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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/02/2022 01:09 amEarlier 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 welcome privatization, if it forces SLS launches to compete with the rest of the market.
Quote from: DigitalMan on 03/02/2022 09:41 pmI 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.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 03/02/2022 09:52 pmQuote from: DigitalMan on 03/02/2022 09:41 pmI 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.
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.
Quote from: Proponent on 03/03/2022 02:09 pmSwitching 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.
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?
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1498701849360310279https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1498712201540087810
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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/02/2022 01:06 amhttps://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1498701849360310279https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1498712201540087810Can 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)...
Quote from: DigitalMan on 03/04/2022 03:30 pmLook 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.
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