OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract

[TheRadicalModerate]

VAB changes:  $1B - $2B?

why so much? 
<snip>

Just a guess. Removing the old service platforms and replaced them with new service platforms in the VAB then hooking up everything. Plus operating and maintaining the new service platforms.

Another thing to keep in mind is that a second source for cislunar transport probably doesn't mean an instant cancellation of SLS/Orion.  So the VAB would need to be able to switch back and forth between FrankenStarship and SLS/Orion.

My most recent understanding is that High Bay #3 is the main SLS/Orion integration area.  NorGrumm was going to use HB #2 for Omega, but it's gone.  SLS uses HB #4 for pre-integration activities--I don't understand what these are.

So SpaceX could do something with HB #1 or #2, but we're talking about a complete build-out of one of these high bays, which would indeed be a couple of $B, once all the VAB contractors had gotten their beaks wet.

They might do better building their own mid-bay on Roberts Rd., but then they'd have to get it qualified to stack the Orion.  That sounds like a thankless (and expensive) task.

[pochimax]

So SpaceX could do something with HB #1 or #2, but we're talking about a complete build-out of one of these high bays, which would indeed be a couple of $B, once all the VAB contractors had gotten their beaks wet.

How is it possible that SpX makes a whole new development of a never-before-seen lunar lander for only 3 billion and now it turns out that for two scaffolds and four platforms SpX is not capable of doing it for less than 2 billion?
I don't find any logic.

[DanClemmensen]

So SpaceX could do something with HB #1 or #2, but we're talking about a complete build-out of one of these high bays, which would indeed be a couple of $B, once all the VAB contractors had gotten their beaks wet.

How is it possible that SpX makes a whole new development of a never-before-seen lunar lander for only 3 billion and now it turns out that for two scaffolds and four platforms SpX is not capable of doing it for less than 2 billion?
I don't find any logic.

The folks here, especially including me, are just guessing, but the guesses have some basis. Among other things, a NASA contract for a straight SLS replacement will likely be quite different from the original HLS contract. For another I think we are assuming that the FrankenStarship, and especially its GSE, would be unique to Orion, so the Orion launches would need to cover the costs. By contrast, the bulk of the HLS development directly leverages the work SpaceX already intended to do fr generic Starship. If you wish to compare bid prices, look at the original $6 B bid for the first BO HLS, or the $9 B bid for the Dynetics HLS, or even the $3.4 B bid for the BO Appendix P HLS was was actually awarded. All of these were for unique special-purpose hardware with very low use rates. By contrast, SpaceX was apparently willing to bid just enough to cover the incremental costs (and presmably a nice profit) while still funding the base Starship using its own money.

The other problem is that Frankenstarship must be co-developed with major non-SpaceX components, especially GSE. SpaceX may very well be able to develop the stubby SS for $200 M (or whatever). The rest of the $2B is for mostly non-SpaceX work at KSC.

[whitelancer64]

*snip*
My most recent understanding is that High Bay #3 is the main SLS/Orion integration area.  NorGrumm was going to use HB #2 for Omega, but it's gone.  SLS uses HB #4 for pre-integration activities--I don't understand what these are.

*snip*

For Artemis III and onward, the SLS core will have its engines installed in the VAB instead of at Michoud. NASA also stores various parts and equipment there. I also think that SRB segments are kept there until they are stacked.

[pochimax]

The folks here, especially including me, are just guessing, but the guesses have some basis. Among other things, a NASA contract for a straight SLS replacement will likely be quite different from the original HLS contract. For another I think we are assuming that the FrankenStarship, and especially its GSE, would be unique to Orion, so the Orion launches would need to cover the costs. By contrast, the bulk of the HLS development directly leverages the work SpaceX already intended to do fr generic Starship. If you wish to compare bid prices, look at the original $6 B bid for the first BO HLS, or the $9 B bid for the Dynetics HLS, or even the $3.4 B bid for the BO Appendix P HLS was was actually awarded. All of these were for unique special-purpose hardware with very low use rates. By contrast, SpaceX was apparently willing to bid just enough to cover the incremental costs (and presmably a nice profit) while still funding the base Starship using its own money.

The other problem is that Frankenstarship must be co-developed with major non-SpaceX components, especially GSE. SpaceX may very well be able to develop the stubby SS for $200 M (or whatever). The rest of the $2B is for mostly non-SpaceX work at KSC.

