Total Members Voted: 30
Voting closed: 06/01/2023 07:41 pm
NASA’s Management of the Artemis MissionsSubmitting OIG: National Aeronautics and Space Administration OIGReport Description: In this audit, we assessed the schedule and projected costs for the first several missions of the Artemis program and NASA's ambitious effort to return humans to the Moon and establish a long-term presence.Date Issued: Monday, November 15, 2021https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-22-003.pdf
While the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Division—which includes HLS, Gateway, and next-generation spacesuits—is working on an integrated master schedule (IMS) for Artemis III that incorporates Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Division programs—SLS, Orion, and Exploration Ground Systems—the draft version does not include information on programs critical to Artemis that are outside of AES and ESD. Given the time needed to develop and fully test the HLS and new spacesuits, we project NASA will exceed its current timetable for landing humans on the Moon in late 2024 by several years.
When aggregating all relevant costs across mission directorates, NASA is projected to spend $93 billion on the Artemis effort up to FY 2025. We also project the current production and operations cost of a single SLS/Orion system at $4.1 billion per launch for Artemis I through IV, although the Agency’s ongoing initiatives aimed at increasing affordability seek to reduce that cost.
(3) develop an Artemis-wide cost estimate and update it on an annual basis; (4) maintain an accounting of per-mission costs and establish a benchmark against which NASA can assess the outcome of initiatives to increase the affordability of ESD systems;
NASA management didn't concur with the following two recommendations:Quote(3) develop an Artemis-wide cost estimate and update it on an annual basis; (4) maintain an accounting of per-mission costs and establish a benchmark against which NASA can assess the outcome of initiatives to increase the affordability of ESD systems;Quelle surprise.
Yes, and this aligns with something Jim Free said in the recent teleconference: that NASA believes mission-based pricing misses the point, and that instead we should consider the costs of establishing capabilities which NASA can leverage repeatedly for years to come.Intellectually I am sympathetic to this perspective, especially when I see folks amortizing the cost of development to arrive at a per-mission figure. And certainly this thinking works well for a more commercial-driven NASA that focuses on R&D and buys services from industry – especially so with highly reusable hardware. That said, it's also a convenient way to bury the fact that a four-person capsule costs $1B per instance... and another $300M for its service module.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The $4.1 billion total cost represents production of the rocket and the operations needed to launch the SLS/Orion system including materials, labor, facilities, and overhead, but does not include any money spent either on prior development of the system or for next generation technologies such as the SLS’s Exploration Upper Stage, Orion’s docking system, or Mobile Launcher 2.
In the near-term, the SLS is the only launch vehicle with the capability to lift the 27-metric ton Orion capsule to lunar orbit. However, in the next 5 to 7 years other human-rated commercial alternatives may become available. These commercial ventures will likely capitalize on multiple technological innovations, making them lighter, cheaper, and reusable. Further driving down costs is the competition between aerospace companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin. Although Congress mandated that NASA build the SLS and Orion for its space exploration goals in 2010, the Agency may soon have more affordable commercial options to carry humans to the Moon and beyond.[56] In our judgment, the Agency should continue to monitor the commercial development of heavy-lift space flight systems and begin discussions of whether it makes financial and strategic sense to consider these options as part of the Agency’s overall plan to support its ambitious space exploration goals. ____________[56] As an example, SpaceX is designing the Starship to fly astronauts from Earth to its destination and back on the same spacecraft. Congress’s mandates are found in: Pub. L. No. 111-267, 124 Stat. 2805.
The tap-dancing is growing increasingly frenzied on this thing.Just so there's no confusion, also from the OIG report:QuoteThe $4.1 billion total cost represents production of the rocket and the operations needed to launch the SLS/Orion system including materials, labor, facilities, and overhead, but does not include any money spent either on prior development of the system or for next generation technologies such as the SLS’s Exploration Upper Stage, Orion’s docking system, or Mobile Launcher 2.
Quote from: zodiacchris on 11/13/2021 07:49 pmLee Jay ... I often think he’s pushing the envelope a bit given he’s a moderator In Lee Jay's defense, there are no rules that say a moderator can't have an opinion and be able to freely express it, whether or not anyone else agrees or disagrees. The only rule that applies to him specifically as a moderator is to be fair and consistent in his moderation efforts. Except for that, he, as a member of this forum, is free to participate in any and all discussions that he wishes to. He is free to express his opinion as he sees fit, without regard to any alleged orthodoxy; as are the rest of us.
