Author Topic: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion  (Read 73743 times)

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #120 on: 09/09/2011 03:25 PM »
I'm wondering if the Senators are talking about SLS costs while the WSJ is reporting total program budget, which just so happens to be about two times as much. 

Wouldn't it be nice if NASA put the numbers out for all to see so that this selective reporting and selective responding could end?  How is the public supposed to understand the debate if the facts are not available - kept hidden by the people having the debate! 

 - Ed Kyle

The die-hard SLS opponents know that the numbers do not back them up, so they are sitting on them, and leaking distorted half-truths, hoping to outlast any remnant pro-SLS blocs.

Once again we are forced to hope that Congress can take some decisive action against these delaying tactics, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.  Where is the report? Where is the subpoena? Where is the documentation? Where are the bi-weekly reports to Congress?

Why the dead-set opposition by the Administration to a federal program that will cost only a small fraction of the stimulus spending that Obama is proposing, and over a much longer period?  Why the opposition to creating high-paying, high-tech, STEM careers in aerospace? Isn't that what we keep hearing from Obama, more STEM, more STEM, more STEM? Well, what are all these STEM graduates supposed to do with their expensive STEM educations after they graduate?

Grrr, I shouldn't post so early in the morning...

You know the answers to all of your questions. Because the administration doesn't think that a government owned, government operated SD-HLV is viable in the long term. They prefer a more commercially derived option. 

The question is, what changed from last July 15th, when a senior White House aide called senior NASA and OSTP leadership and said he had just come from the Oval Office and had been directed to convey the message that "The President supports the Senate approach."?

Not to mention, of course, that the President signed the resulting bill into law, and ALL of those same officials subsequently stated their intent to comply with it, two of them during a Senate hearing on December 1st, in response to a direct question, in effect: Do you consider the law to be Administration policy? They answered in the affirmative.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #121 on: 09/09/2011 03:31 PM »

Is someone lying ???   Wonder who.

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 953
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #122 on: 09/09/2011 03:54 PM »
The die-hard SLS opponents know that the numbers do not back them up, so they are sitting on them, and leaking distorted half-truths, hoping to outlast any remnant pro-SLS blocs.

Once again we are forced to hope that Congress can take some decisive action against these delaying tactics, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.  Where is the report? Where is the subpoena? Where is the documentation? Where are the bi-weekly reports to Congress?

Why the dead-set opposition by the Administration to a federal program that will cost only a small fraction of the stimulus spending that Obama is proposing, and over a much longer period?  Why the opposition to creating high-paying, high-tech, STEM careers in aerospace? Isn't that what we keep hearing from Obama, more STEM, more STEM, more STEM? Well, what are all these STEM graduates supposed to do with their expensive STEM educations after they graduate?

Grrr, I shouldn't post so early in the morning...

Mark S I have always been a big fan of NASA, however when it comes to their record with regards to how well a projects actual costs compare to the estimated costs their record is horrible. 

Even with unmanned spaceflight where there exists less unknowns their record is poor.  The JWST was supposed to cost $3.5 billion, but now is projected to cost $8.7 billion.  The MSL was projected to cost $1.63 billion, but now cost $2.3 billion. 


Fact of the matter is that NASA human spaceflight project almost always cost significantly more than these projections. 

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #123 on: 09/09/2011 03:57 PM »
You know the answers to all of your questions. Because the administration doesn't think that a government owned, government operated SD-HLV is viable in the long term. They prefer a more commercially derived option. 

The question is, what changed from last July 15th, when a senior White House aide called senior NASA and OSTP leadership and said he had just come from the Oval Office and had been directed to convey the message that "The President supports the Senate approach."?

Not to mention, of course, that the President signed the resulting bill into law, and ALL of those same officials subsequently stated their intent to comply with it, two of them during a Senate hearing on December 1st, in response to a direct question, in effect: Do you consider the law to be Administration policy? They answered in the affirmative.

I hope you are not as naive as your comment above makes you seem, 51D. Of course they backed it then - because they wanted the compromise bill passed.

But it is no secret that they have never been enthusiastic supporters of SLS. (With good reason, IMO, but I've made my opinion clear on that many times elsewhere) So why does it surprise anyone that they are not in a hurry to enact/support a part of a bill they never cared much for to begin with?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2666
  • Likes Given: 6833
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #124 on: 09/09/2011 04:17 PM »
The President proposed a” five year study” on the next launch vehicle. He never mentioned cost IIRC. One down, four more to go…?