Well... simply:
Contract the entire process (modifications, rocket, launch, support, etc.) completely with SpX. Avoid other contractors.

I think SpX needs a place to mount vertically integrated payloads on the Starship. I understand that the cheapest thing is to lease and modify the VAB to SpX but if SpX has another plan, simply integrate the Orion there. Surely then it will be even much cheaper.
There will probably be dozens of launches of vertically integrated payloads, for DoD, NASA, Government, etc...., surely SpX will have an idea of how to make those types of launches compatible with those of the Orion. Actually, I think the cost of these investments for NASA should be literally zero, since that investment will probably be paid for by the DoD
NASA just has to send Orion to SpX, ready to launch. To VAB or wherever. SpX will take care of everything else.

Furthermore, with the savings we have by avoiding SLS, the Orion can be launched twice a year to the Gateway or even more frequently. Europe is ready to increase its production rate of ESMs and even modify them so that they have more delta-v and test other types of missions (asteroids).

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
Furthermore, with the savings we have by avoiding SLS, the Orion can be launched twice a year to the Gateway or even more frequently. Europe is ready to increase its production rate of ESMs and even modify them so that they have more delta-v and test other types of missions (asteroids).

Afraid upgrading the European service module might not be needed. Since a refueled stubby Starship variant could act as the canceled Altair lander for Earth departure and trans injected to destination orbit roles.

Frankly even the Orion might be phased out early and be replace by a simpler Earth reentry vehicle (EaRV) with a stubby Starship variant as orbital transfer vehicle, cargo transport and habitat. The Orion with 2 weeks of life support is simply too expensive, when you can get several Starship/EaRV sets for the cost of one Orion and its sprawling support infrastructure footprint.

Sadly the SLS and Orion are linked together. They only exists to justified each other. Since the only payload that needs the SLS is the Orion, which currently have no other launcher. If one gets axed, the other will also get axed.

[pochimax]

<snip>
Furthermore, with the savings we have by avoiding SLS, the Orion can be launched twice a year to the Gateway or even more frequently. Europe is ready to increase its production rate of ESMs and even modify them so that they have more delta-v and test other types of missions (asteroids).

Afraid upgrading the European service module might not be needed. Since a refueled stubby Starship variant could act as the canceled Altair lander for Earth departure and trans injected to destination orbit roles.

Frankly even the Orion might be phased out early and be replace by a simpler Earth reentry vehicle (EaRV) with a stubby Starship variant as orbital transfer vehicle, cargo transport and habitat. The Orion with 2 weeks of life support is simply too expensive, when you can get several Starship/EaRV sets for the cost of one Orion and its sprawling support infrastructure footprint.

Sadly the SLS and Orion are linked together. They only exists to justified each other. Since the only payload that needs the SLS is the Orion, which currently have no other launcher. If one gets axed, the other will also get axed.

SpX will actually launch a Starship on a nominal flight (>100 Tm, Starlink or whatever) several years before the Starship HLS crewed lunar landing flight happens.
From the moment of that first flight, let's say in 2025, NASA will have to consider the possibility of launching the Orion using the Starship rocket and put that option out to tender. I don't know how long it would take SpX to modify the rocket to launch the Orion, but probably even in time to overtake the Artemis IV SLS.
On the other hand, an alternative to Orion based on the Starship HLS will not be seen in any case BEFORE the moon landing has actually occurred.
I even see it as highly likely that an Orion launch on a Starship will happen before a NASA astronaut lands on the Moon on an HLS.

[TheRadicalModerate]

So SpaceX could do something with HB #1 or #2, but we're talking about a complete build-out of one of these high bays, which would indeed be a couple of $B, once all the VAB contractors had gotten their beaks wet.

How is it possible that SpX makes a whole new development of a never-before-seen lunar lander for only 3 billion and now it turns out that for two scaffolds and four platforms SpX is not capable of doing it for less than 2 billion?
I don't find any logic.

Well, first, it's a lot more than $3B, because the majority of it has been opaquely funded by SpaceX for non-HLS purposes.  The $3B is for the work to turn a vanilla Starship into an LSS, with a bit of refueling tech being subsidized.  (Note:  Starship doesn't need refueling tech for anything happening in LEO or GTO, so NASA is paying to accelerate it somewhat.)

