Author Topic: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022  (Read 10221 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« on: 02/28/2022 05:59 pm »
KEEPING OUR SIGHTS ON MARS PART 3: A STATUS UPDATE AND REVIEW OF NASA’S ARTEMIS INITIATIVE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS


DATE: TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2022
TIME: 11:00 AM

LOCATION: ONLINE VIA VIDEOCONFERENCING

WITNESSES
Mr. James Free, Associate Administrator, Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Mr. William Russell, Director, Contracting and National Security Acquisitions, U.S. Government Accountability Office

Dr. Patricia Sanders, Chair, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel

The Honorable Paul K. Martin, Inspector General, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Mr. Daniel Dumbacher, Executive Director, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

https://science.house.gov/hearings/keeping-our-sights-on-mars-part-3-a-status-update-and-review-of-nasas-artemis-initiative

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #1 on: 03/01/2022 06:09 pm »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #2 on: 03/01/2022 06:11 pm »
« Last Edit: 03/01/2022 06:13 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
« Last Edit: 03/02/2022 01:07 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #4 on: 03/02/2022 01:09 am »
At 1h40m of this video, Jim Free says that there will be a control center at JSC (the hub), one for the HLS provider and one for SLS.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55930.msg2346381#msg2346381

At 1h42m of this video, Jim Free said that the RFI for SLS privatization should kick in with Artemis V, once that SLS becomes part of the operations division:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55930.msg2346381#msg2346381

Earlier in the hearing (at 1h32m), Free said that the other government agencies and the science community could take advantage of the privatization of SLS to use SLS for its own purposes.

At 48 min, in a response to a question by Representative Babin, Martin addresses the cost of SLS and explains the $2.2B and $4.1B figures:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55930.msg2346381#msg2346381
« Last Edit: 08/25/2022 04:56 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #5 on: 03/02/2022 02:41 pm »
First four Artemis flights will cost $4.1 billion each NASA IG tells Congress:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/first-four-artemis-flights-will-cost-4-1-billion-each-nasa-ig-tells-congress/

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1782
  • USA
  • Liked: 1468
  • Likes Given: 2520
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #6 on: 03/02/2022 02:43 pm »


Earlier in the hearing (at 1h32m), Free said that the other government agencies and the science community could take advantage of the privatization of SLS to use SLS for its own purposes.


I feel like this is just fluff bs for congress. The price of SLS won't go down. The cost of a launch SLS is about that of a flagship class science mission from nasa. No agency can afford SLS. Which also ignores the fact that a launch cadence of once every 1.5 years means there aren't any spares to begin with.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #7 on: 03/02/2022 03:12 pm »
Earlier in the hearing (at 1h32m), Free said that the other government agencies and the science community could take advantage of the privatization of SLS to use SLS for its own purposes.

I feel like this is just fluff bs for congress. The price of SLS won't go down. The cost of a launch SLS is about that of a flagship class science mission from nasa. No agency can afford SLS. Which also ignores the fact that a launch cadence of once every 1.5 years means there aren't any spares to begin with.

I agree with most of what you said. But the launch cadence will be once a year, starting with Artemis III.
« Last Edit: 03/02/2022 03:17 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #8 on: 03/02/2022 09:12 pm »


Earlier in the hearing (at 1h32m), Free said that the other government agencies and the science community could take advantage of the privatization of SLS to use SLS for its own purposes.


I feel like this is just fluff bs for congress. The price of SLS won't go down. The cost of a launch SLS is about that of a flagship class science mission from nasa. No agency can afford SLS. Which also ignores the fact that a launch cadence of once every 1.5 years means there aren't any spares to begin with.

We've been hearing this sort of nonsense for years (and see the attachment).  At one point, there were forum members convinced that DoD was itching to launch SLS-sized payloads that it had lying around.

Unless Free is expecting SLSs to become available because of serious delays with Orion, HLS or Gateway, though, I think his remarks go beyond fluff to disingenuity.  He knows perfectly well how low SLS's production rate is and how much it would cost to raise the rate.