Lee Jay ... I often think he’s pushing the envelope a bit given he’s a moderator
Quote from: clongton on 11/14/2021 10:09 pmQuote from: zodiacchris on 11/13/2021 07:49 pmLee Jay ... I often think he’s pushing the envelope a bit given he’s a moderator In Lee Jay's defense, there are no rules that say a moderator can't have an opinion and be able to freely express it, whether or not anyone else agrees or disagrees. The only rule that applies to him specifically as a moderator is to be fair and consistent in his moderation efforts. Except for that, he, as a member of this forum, is free to participate in any and all discussions that he wishes to. He is free to express his opinion as he sees fit, without regard to any alleged orthodoxy; as are the rest of us.Whether Lee Jay is or isn't a mod? Off topic.Whether Lee Jay can have an opinion or not? He can, but off topic.ANYway: I'm a mod. I have opinions. Some of them are not very popular. That's OK. As long as I express them with decorum all is well. AND, if I don't, I get called on the carpet about it by Chris B. As I should.Not that you asked, but ... I vehemently disagree with Lee Jay about almost everything but see no problem with their participation in the conversation, even if they actually were a mod rather than just having the mod bit turned on. Whether Elon is immoral[1] or immortal? Off topic.Whether Elon is a polymath? He is, but off topic.Whether history will look on him as greater than Edison and Ford and Carnegie combined? It will, but off topic. A bit late to the party since y'all veered back on topic mostly but that's me...1 - someone[2] did a very amusing typo for immortal and of course I pounced.2 - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50806.msg2310320#msg2310320
Yes, and this aligns with something Jim Free said in the recent teleconference: that NASA believes mission-based pricing misses the point, and that instead we should consider the costs of establishing capabilities which NASA can leverage repeatedly for years to come.Intellectually I am sympathetic to this perspective, especially when I see folks amortizing the cost of development to arrive at a per-mission figure. And certainly this thinking works well for a more commercial-driven NASA that focuses on R&D and buys services from industry – especially so with highly reusable hardware.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 11/12/2021 10:55 pmYou don't know that.F9's parachute landing never worked. F9 second stage was never made to survive entry and be reused. Falcon Heavy has never had crossfeed. Dragon has never landed propulsively. All of these things were *easier* than what they are doing now with SH and SS. The odds that SH + SS will eventually be successful and fully-reusable are not 100%. The odds they will meet the current expectations for the costs of these things are closer to 0 than to 100.Lee, my disagreement with your argument is that you are presenting a particular effort to meet a goal as if that was the goal itself. F9 parachute landing was not the goal, first stage recovery was. Parachutes were a method examined to attain that goal, but propulsive landing made parachutes unnecessary. Goal met. Same with second stage recovery. The goal was a fully reusable ship. Recovery of the second stage was examined as a method to accomplish that goal and retrofitting an existing rocket wasn’t cost or payload effective. Musk has never abandon the goal of a fully reusable ship, he instead began work on a ship that was designed to be fully reusable from day one. Goal in progress, not abandoned as your post implies. Regarding Crossfeed, the goal was to increase FH payload. Crossfeed was one method examined to do this. During that effort, Merlin efficiency was improved to the point that F9 could now cover the lower end of the FH market and FH without CF could carry more payload as well. The need for crossfeed was greatly diminished if not entirely eliminated. That, along with the work on Starship, would not only make the development and testing effort unnecessary, work on crossfeed would very likely have slowed work on Starship. Goal of lifting more FH payload met, with the additional benefit of more cost efficient F9 launches replacing many FH launches. Dragon propulsive landing was tested, but NASA pulled the plug. Landing the crew propusively is the goal and has not been abandoned, it is being made so integral with Starship and will have been tested hundreds if not thousands of times before ever being used by astronauts, so NASA can’t get cold feet. Again, in progress. Your argument appears to be that when innovating your larger goals are less important than the particular methods you are using to meet those goals. Based on your arguments, you should not switch if a more promising approach is presented. Edison would never have tried his ’10,000 times’ to invent the lightbulb, he would have instead spent the decades until his death continually trying and failing to make his first attempt work.Now, as the moderator, could you reprimand me and get us all back on topic?
You don't know that.F9's parachute landing never worked. F9 second stage was never made to survive entry and be reused. Falcon Heavy has never had crossfeed. Dragon has never landed propulsively. All of these things were *easier* than what they are doing now with SH and SS. The odds that SH + SS will eventually be successful and fully-reusable are not 100%. The odds they will meet the current expectations for the costs of these things are closer to 0 than to 100.
I am not sure, whether we should care, whether NASA did intentionally put the requirements for propulsion landing so high, that SpaceX was unable to meet the schedule or not.
I really wish people would stop saying this as it is 100% wrong. NASA did not pull the plug on propulsive landing for Dragon. NASA came up with a list of what needed to be done to certify the landing system for their use and SpaceX pulled the plug on it and went with a water landing instead. SpaceX decided the process to certify the propulsive landing system was not worth it so SpaceX dropped it.
Quote from: ulm_atms on 01/11/2022 01:02 pmI really wish people would stop saying this as it is 100% wrong. NASA did not pull the plug on propulsive landing for Dragon. NASA came up with a list of what needed to be done to certify the landing system for their use and SpaceX pulled the plug on it and went with a water landing instead. SpaceX decided the process to certify the propulsive landing system was not worth it so SpaceX dropped it.I can always create certification standards that you will not find economically feasible to meet. That does not mean that you could not have met the goal in an economically feasible manner. SpaceX had to take NASA by the hand and lead them to the most long term cost effective solution which involves reusability and propulsive landing.
AJW and ulm_atms are both correct. NASA did not pull the plug on propulsive landing of Dragon. However, the requirements that NASA put in place to certify that method - for NASA Crew aboard - were so stringent that there was not enough time for SpaceX to meet those requirements within the schedule time remaining for Dragon to become operational. Therefore SpaceX pulled the plug on propulsive landing, as ulm_atms stated. However, it is an ungodly stretch of the imagination to even think that NASA did not know that their new requirements were unmeetable in the time remaining. Any thinking person has to know that NASA was fully aware that these requirements would therefore force SpaceX to abandon propulsive landing. Was that by design? Everyone that I've spoken to at the agency (off the record of course) says that it was. In other words, SpaceX got played. Musk accepted temporary defeat (Starship was already brewing) and moved on.