Second, why would SpaceX want to do FrankenStarship unless the DDT&E profit baked into it far exceeded the opportunity costs incurred by moving a bunch of engineers off Starship enhanced reusability, refueling tech, improved lunar landers, and stuff for Mars?

Third, and by far the most serious, is that to engage with Orion's infrastructure is to engage with a whole bunch of interests that have nice, cushy cost-plus contracts, which would have to be modified (increased) to provide support for Orion stacking infrastructure, no matter how much of it SpaceX was willing to take over.  Not only do those interests fear anything that starts to tear down the SLS/Orion industrial complex, but they know they're in the driver's seat when it comes to any part of EGS that touches on Orion.  I don't know the percentage of that, but my guess is that it's non-trivial, both from a DDT&E perspective and as a marginal, per-mission cost.

SpaceX can't do this on their own, because Orion's certification is all tied up in that rats' nest of EGS activities.  And the people who control those contracts are going to look at this as a big, fat, slow-moving barge of money traversing their field of view.

Frankly, I don't see much incentive for SpaceX to participate in this.  It's much easier for them just to start flying D2 - OTV kludge missions and let Orion stew in its own juices.  I think they might be fine providing the stubby Starship, because that actually has a lot of uses.  But beyond that, they've got lots of plans for their own ground systems, and none of them involve Orion.

From the moment of that first flight, let's say in 2025, NASA will have to consider the possibility of launching the Orion using the Starship rocket and put that option out to tender.

NASA may have to consider replacing SLS/Orion altogether.  But they only have to consider using Orion if it's actually cheaper than other options, or provides capabilities that other solutions don't have. 

It's almost certainly not cheaper.  And the only capability it provides that's even partially defensible is eliminating two RPODs in LEO or if rolling co-manifests to CLVs is insurmountably difficult.  If RPODs are going to be a problem, then the whole refueling architecture probably won't work.  And if NASA can't get a co-manifested payload to work on something else, they're doomed.

[pochimax]

Frankly, I don't see much incentive for SpaceX to participate in this.

NASA would be asking for it... I don't understand why it seems like little incentive. Can anyone really believe that SpX is going to refuse a NASA request? 

NASA may have to consider replacing SLS/Orion altogether.

I do not see it. There is a very important temporal problem. There will be a potential competitor to the SLS several years BEFORE there will be a potential competitor to the Orion spacecraft. NASA cannot wait for the Orion competitor to exist before it can look for commercial replacements for the SLS. Perhaps in the not near future it will be able to look for a replacement for the Orion, but at first it will have no choice but to try to launch the Orion on a Starship rocket.

[DanClemmensen]

Frankly, I don't see much incentive for SpaceX to participate in this.

NASA would be asking for it... I don't understand why it seems like little incentive. Can anyone really believe that SpX is going to refuse a NASA request? 

NASA may have to consider replacing SLS/Orion altogether.

I do not see it. There is a very important temporal problem. There will be a potential competitor to the SLS several years BEFORE there will be a potential competitor to the Orion spacecraft. NASA cannot wait for the Orion competitor to exist before it can look for commercial replacements for the SLS. Perhaps in the not near future it will be able to look for a replacement for the Orion, but at first it will have no choice but to try to launch the Orion on a Starship rocket.

We have a basic disagreement here, so we keep restating the same things. I (and others) feel that an SLS/Orion mission can be functionally replaced by a mission that uses Crew Dragon to LEO and a Starship HLS acting as an OTV to take crew to NRHO and back to LEO. This does not replace Orion with Dragon, or SLS with HLS-OTV. Instead, it replaces (SLS/Orion) with (D2/OTV). By definition, HLS OTV will be ready at the time of the first Starship HLS Lunar landing: it's a second instance of the Starship HLS. Not temporal problem. More, any contract to replace SLS with FrankenStarship will take several year to get through the entire procurement cycle, while (D2/OTV) uses hardware that is already being developed.

For some reason, you seem to believe that NASA will insist on replacing SLS, and separately eventually replacing Orion, so we are talking about different things. You may in fact be correct, but I (and others) simply do not agree.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Frankly, I don't see much incentive for SpaceX to participate in this.