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #9 on: 03/02/2022 09:41 pm »
I welcome privatization, if it forces SLS launches to compete with the rest of the market.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1782
  • USA
  • Liked: 1468
  • Likes Given: 2520
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #10 on: 03/02/2022 09:52 pm »
I welcome privatization, if it forces SLS launches to compete with the rest of the market.
Its smoke and mirrors. There literally is no market for SLS beyond the US government. What would privitization do? NASA pays these prices because congress forces them too, and boeing obviously has strong influence over congress.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #11 on: 03/03/2022 02:26 am »
I welcome privatization, if it forces SLS launches to compete with the rest of the market.
Its smoke and mirrors. There literally is no market for SLS beyond the US government. What would privitization do? NASA pays these prices because congress forces them too, and boeing obviously has strong influence over congress.

Even if NASA is the only customer, buying SLS as service should still allow NASA to save money over a cost-plus contract.

Offline Jimmy_C

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 6615
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #12 on: 03/03/2022 07:30 am »
I welcome privatization, if it forces SLS launches to compete with the rest of the market.
Its smoke and mirrors. There literally is no market for SLS beyond the US government. What would privitization do? NASA pays these prices because congress forces them too, and boeing obviously has strong influence over congress.

Even if NASA is the only customer, buying SLS as service should still allow NASA to save money over a cost-plus contract.

How?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #13 on: 03/03/2022 02:09 pm »
Switching from cost-plus to fixed-price could incentivize cost savings.  In principle, NASA's stepping back from buying rockets to buying launches would allow some private-sector efficiencies.  But without competition, I don't know how much of the benefit would pass to NASA.  Shuttle operations were farmed out to a private firm, United Space Alliance.  Did it save much money?

But all of this is just fiddling with the details.  Two fundamental impediments to a cost-effective SLS remain:

    1.  The economic insanity maintaining a launch vehicle that might, at best, fly once per year; and
    2.  SLS's creator, namely Congress, just is not interested in economic efficiency; lower costs would make the program less successful.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2022 02:10 pm by Proponent »

Offline Jimmy_C

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 6615
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #14 on: 03/03/2022 02:44 pm »
Switching from cost-plus to fixed-price could incentivize cost savings.  In principle, NASA's stepping back from buying rockets to buying launches would allow some private-sector efficiencies.  But without competition, I don't know how much of the benefit would pass to NASA.  Shuttle operations were farmed out to a private firm, United Space Alliance.  Did it save much money?

But all of this is just fiddling with the details.  Two fundamental impediments to a cost-effective SLS remain:

    1.  The economic insanity maintaining a launch vehicle that might, at best, fly once per year; and
    2.  SLS's creator, namely Congress, just is not interested in economic efficiency; lower costs would make the program less successful.

Indeed, I am skeptical too. Private sector businesses are efficient when there is a market of suppliers and consumers. With a market of one supplier and one consumer, those assumptions don't hold. Boeing would still charge the maximum that Congress is willing to pay, as their incentive is to maximize their return. Price always rises to meet demand. If Boeing wants more money than a fixed contract, then what? NASA already decided launching Orion on another rocket was infeasible. Until competitors emerge that they have to compete against, and architectures are better optimized for more contractor modularity, the bidding process incentivizes underbidding to get a customer locked into their solution. There are numerous examples not only with government but private contracts too. Beware of magic bullets.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #15 on: 03/04/2022 12:47 am »
Switching from cost-plus to fixed-price could incentivize cost savings.  In principle, NASA's stepping back from buying rockets to buying launches would allow some private-sector efficiencies.  But without competition, I don't know how much of the benefit would pass to NASA.  Shuttle operations were farmed out to a private firm, United Space Alliance.  Did it save much money?

But all of this is just fiddling with the details.  Two fundamental impediments to a cost-effective SLS remain:

    1.  The economic insanity maintaining a launch vehicle that might, at best, fly once per year; and
    2.  SLS's creator, namely Congress, just is not interested in economic efficiency; lower costs would make the program less successful.

Indeed, I am skeptical too. Private sector businesses are efficient when there is a market of suppliers and consumers. With a market of one supplier and one consumer, those assumptions don't hold. Boeing would still charge the maximum that Congress is willing to pay, as their incentive is to maximize their return. Price always rises to meet demand. If Boeing wants more money than a fixed contract, then what? NASA already decided launching Orion on another rocket was infeasible. Until competitors emerge that they have to compete against, and architectures are better optimized for more contractor modularity, the bidding process incentivizes underbidding to get a customer locked into their solution. There are numerous examples not only with government but private contracts too. Beware of magic bullets.

