17 thoughts on “NASA’s SLS Transition To Commercial Service Contract”

  1. I didn’t know NASA was considering transitioning to a commercial services contract. As absurd as SLS was from conception, is today, and as planned in the near future; I think a services contract to operate a non-operational (it is at best a test vehicle) is more absurd.

    Now, if they were transitioning to a commercial services contract that didn’t involve the SLS at all and was instead just focused on getting Astronauts to orbit or anywhere between the surface of the Earth and surface of the Moon; then I could see something along those lines. It even seems cool realizing that could be realized, when 2 decades ago, it would not have seemed possible. Then again, if they did this; they would probably award it to Blue Origin. Still better than SLS but come’on.

  2. I liked how they mentioned NASA transitioning to commercial Shuttle management INCREASED cost by one third.

    Re-arranging the deck furniture on the titanic.

    Part of this is because nasa wants it spread over too many districts to kill, learning the lessons from the cancellation of Apollo. In the process, making it so expensive if can’t be utilized in sufficient numbers to matter.

  3. As you may expect, Eric Berger already has a brutal distillation of this report up on Ars Technica today. “What now seems clear is that the SLS rocket will never cost less than it does now, and it probably will cost more in the future. Perhaps it is, indeed, time to consider an offramp before NASA signs contracts to buy SLS rockets for the next decade or two.”

    https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/inspector-general-on-nasas-plans-to-reduce-sls-costs-highly-unrealistic/

    1. As the IG found out, NASA has no clue what it costs now, what it will cost in the future, so any numbers they release are simply moonbeams (no pun intended).

      Time for NASA to get out of the launcher business. They’re not very good at it, there are alternatives, and competition is good.

      1. Time for NASA to get out of the launcher business. They’re not very good at it, there are alternatives, and competition is good.

        Agreed (of course).

  4. Addendum to my comments above regarding United Space Alliance and the increased shuttle operating coats. I thought this was referencing the ARS/Berger piece that made mention of them, apologies for any confusion.

  5. Adding layers to an organization always makes the services provided by that organization cheaper.

    Basic principle of government. It’s science!

    /sarc

  6. There are no cost savings to be head because they designed the world’s most expensive expendable rocket using the world’s most expensive rocket engines, mostly based on technology developed long prior to the 1980’s, to come up with an Apollo that used as many Space Shuttle components as possible. Anyway, we can all rant about it for hours, in detail.

    It’s not programmatically fixable. Throwing money at improvements and changes is just throwing more money down the same hole. Nothing can make the vehicle re-usable, and nothing can make the vehicle much cheaper to build and operate, and nothing can significantly increase its flight rate.

    I would recommend that NASA just take Super Booster as a given and focus on what to put on top of it. They could initiate a bunch of design studies exploring the various options, capabilities, and costs to map out the new design landscape, exploring new space stations, tankers, and crewed vehicles.

    But perhaps more fundamentally, SpaceX has exposed the deep flaw in trying to make space affordable by making sure every region, country, and aerospace company gets part of a particular project. Suppose NASA decided to focus on making a LH2 upper stage to use with Super Booster, instead of Starship. I’d bet their project’s cost and schedule would probably look like a stretched-out, bloated version of ACES II, IUS, EUS, or perhaps SLS itself, perhaps using a vacuum version of RS-25s, or lots of RL-10s, or some European engine. SpaceX would probably roll out an updated Starship that has an LH2 version of Raptor, and be flying it years before NASA finished their bid process.

    We should think about subsidizing success instead of reimbursing failure.

  7. I realized just before I clicked on the link that I have better things to do than read this. I have been involved in space my whole life and regularly read stuff like this to keep me up to date but reading AGAIN about what the government plans to do to fix the government’s original plan is a total waste of my time now.

    Nothing can be done. The only way out of this is for it to RUD, preferably on assent after it clears the pad.

      1. The Mike Griffin exhibit? Does anyone know if there are prototypes of Ares I aka “The Stick” around? You could line them up together as Ares I & V, the Constellation that says: “I think I can! I think I can!”

  8. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, politicians use different metrics to measure the success of a government program. To them, the important numbers are:
    1. The money spent in their districts.
    2. The number of votes bought because of 1.
    3. The amount of bribes campaign contributions garnered because of 1.
    4. The number of cronies and family members enriched be the program.

    By those metrics, SLS has been a tremendously successful government program. For the rest of us, it continues to be a disaster.

    1. Years ago I said one path NASA could take is to make a deal with SpaceX to produce the Falcon 9’s or Falcon Heavies for NASA missions at Michoud, bringing in experienced SpaceX production employees as needed (who will end up with big fat government pensions). That would keep the existing Michoud workforce working and allow NASA to focus more on payloads or improved upper stages, especially for Falcon Heavy, or to come up with new designs like a Falcon super heavy with four side boosters instead of two (Elon discussed the payload numbers for that configuration, but didn’t build it because Starship’s numbers were better).

      The problem with killing SLS is that they don’t want to lay off the large workforce, so those workers need to have new rocket-assembly projects. There needs to be a good employment alternative or politicians will be reluctant to ditch the program. It’s easier to sell a switch to a better idea than to admit the previous idea was horribly bad.

      1. Plenty of jobs in alternative energy for all those laid off. I’m not saying one (AE) is better than the other (SLS), but the least we can do is actually pay for only one.

        1. Well, they are already building a hydrogen fueled vehicle, so I guess that should count as alternative energy.

  9. It is fitting that on page 2 they have the link to report fraud, waste, and abuse. I think SLS qualifies.

Comments are closed.