NASA would be asking for it... I don't understand why it seems like little incentive. Can anyone really believe that SpX is going to refuse a NASA request?

NASA can't just ask SpaceX for this.  They'd have to issue an RFP and get a bid.  Most likely, they'd have to write a JOFOC (justification of other than fair and open compeitition) to explain why SpaceX was the only bidder capable of providing the service.  And they can't make SpaceX do the work; if SpaceX thinks the work would distract too much from things they actually care about, they'd jack the price up until it made decent business sense.

Or they might just tell NASA to JOFOC themselves...

But it'd be much, much cleaner for NASA simply to issue a BAA for a second source for the Earth-NRHO-Earth segment and throw it open to public competition.  The only reason not to do that is if the congressional appropriation for the program insisted that Orion be used.  But if Congress has actually gotten embarrassed enough to appropriate for this, it seems unlikely that they'd want to attach any strings.

Note that we're nowhere near the pain point where Congress would appropriate money for this.  The OIG report is a pretty good whack upside the head, as was the previous OIG report that laid out the $4.2B marginal cost for each SLS/Orion launch.  But it's likely a few additional whacks will be required before anything happens.

[VSECOTSPE]

But it'd be much, much cleaner for NASA simply to issue a BAA for a second source for the Earth-NRHO-Earth segment and throw it open to public competition.

This.  So much this.

I get that folks like to LEGO-engineer their pet solutions using the systems and subsystems laying around and then imagine how easy it would be to just sole-source their genius.  But folks should also remember that’s what Mike Griffin and Scott Horowitz did, and it got us Ares I.  And it’s what NASA Senate detailees Tom Cremins and Jeff Bingham did, and it got us SLS.

Let industry do its job.  Let competition do its work.  The process is actually as important, if not more so, than the specific solutions.

[yg1968]

But it'd be much, much cleaner for NASA simply to issue a BAA for a second source for the Earth-NRHO-Earth segment and throw it open to public competition.

This.  So much this.

I get that folks like to LEGO-engineer their pet solutions using the systems and subsystems laying around and then imagine how easy it would be to just sole-source their genius.  But folks should also remember that’s what Mike Griffin and Scott Horowitz did, and it got us Ares I.  And it’s what NASA Senate detailees Tom Cremins and Jeff Bingham did, and it got us SLS.

Let industry do its job.  Let competition do its work.  The process is actually as important, if not more so, than the specific solutions.

Speaking of Mike Griffin, here is what he had to say about these public-private partnerships:

Speaking at the American Astronautical Society’s von Braun Space Exploration Symposium Oct. 27, former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin discussed the “regrettable square-wave flip from it’s all government all the time in space to if it isn’t commercial, why are we bothering to do it?”

Griffin did not specifically mention LTV or other programs that have taken the services approach, but he argued that the shift to commercial approaches deprived government agencies of doing “a certain amount of work themselves,” in the process building up experience they can then apply to other programs.

He also said companies advocating for commercial approaches are doing so because they want government money without the rules and regulations involved in traditional government contracting approaches. “Until we can return to the proper definition of commercial we’re going to be kidding ourselves.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-delays-artemis-lunar-rover-award-by-four-months/

[VSECOTSPE]

Speaking of Mike Griffin, here is what he had to say about these public-private partnerships:

I didn’t know that anyone still paid attention to what that corrupt whiny hack has to say, so I didn’t quote him.

Foust also strangely jammed Griffin’s comments into an article on LTV, when Griffin’s comments weren’t about LTV, trying to create a controversy or story where there wasn’t one.

Speaking at the American Astronautical Society’s von Braun Space Exploration Symposium Oct. 27, former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin discussed the “regrettable square-wave flip from it’s all government all the time in space to if it isn’t commercial, why are we bothering to do it?”

