.5B in FY 2024 for other Artemis and Moon-to-Mars elements, but most of that is in early development and/or not launching on Orion/SLS missions (Artemis I, Artemis II, Artemis III, etc.).  So you can get to ~$8B per year for the overall effort if that’s what you’re after.  But assuming Artemis missions — the crew transport element on Orion/SLS — go off once a year, they’ll be about half the total.  Most of the rest flies on Falcon Heavies (major Gateway elements and resupply), is HLS launches, or would be payloads on the HLS launches (suits, rovers, surface habs, etc.).

It always helps to play with the numbers, because you immediately find things you don't understand.

The first thing is that there's a fundamental discrepancy between the OIG's previous report, which put the cost of an SLS/Orion launch at $4.2B per mission, and the NASA budget request, which puts the cost at $4.5B per year. That yearly number must assume a cadence of about 18 months/mission (0.67mission/yr), which would make at least the next couple of missions cost closer to $6.8B/mission.

The average out-year cost/year is about $3.8B, in which case the OIG's number sorta-kinda makes sense.  But of course the out-year numbers have been derived using the rectal extraction cost accounting method.

What we should really be looking at is how mixing in some second-source missions affects the money that can be spent for SLS/Orion.  In doing this, I used the current year $4.5B number, extended out to infinity, on the assumption that the out-year numbers have a certain odor.

In all scenarios, I assumed that the second source was the D2 + OTV-LSS kludge mission that we've discussed up-thread and elsewhere.  Using fairly pessimistic assumptions, I came up with a figure of $900M/mission.¹

Next, keeping the total transit budget fixed at $4.5B/year, I looked at various mixtures of kludge and SLS/Orion missions, which should be able to show us how much money bleeds away from the incumbent contractors if NASA adopts the second source.  I did this both for SLS/Orion costing $4.2B/mission (per the OIG estimate) and $6.75B/mission (per this year's budget request and an assumption of 18 months between missions).

The governing algebra is:

yearlyBudget = cadence*(kludgeToSls*kludgeCost + slsCost)/(kludgeToSls+1)

...where "kludgeToSls" is the mixture of kludge missions to SLS missions, ranging between 0 (the current situation) and 4:1.  Results attached below.

My tentative conclusion from this little exercise is that the two OIG reports combined expose either a lot of slack and undeserved money flowing to the SLS/Orion incumbents, or some unjustified reliance on make-believe budget numbers for the NASA deep-space exploration out-years.

If it's the former, then there are really good arguments to initiate the second source, because the incumbents can't really complain that they won't get as much free money, can they?  And if it's the latter, then the program is in much, much worse shape than we thought.

PS:  It's the "money to SLS per year" column that to pay attention to.  As that number falls with richer mixtures of kludge missions, it'll first eat into their profit margins, and eventually will drop below the level required to maintain their staffs.  That's the point where the supply chain collapses, as various contractors start to bail out, figuring that paying the termination penalties is cheaper than bleeding to death.

But if there are mixtures where the SLS/Orion contracts simply trim their profit margins, that's an interesting situation.  Who knows?  It might even result in a $2.5B/mission SLS/Orion!



______________________
¹860t prop/mission @ $50M/tanker @ 150t/tanker = $300M/mission for tankers
1 OTV-LSS, reusable 5x @ $400M = $80M
1 F9/D2 @ $300M
Total:  $680M
So $900M/mission is pretty pessimistic.

Note that this doesn't include the prop for the HLS-LSS, or the amortization for the HLS-LSS itself.

[TheRadicalModerate]

The decision will emanate from the Executive Branch/Administration, and it will driven by programmatic or policy pain that can no longer be ignored.  A flight accident.  A multi-billion dollar cost increase that can no longer be absorbed.  A schedule that has slipped past irrelevance.  Lack of funding for much higher R&D/S&T priorities.  A major economic/fiscal contraction.  Etc.  Those are the kinds of things that force the White House to spend political capital.  An Isaacman flight or landing does not.

Presumably, since the OIG seems pretty hot to de-pants SLS/Orion as thoroughly as possible, they'll put another report once firm costing information is available from public SpaceX sources on the retail price of tanker launches, and internal data on the cost to NASA for both D2 flights and HLS-LSS marginal costs.

That's not exactly a crisis as you've described them above, but it's something that looks really, really bad for whatever administration has to answer the report.  At some point, the disparity between the two costs gets juicy enough that both the media and Congress will use it to harvest more eyeballs, and then it's something approaching a crisis for the administration/NASA.

I sure wish Musk hadn't made himself radioactive to the Biden Administration.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Since people are going to ride HLS down to the moon, I gather the problem with certifying Starship for humans is not the upper stage but the lower one (plus staging). Is that correct? Or is going from Gateway to the lunar surface and back that much easier than going to LEO after staging?

I think the critical issues are launch from Earth (with a launch Abort system) and EDL (entry, descent, landing) on Earth. These are historically the most dangerous parts of a mission. HLS does neither of these.

Two things to add:

1) Risk tolerances for landing/ascent to/from the Moon are much, much higher than what would be acceptable for ascent/landing on Earth.

2) For HLS, it's powered descent the whole way.  That simply doesn't work on Earth.