There's nothing about the specification that NASA can't meet. But they failed, at the time they were laying out plans, to give anything resembling a remotely accurate estimate of the cost and time required to meet that specification.Recent comments by Mike Griffin suggest that not have been an accident. It's certainly a pattern with large NASA projects.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 10/13/2018 08:19 amThanks ncb1397. I'm surprised by this high number. I'll do a simulation tomorrow to find out what is going on.SLS is pretty close to the Ariane V architecture
Thanks ncb1397. I'm surprised by this high number. I'll do a simulation tomorrow to find out what is going on.
Quote from: envy887 on 10/12/2018 11:53 pmThere's nothing about the specification that NASA can't meet. But they failed, at the time they were laying out plans, to give anything resembling a remotely accurate estimate of the cost and time required to meet that specification.Recent comments by Mike Griffin suggest that not have been an accident. It's certainly a pattern with large NASA projects.What did Griffin say? Do you have a link?Thanks in advance.
I must also point out that there have been many instances where proponents of individual missions have downplayed the technical difficulty and risk of their individual mission, or grossly underestimated the cost and effort involved to solve the problems, in order to gain "new start" funds for particular project. Everyone knows that, once started, any given mission is nearly impossible to cancel, so the goal becomes that of getting started, no matter what has to be said or done to accomplish it. I am speaking here not only to industry and scientific investigators, but also to organizations within NASA. This is a matter of integrity for our community. NASA managers, the White House, and Congress have seen this behavior too many times, and the Agency has lost a great deal of credibility over the decades as a result. There was a time - I remember it, and many of you will also - when what "NASA" said could be taken to the bank. Anyone here think it's like that today? Show of hands? ... I didn't think so.
I have spent a good portion of my time as Administrator trying to rebuild that credibility with more rigorous technical review and independent cost estimating processes. But, folks, we are in this together. We will not be trusted with more funding to carry out great, new, exciting space missions in the future, human or robotic, if we oversell and underdeliver on our commitments today. Across the board, we must be realistic in our assessments of cost and technical risk if we are to be trusted with funds provided to us by the American taxpayer.
I assume you mean "Ares V", not "Ariane V" as written...
Quote from: envy887 on 10/12/2018 11:53 pmThere's nothing about the specification that NASA can't meet.Seemed like there was some question about that, but OK.QuoteBut they failed, at the time they were laying out plans, to give anything resembling a remotely accurate estimate of the cost and time required to meet that specification.Recent comments by Mike Griffin suggest that not have been an accident.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Congress ever asked for a budget for the SLS or the Orion. And they certainly have not held hearings about the SLS where they reviewed NASA's budget targets.In fact, last I heard NASA hasn't told Congress how much the SLS would cost to operate, and we in the public certainly don't know either.QuoteIt's certainly a pattern with large NASA projects.No, the SLS and Orion programs are major exceptions. They did not go through the normal program process, but instead the design and major contractors were mandated by Congress without any bidding process, and no overall budget was ever set. Which is why I say the SLS can never be under-funded or over-budget, because no cost goals were ever established.Anyone think the NASA OIG report will cause the House or Senate to review the program? I'm not holding my breath...
There's nothing about the specification that NASA can't meet.
But they failed, at the time they were laying out plans, to give anything resembling a remotely accurate estimate of the cost and time required to meet that specification.Recent comments by Mike Griffin suggest that not have been an accident.
It's certainly a pattern with large NASA projects.
Thanks for that excerpt from Griffin's speech. Here's the next paragraph, which is also relevant:QuoteI have spent a good portion of my time as Administrator trying to rebuild that credibility with more rigorous technical review and independent cost estimating processes. But, folks, we are in this together. We will not be trusted with more funding to carry out great, new, exciting space missions in the future, human or robotic, if we oversell and underdeliver on our commitments today. Across the board, we must be realistic in our assessments of cost and technical risk if we are to be trusted with funds provided to us by the American taxpayer.'Nuff said.
NASA never provided a total cost estimate, because Congress never demanded one.
But NASA did not publicly object to the 2016 deadline...
...and for years has proposed SLS budget requests every year that did not realistically reflect what they needed to hit that deadline.
The obvious implication was that they expected to hit that schedule with the proposed budget, when realistically they would have needed double the money or even more than that.
Quote from: envy887 on 10/14/2018 03:03 amNASA never provided a total cost estimate, because Congress never demanded one.Congress told NASA to create the SLS, and if Congress was interested in knowing the total development costs, or what the operational costs would be, then all they have to do is tell NASA to provide the information.QuoteBut NASA did not publicly object to the 2016 deadline..."NASA" works for the President, and "NASA" does not question Congress.Quote...and for years has proposed SLS budget requests every year that did not realistically reflect what they needed to hit that deadline."NASA" does not propose it's own budget, the President does via the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). NASA personnel provide input, but it's really up to the OMB to decide what goes into the President's budget.
Quote from: Kabloona on 10/13/2018 11:04 pmThanks for that excerpt from Griffin's speech. Here's the next paragraph, which is also relevant:QuoteI have spent a good portion of my time as Administrator trying to rebuild that credibility with more rigorous technical review and independent cost estimating processes. But, folks, we are in this together. We will not be trusted with more funding to carry out great, new, exciting space missions in the future, human or robotic, if we oversell and underdeliver on our commitments today. Across the board, we must be realistic in our assessments of cost and technical risk if we are to be trusted with funds provided to us by the American taxpayer.'Nuff said.Yes. To be clear, I'm not bagging Griffin here. He's entirely right on this point.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/14/2018 04:09 amQuote from: envy887 on 10/14/2018 03:03 am...and for years has proposed SLS budget requests every year that did not realistically reflect what they needed to hit that deadline."NASA" does not propose it's own budget, the President does via the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). NASA personnel provide input, but it's really up to the OMB to decide what goes into the President's budget.NASA is (supposed to be) the technical authority on how much money and time it takes to build a rocket.
Quote from: envy887 on 10/14/2018 03:03 am...and for years has proposed SLS budget requests every year that did not realistically reflect what they needed to hit that deadline."NASA" does not propose it's own budget, the President does via the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). NASA personnel provide input, but it's really up to the OMB to decide what goes into the President's budget.
The adminstration actually writes the budget, but it should reflect NASA's estimates.
Unless the administration is trying to undermine Congress' intent by deliberately underfunding the project.
In the case of SLS, not only do they not care about the cost, but they don't really care about the schedule either. (which to me strongly indicates that the goal is pork and not a rocket)