Usual bogus lying from Griffin.  What complete flip?  In Artemis, NASA is still stuck with Orion (thanks to Griffin) and SLS, both NASA-managed projects.  They consume something approaching $5 billion per year, over half the Artemis budget, while at the same time constraining future Artemis mission rates and sizes to four astronauts once every year or two, maybe someday out in the 2030s.  In Space Ops, NASA is still stuck blowing a couple billion of dollars a year on ISS, another NASA-managed project with productivity that is a small fraction of its cost, for the rest of the decade or more, while a piddling couple or few hundred million dollars are spent annually to develop its successor(s).  In Science, there’s one small, experimental program (CLPS) to use commercial landers to access the lunar surface for tens to very low hundreds of millions of dollars.  The vast majority of the rest of the ~$8B annual Science budget is either competitive, PI-led missions or NASA center-managed flagship missions.  Because NASA has always grossly underfunded Technology, those small projects have always had to look for cost-sharing partners, commercial or otherwise.

Griffin did not specifically mention LTV or other programs that have taken the services approach, but he argued that the shift to commercial approaches deprived government agencies of doing “a certain amount of work themselves,” in the process building up experience they can then apply to other programs.

There’s nothing wrong with using certain projects as insurance so that NASA has access to experienced, trained managers.  But insurance of any type should only consume a small portion of the available budget, not the vast majority of it.  No one pays $20K for a car and then another $10K to $20K annually to insure it.  No one pays $400K for a house and then another $200K to $400K annually to insure it.  Only NASA...

And these training projects can’t be major national human space flight objectives or on the critical path to them.  No one trains brain surgeons or nuclear engineers by putting grads in charge of operating wards and reactors.

If NASA wants experienced aerospace development managers, then go to where they’ve been ever since the Apollo draw-down, in industry.  This is an H/R problem, not a flight project problem.  Back in the late 90s, NASA was given H/R authorities to rapidly hire small numbers of experienced private sector managers at considerably higher salaries than the civil service.  Use them.

He also said companies advocating for commercial approaches are doing so because they want government money without the rules and regulations involved in traditional government contracting approaches. “Until we can return to the proper definition of commercial we’re going to be kidding ourselves.”

Griffin has been stupidly or dishonestly hung up on the definition of “commercial” ever since COTS, when the cost-sharing (public-private partnership) aspect of these projects is about the fourth most important aspect of them behind competition, requirements definition, and fixed-price.  NASA can have projects with those three elements without any commercial cost-sharing.

What NASA can’t have is corrupt Administrators hand-picking technical solutions, justifying those solutions with technically flawed studies, and then sole-sourcing the resulting contracts in the absence of competition in exchange for cushy jobs with universities and companies in Huntsville after leaving NASA.

Ugh... bleah...

[Emmettvonbrown]

How about the EELV black zones - dear God. I followed that "debate" on this very forum at the time (I'm a very long time lurker) , and it's still infuriates me to this day.
Blaming EELVs for (mostly imaginary) black zones was quite outrageous, considering the pogo / vibrations issues marring Ares 1. Also that air-started SSME, wait, no, that J-2X struggling with an overweight Orion...

The proverbial mote and beam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam

 "Dear Mike Griffin : why beholdest thou the black zone that is in thy EELV boosters, but considerest not the pogo issue that is in thine own Ares 1 ? "

 

It was easier to blame EELVs and reject them for mostly imaginary flaws - than acknowledging that the Prefered Rocket (Ares 1) was flawed - for real. Also Pork Barrel would not tolerate EELVs because they didn't used SSME... wait, neither did Ares 1 with its J-2X - so forget that argument.

[VSECOTSPE]

Yeah, it’s unusual for a former NASA Administrator comment on the agency’s current program decisions.  Goldin, O’Keefe, and Bolden aren’t doing that.

But it’s especially striking to hear Griffin claim that programs are skirting rules today when he hired a former astronaut from ATK to be his Exploration AA, that former astronaut then sole sourced contracts back to ATK, and his chief of staff was illegally directing funds to Mississippi State U. (and taking a cut, for which he served nearly 3.5 years in prison).  The gall...  Why AIA (a professional org for which I once volunteered as treasurer) gives a platform to the disgraced likes of Griffin or Doug Cooke (whom Boeing pays six figures to argue on their behalf), I’ll never understand.

Back on topic... regarding the IG report on the unlikelihood of SLS cost savings, Boeing defense and space is no longer doing fixed-price contracts.  No one may realize or acknowledge it yet, but that puts a stake through the heart SLS contract consolidation efforts, regardless of whether they could ever produce cost savings.  If Boeing won’t accept fixed-price arrangements, then Deep Space Transport (DST), the joint venture of Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and P&W to service the consolidated SLS Exploration Production and Operations Contract, is effectively dead.

