Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now

[docmordrid]

http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_04_01_2013_p66-563151.xml

Kill The Space Launch System To Save Human Spaceflight
>

[Chris Bergin]

Hmm.

My first thought was "Ugg, here we go again".

My second thought was "Save $10 billion? Is that before or after they have to pay up the contracts with Boeing and such - then pay off thousands (?) of people they would need to fire from the Program, etc?"

My third thought (I'm a slow thinker ) was that NASA's only got themselves to blame, for being wishy washy about SLS and Exploration (as much as some of it is designed by those politically aligned) - the creation of a stupid half-baked, unviable roadmap and an actual SLS manager giving an interview where he didn't even seem to be bothered (if that interview was correctly portrayed).

He likes the Gateway, that's cool. He likes Falcon Heavy, that's cool, but has he really thought this through (I don't know who he is, sorry). Is it really a magic wand to go and kill SLS now and everything will turn out sunshine and roses with $10b to play with?

I know bugger all about politics, but from my uniformed chair I bet it's no where near as simple as that!

[Andy DC]

Thought you supported SLS Chris?

[Chris Bergin]

Thought you supported SLS Chris?

I like SLS - I think it's a great LV. But it's not just about the LV, it's about what the LV will be doing.

The plan for its use is - in my opinion - wrong, per the 2017/2021 then "we don't really know" prelim plan.

It's all well and good breeding a prize thoroughbred, but you've got to race him.

[Rocket Science]

If they killed SLS, they probably wouldn’t save the 10 Billion, it would be probably be cut from NASA’s annual budget (3 Billion so called annual savings) therefore no net gain... Nonsensical but that’s politics...

[deltaV]

I guess that's a serious piece despite its April 1st date?

[QuantumG]

If they killed SLS, they probably wouldn’t save the 10 Billion, it would be probably be cut from NASA’s annual budget (3 Billion so called annual savings) therefore no net gain... Nonsensical but that’s politics...

Let's say SLS is junk and should be cut.. you don't have to agree, just assume it for a moment. Let's also assume that cutting SLS will result in some annual reduction in NASA's top line budget. In this situation, are you saying SLS shouldn't be cut? Taking the question more broadly, can nothing be cut if to do so would be a threat to NASA's top line budget?

To put it more bluntly: is it better for NASA to waste money than to not get it at all?

[KEdward5]

That's an argument an anti-NASA person would use, but as an American I don't consider NASA to be wasting any money.

[Rocket Science]

If they killed SLS, they probably wouldn’t save the 10 Billion, it would be probably be cut from NASA’s annual budget (3 Billion so called annual savings) therefore no net gain... Nonsensical but that’s politics...

Let's say SLS is junk and should be cut.. you don't have to agree, just assume it for a moment. Let's also assume that cutting SLS will result in some annual reduction in NASA's top line budget. In this situation, are you saying SLS shouldn't be cut? Taking the question more broadly, can nothing be cut if to do so would be a threat to NASA's top line budget?

To put it more bluntly: is it better for NASA to waste money than to not get it at all?

I know what you are saying (which makes sense) but NASA can’t just redirect funds as it wishes, as we saw with all the gnashing of teeth in the hearings over the commercial funding and the “apparent” sleight of hand accusations by KBH.

[simonbp]

That's an argument an anti-NASA person would use, but as an American I don't consider NASA to be wasting any money.

Of course they are wasting money. Every organization does. The problem is that NASA is hemorrhaging money on a vehicle that has no certainly of ever actually flying...

The real answer is to give Human Spaceflight a big new mission which is *explicitly* not tied to a particular launch vehicle. An example would an L2 station, but there are others. Once you set that mission, then the requirements will follow. If SLS is needed to fill those requirements, so be it. But if not, cancel it.

The point is to be focused on the mission as the product, not the Shuttle mentality of the launch vehicle as product.

[QuantumG]

That's an argument an anti-NASA person would use, but as an American I don't consider NASA to be wasting any money.

"anti-NASA" is a label used by pro-NASA people. If you think NASA can do no wrong, even when instructed by Congress to do obviously wrong things, then you've already ruled out any rational conversation on the subject.

[Lar]

I never heard of Peter A Wilson before but I think this is him

http://www.rand.org/about/people/w/wilson_peter_a.html

The money spent so far, and the money committed in contracts that would be spent if SLS were killed now... that's all sunk cost. has nothing to do with whether SLS is a good idea or not.