I don't disagree with what you said but with cost-plus, Boeing and others have an incentive to increase cost for each mission. At least under a services contract, your cost is possibly fixed. It's not clear from the RFI if the cost would be fixed but I would certainly hope so.

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #16 on: 03/04/2022 08:52 am »
If they magically managed to somehow slash the cost of an SLS launch by %75 and also magically managed to increase the production rate to 2 per year, there is no way at all that SLS will be competitive with any current launcher, let alone any that are coming on line in the next few years.

I am currently finding it difficult to understand how certain members of this forum can fail to see this?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #17 on: 03/04/2022 12:52 pm »
If they magically managed to somehow slash the cost of an SLS launch by %75 and also magically managed to increase the production rate to 2 per year, there is no way at all that SLS will be competitive with any current launcher, let alone any that are coming on line in the next few years.

I am currently finding it difficult to understand how certain members of this forum can fail to see this?

I am not sure who you are replying to but as I said above, the main goal is to reduce the price of SLS to NASA by shifting away from a cost-plus to a services model. That in itself should help NASA better control its costs. Of course SLS isn't competitive with commercial rockets but NASA better controlling its costs for SLS is a good thing in of itself. 
« Last Edit: 03/04/2022 01:00 pm by yg1968 »

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #18 on: 03/04/2022 03:30 pm »
Look at what the inspector general said about Webb, going from an initial estimate of $1B to $10B. This shows that the government can and does spend as much as it wants for certain things, it essentially has unlimited funds.

The way I see it, by allowing SLS to go private, you remove this mechanism and subject it to competition.

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2740
  • UK
  • Liked: 1871
  • Likes Given: 814
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #19 on: 03/04/2022 04:09 pm »
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1498701849360310279

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1498712201540087810
Can anyone put in a nut shell why a 2 person 30 day surface stay (presumably opposition class mission) is the preferred option here? Is it political or practical? I had imagined that conjunction class missions were the way to go. (Just for my information not for an extended off topic discussion)...
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #20 on: 03/04/2022 05:19 pm »
Look at what the inspector general said about Webb, going from an initial estimate of $1B to $10B. This shows that the government can and does spend as much as it wants for certain things, it essentially has unlimited funds.

The way I see it, by allowing SLS to go private, you remove this mechanism and subject it to competition.

I can assure you that isn't how the OIG see it. Guaranteed.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #21 on: 03/04/2022 05:47 pm »
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1498701849360310279

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1498712201540087810
Can anyone put in a nut shell why a 2 person 30 day surface stay (presumably opposition class mission) is the preferred option here? Is it political or practical? I had imagined that conjunction class missions were the way to go. (Just for my information not for an extended off topic discussion)...

It doesn't really answer your question but there is an extended discussion on this in the Artemis thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.msg2347136#msg2347136

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #22 on: 03/04/2022 06:06 pm »
Look at what the inspector general said about Webb, going from an initial estimate of $1B to $10B. This shows that the government can and does spend as much as it wants for certain things, it essentially has unlimited funds.

The way I see it, by allowing SLS to go private, you remove this mechanism and subject it to competition.

I can assure you that isn't how the OIG see it. Guaranteed.

Senators and Representatives dispose according to their own interests. When there is bipartisan support, they rarely (name one instance) put them aside because of something the OIG says.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #23 on: 03/04/2022 06:31 pm »
Hearing best scheduled for April 1st IMHO...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #24 on: 03/04/2022 08:24 pm »
Congress presses NASA for more details on Artemis costs and schedules:
https://spacenews.com/congress-presses-nasa-for-more-details-on-artemis-costs-and-schedules/

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: House hearing on Artemis, March 1 2022
« Reply #25 on: 03/09/2022 03:19 pm »
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1498701849360310279

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1498712201540087810
Can anyone put in a nut shell why a 2 person 30 day surface stay (presumably opposition class mission) is the preferred option here? Is it political or practical? I had imagined that conjunction class missions were the way to go. (Just for my information not for an extended off topic discussion)...

See below:

This document has interesting information about NASA's plans for Artemis and Mars. It explains where the 2 person 30 day Mars mission comes from (the document was cited at the last NAC meeting):

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022080/downloads/HEOMD-007%20HEO%20SCOPE%20-%2009-28-2021%20NTRS.pdf

Tags:
 

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