In a conference call with analysts on Wednesday, Boeing's chief executive, David Calhoun, and chief financial officer, Brian West, expressed disappointment in these results from the defense and space division. They reiterated their goal of returning the company's defense and space businesses to profitability by the 2025 to 2026 period.

Notably, the pair pinned the blame for performance by its defense and space division, referred to internally as BDS, on fixed-price contracts. As the BDS division seeks a return to profitability, West said Boeing will not be using fixed-price contracts anymore.

"Perhaps most importantly, we instituted much tighter underwriting standards," he said. "As you know, part of the challenge we're dealing with are legacy contracts that we need to get out from under. Rest assured, we haven't signed any fixed-price development contracts, nor intend to.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-make-money-with-fixed-price-contracts/

[woods170]

Frankly, I don't see much incentive for SpaceX to participate in this.

NASA would be asking for it... I don't understand why it seems like little incentive. Can anyone really believe that SpX is going to refuse a NASA request? 

Why carry this discussion any further? NASA is realistically NEVER going to ask SpaceX to fly Orion on anything other than SLS.

This entire back-and-forth over what SpaceX would or would not do, with regards to Orion, is completely hypothetical and pretty much pointless. It only serves a protracted "heels-firmly-planted-in-soil" back-and-forth between some folks here, until it reaches the point where the moderators will intervene and either:

A. Clean up this mess
B. Don't bother to do A and just lock this thread.

[woods170]

Speaking of Mike Griffin, here is what he had to say about these public-private partnerships:

Speaking at the American Astronautical Society’s von Braun Space Exploration Symposium Oct. 27, former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin discussed the “regrettable square-wave flip from it’s all government all the time in space to if it isn’t commercial, why are we bothering to do it?”

Griffin did not specifically mention LTV or other programs that have taken the services approach, but he argued that the shift to commercial approaches deprived government agencies of doing “a certain amount of work themselves,” in the process building up experience they can then apply to other programs.

He also said companies advocating for commercial approaches are doing so because they want government money without the rules and regulations involved in traditional government contracting approaches. “Until we can return to the proper definition of commercial we’re going to be kidding ourselves.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-delays-artemis-lunar-rover-award-by-four-months/

Mike Griffin would be well advised to STFU on this subject. Failed engineer and worst NASA administrator ever "gifting" the world with the worst launcher ever (Ares I) shouldn't be giving highly uninformed (and that's putting it mildly) "advice" on how today's NASA should run things.
The spaceflight community would IMO be a much better place if people stopped giving attention to Griffin.

[Eric Hedman]

Speaking of Mike Griffin, here is what he had to say about these public-private partnerships:

Speaking at the American Astronautical Society’s von Braun Space Exploration Symposium Oct. 27, former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin discussed the “regrettable square-wave flip from it’s all government all the time in space to if it isn’t commercial, why are we bothering to do it?”

Griffin did not specifically mention LTV or other programs that have taken the services approach, but he argued that the shift to commercial approaches deprived government agencies of doing “a certain amount of work themselves,” in the process building up experience they can then apply to other programs.

He also said companies advocating for commercial approaches are doing so because they want government money without the rules and regulations involved in traditional government contracting approaches. “Until we can return to the proper definition of commercial we’re going to be kidding ourselves.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-delays-artemis-lunar-rover-award-by-four-months/

Mike Griffin would be well advised to STFU on this subject. Failed engineer and worst NASA administrator ever "gifting" the world with the worst launcher ever (Ares I) shouldn't be giving highly uninformed (and that's putting it mildly) "advice" on how today's NASA should run things.
The spaceflight community would IMO be a much better place if people stopped giving attention to Griffin.

Don't hold back.  Tell us how you really feel.

P.S. I agree with you

[yg1968]

Speaking of Mike Griffin, here is what he had to say about these public-private partnerships:

I didn’t know that anyone still paid attention to what that corrupt whiny hack has to say, so I didn’t quote him.

Here is Griffin's entire speech, if you are interested. As you expect, he criticizes the HLS program and the commercial crew program (incidentally, I agree with your post above):



Senator Nelson's thinking on commercial crew and HLS has evolved but it's unfortunate that Griffin's ideas haven't changed since Constellation.