It's not. Everything SLS can do, other vehicles can do better, faster and cheaper. Kill it now, even if the money gets frittered away on other things like midnight basketball or whatever.

That's an argument an anti-NASA person would use, but as an American I don't consider NASA to be wasting any money.

"anti-NASA" is a label used by pro-NASA people. If you think NASA can do no wrong, even when instructed by Congress to do obviously wrong things, then you've already ruled out any rational conversation on the subject.

Exactly so.

I am a NASA supporter but I know for sure they waste money. I'd rather they wasted less rather than more.

[RocketEconomist327]

If they killed SLS, they probably wouldn’t save the 10 Billion, it would be probably be cut from NASA’s annual budget (3 Billion so called annual savings) therefore no net gain... Nonsensical but that’s politics...

No - it wouldn't be cut.  This line of reasoning is what makes problems worse in government and at NASA.

This is how bad programs get worse and good money is thrown after bad.

[Chris Bergin]

I never heard of Peter A Wilson before but I think this is him

http://www.rand.org/about/people/w/wilson_peter_a.html

Yeah, that's him.

Wonder why he's got involved - and why AW game him an op-ed slot. (No disrespect intended, but we can all publish someone like him and get vastly different responses).

[Rocket Science]

Anyone remember all the “happy talk” that we needed to stop flying the Shuttle in order to fund SLS? What happened to those savings?

[Chris Bergin]

Anyone remember all the “happy talk” that we needed to stop flying the Shuttle in order to fund SLS?

I don't think any such statement was made. They did say the money from Shuttle ($4.5b a year) would be diverted into "BEO Exploration" - which is not just SLS - that's just the LV.

Not sure how the $4.5b was split in the end?

[Robotbeat]

QuantumG: Even wasting money is still worth it when you're talking about keeping job skills crucial for national security and when the fiscal multiplier is greater than 1 (which, according to the IMF, it is... especially in areas of Florida with high unemployment). Of course, this will be rejected out of hand, but it's the truth. Working on even make-work stuff at NASA is better for the engineers (and society) than rotting on a couch collecting unemployment in the /present situation/ where fiscal austerity is contractionary (it definitely is, that's what the multiplier-more-than-1 means).

That said, there ARE more options than just cut the funding from SLS. SLS's funding could be used in other areas, and if you're concerned about losing the Congressional support, it can be appropriately zip-code engineered. SLS folk have already been used for integrating Orion on Delta IV Heavy, for instance. SLS organizationally could be morphed into an in-space-stage development platform (or even a propellant depot effort). As far as contracts with folks like ATK, modify them to give a few flights on their all-solid Liberty (or whatever it ends up being called, if it ever flies). Boeing would love a contract for an exploration gateway. There are lots of options, here, and they could involve the same contractors and Congressional districts if required.

That said, SLS could be transformed into something that could fly sooner... Get rid of any follow-on development program (except for the in-space stage) and use it as cargo-only.

[Lar]

Wonder why he's got involved - and why AW game him an op-ed slot. (No disrespect intended, but we can all publish someone like him and get vastly different responses).

I didn't quite parse that last parenthetical correctly, could you say it a different way? Thanks

[QuantumG]

QuantumG: Even wasting money is still worth it when you're talking about keeping job skills crucial for national security and when the fiscal multiplier is greater than 1 (which, according to the IMF, it is... especially in areas of Florida with high unemployment). Of course, this will be rejected out of hand, but it's the truth.

No.. what I'm rejecting out of hand is your failure to accept conditional arguments. The question was about whether it is ever okay to cut NASA's top line budget. Not an invitation for you to bore us with Keynesian economics again.

[Lar]

QuantumG: Even wasting money is still worth it when you're talking about keeping job skills crucial for national security and when the fiscal multiplier is greater than 1 (which, according to the IMF, it is... especially in areas of Florida with high unemployment). Of course, this will be rejected out of hand, but it's the truth.

No.. what I'm rejecting out of hand is your failure to accept conditional arguments. The question was about whether it is ever okay to cut NASA's top line budget. Not an invitation for you to bore us with Keynesian economics again.

Keynes is bunk anyway.

What's needed is some Schumpeter style creative destruction. Those engineers can be doing useful things elsewhere.