Robert
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #125 on: 09/09/2011 05:12 PM »
You know the answers to all of your questions. Because the administration doesn't think that a government owned, government operated SD-HLV is viable in the long term. They prefer a more commercially derived option. 

The question is, what changed from last July 15th, when a senior White House aide called senior NASA and OSTP leadership and said he had just come from the Oval Office and had been directed to convey the message that "The President supports the Senate approach."?

Not to mention, of course, that the President signed the resulting bill into law, and ALL of those same officials subsequently stated their intent to comply with it, two of them during a Senate hearing on December 1st, in response to a direct question, in effect: Do you consider the law to be Administration policy? They answered in the affirmative.

I hope you are not as naive as your comment above makes you seem, 51D. Of course they backed it then - because they wanted the compromise bill passed.

But it is no secret that they have never been enthusiastic supporters of SLS. (With good reason, IMO, but I've made my opinion clear on that many times elsewhere) So why does it surprise anyone that they are not in a hurry to enact/support a part of a bill they never cared much for to begin with?

Hehe...well, I have been called a lot of things, but naive hasn't been one of them. I guess you know more about what was actually involved in getting that bill passed than I do, and what's transpired since.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #126 on: 09/09/2011 05:17 PM »
If you say so. ;D No, I just think that their *public* intentions have been very clear from the beginning. I'm not sure what transpired behind the scenes to get the bill passed, but it seems to have very little impact on what is transpiring now. And surely that is not the first time you have seen such behavior from administrations in dealing with laws they tepidly support.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #127 on: 09/09/2011 05:21 PM »
If you say so. ;D No, I just think that their *public* intentions have been very clear from the beginning. I'm not sure what transpired behind the scenes to get the bill passed, but it seems to have very little impact on what is transpiring now. And surely that is not the first time you have seen such behavior from administrations in dealing with laws they tepidly support.

I neglected to mention also that it was really a "rhetorical" question, because I actually DO know both what it took to pass the bill and what has transpired in the interim since. Just not in a position to discuss the latter, right now.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #128 on: 09/09/2011 05:24 PM »
Of course I know that. Did you not see the smilie?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9588
  • Liked: 1340
  • Likes Given: 850
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #129 on: 09/09/2011 05:46 PM »
The question is, what changed from last July 15th, when a senior White House aide called senior NASA and OSTP leadership and said he had just come from the Oval Office and had been directed to convey the message that "The President supports the Senate approach."?

Not to mention, of course, that the President signed the resulting bill into law, and ALL of those same officials subsequently stated their intent to comply with it, two of them during a Senate hearing on December 1st, in response to a direct question, in effect: Do you consider the law to be Administration policy? They answered in the affirmative.

July 15th 2011 or July 15, 2010? I didn't know that a President's spokeseperson had said anything about SLS on July 15, 2011. Can you elaborate on this?

Offline Spacely

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #130 on: 09/09/2011 05:55 PM »
Re: 51D

Is the Administration pushing back against all plans/budgets, or simply the Authorization Act versions (55-65 billion through 2025)?

On the flip-side, are the Space State Congresspeople pushing back against all plans/budget, or just the FY12 run-out versions (no manned flight until 2021)?

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #131 on: 09/09/2011 06:08 PM »
The question is, what changed from last July 15th, when a senior White House aide called senior NASA and OSTP leadership and said he had just come from the Oval Office and had been directed to convey the message that "The President supports the Senate approach."?

Not to mention, of course, that the President signed the resulting bill into law, and ALL of those same officials subsequently stated their intent to comply with it, two of them during a Senate hearing on December 1st, in response to a direct question, in effect: Do you consider the law to be Administration policy? They answered in the affirmative.

July 15th 2011 or July 15, 2010? I didn't know that a President's spokeseperson had said anything about SLS on July 15, 2011. Can you elaborate on this?

He's speaking about December 1st in the past tense, referencing an event that seems to have taken place after the July 15th in question.  This stuff all happened last year.

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 477
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #132 on: 09/09/2011 11:55 PM »
Could this funding profiles business be a trial balloon by the administration looking for some angle over congress?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9588
  • Liked: 1340
  • Likes Given: 850
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #133 on: 09/10/2011 01:09 AM »
It was already available on L2 but....

(I'll just attach our copy, YG - seen as it's out there, Chris):
« Last Edit: 09/10/2011 01:43 AM by Chris Bergin »

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 638
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #134 on: 09/10/2011 01:38 AM »
My question on the immediate situation is how much longer can NASA delay before the testimony of Gen Bolden looks like a major set of misstatements?

He claimed they were waiting for the Booz Allen estimate before they would release the final design. They have that now. So are they going to release, or pivot to something else and continue the delay?

Now it's become obvious that Bolden/NASA was just covering for OMB who were the real ones who put the brakes on the release, but still, this is not going to look good for NASA if the delay continues indefinitely. Bolden will have more tough questions to answer by some fairly peeved lawmakers.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2011 01:44 AM by spacetraveler »

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #135 on: 09/10/2011 01:51 AM »
Considering the final drive-out price of the shuttle program, these numbers are probably actually pretty conservative I'd say. 

When you look at the FLIGHT RATE though, STS was a MUCH better deal, though of course there was no destination worth going to (until the last decade anyway and that's debatable). 

Looks about right to me...

Later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #136 on: 09/10/2011 01:58 AM »
The question is, what changed from last July 15th, when a senior White House aide called senior NASA and OSTP leadership and said he had just come from the Oval Office and had been directed to convey the message that "The President supports the Senate approach."?

Not to mention, of course, that the President signed the resulting bill into law, and ALL of those same officials subsequently stated their intent to comply with it, two of them during a Senate hearing on December 1st, in response to a direct question, in effect: Do you consider the law to be Administration policy? They answered in the affirmative.

July 15th 2011 or July 15, 2010? I didn't know that a President's spokeseperson had said anything about SLS on July 15, 2011. Can you elaborate on this?

Sorry, should have clarified it as July 15th LAST YEAR (2010), though I did say that "subsequently" two of those officials responded during a December 1st hearing.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #137 on: 09/10/2011 02:01 AM »
Of course I know that. Did you not see the smilie?

I did, but not familiar enough with the "smilies" to parse the meaning within the textual context. But thanks for clarifying.  :)
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #138 on: 09/10/2011 02:03 AM »
Regardless of what is covered by the 62 billion, a large part of it will be used for the development and operations of the SLS.

Having said that, NASA needs to look at alternative systems and architectures and determine whether they are cheaper. I for one would like them to outline a credible BEO scenario with currently available rockets and rockets that may potentially be developed outside NASA if NASA provides some incentive (in the COTS or CCDev range).

Or in other words, NASA should present a BEO plan if they were mandated not to engage in rocket development themselves.

And you couldn't believe a darn thing in it... look no further than ESAS and some of the other "cooked" studies that have come out...

They'd just say it "violated the laws of physics" or some such bull and proceed to put a thumb on the scale so hard the scale would tip over...

Remember the old axiom--  There are lies, [email protected] lies, and ESTIMATES...

Words never truer spoken than applying to NASA "studies"...

later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Wall Street Journal claims SLS will cost $62 Billion
« Reply #139 on: 09/10/2011 02:13 AM »


He claims that his source is the following document:

Quote
An Aug. 19 budget analysis prepared by NASA managers, a copy of which was obtained by The Wall Street Journal, illustrates the sticker shock associated with NASA's drive to push U.S. manned flights beyond the orbiting international space station.

No such document exists.

Where did Andy P publish this supporting evidence? Please link me up as we do not believe this is a NASA document.

Of course it doesn't!

That's because information was "leaked" from OMB and others to the WSJ in order to continue their campaign. 

The problem is, and what some don't see because they just want to arm-wave about SLS *specifically*, is that when you add up total costs over years for ANYTHING you will still get the "sticker shock" effect. 

So now, while some will use this as a rallying cry to not do SLS, they will also be playing right into the hands of those who do not want to do anything at all, regardless of the specific hardware. 

So, then what's the point of anything at all, including commercial given the rationale for it was so that NASA could "explore"?

Absolutely true... add up all the costs of a vehicle over its lifetime-- initial price, interest on the loan, insurance, gasoline, tires, oil, filters, parts, repairs, maintenance, etc and the costs are staggering...

This doesn't sound out of line at all actually... like downix said, pretty much "a bargain". 

Later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Tags: