3 ms·

EDITED The Constellation program cost $12B between 2005-2009 [1] and includes Ares V, an earlier version of SLS (but also Orion and Ares I). SLS under the curr

EDITED The Constellation program cost $12B between 2005-2009 [1] and includes Ares V, an earlier version of SLS (but also Orion and Ares I). SLS under the current name (without Orion) has cost $14B 2011-2018 [2]. No idea about 2009-2011. It will cost several billion per year until it is cancelled. It uses existing (flown in space) shuttle engines, shuttle main tank tooling, 5 segment version of shuttle's 4 segment boosters (also 15 years in development), etc. It requires no new technology and it is not trying to be better than anything. It has all the money it wants. They even took money away from commercial crew to pay SLS, a few years ago, which made commercial crew late which forced them to pay more to the Russians. The problem with SLS is that it is designed to burn money. It is not designed to fly, to achieve a mission of any kind. It is optimized to cost as much as possible, because its success is defined as "raised average wage in my congressional district for as long as possible" by the people who ordered it done. 1 - http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2016/20160801-horizon-goal-part-2.html http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2016/20160801-hor... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_history_and_planning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_hi...

mikeash 7y ago
Where does that $50 billion figure come from? I found a NASA report from last year that says $11.9 billion. That’s an average of somewhat less than $2 billion/year so far. In contrast, the Saturn V took about five years from start to first flight, and development cost something like $6-9 billion/year. I wouldn’t be surprised if SLS ended up costing more in the end, precisely because spending is lower. A project with less funding that drags on forever costs more than one with better funding that’s finishes quickly.
- wolf550e 7y ago
  I edited to remove that number and add links. Had it been designed by engineers with budget or deadline in mind, we could have debated methodologies. But it was designed by congress with exact hardware to use mandated by them, with no ability by engineers to change it to lower costs. Also, of course, "cost plus" contracting means that an engineer that suggests an idea to lower costs is thrown out of the room by management. See Dr. Dan Rasky from NASA, top expert on heat shields, explain from inside: https://youtu.be/g3gzwMJWa5w?t=679 https://youtu.be/g3gzwMJWa5w?t=679 Also, most talks by Dr. Robert Zubrin (author of Case for Mars) explain that the human spaceflight part of NASA is nuts.

mikeash 7y ago

Where does that $50 billion figure come from? I found a NASA report from last year that says $11.9 billion. That’s an average of somewhat less than $2 billion/year so far. In contrast, the Saturn V took about five years from start to first flight, and development cost something like $6-9 billion/year. I wouldn’t be surprised if SLS ended up costing more in the end, precisely because spending is lower. A project with less funding that drags on forever costs more than one with better funding that’s finishes quickly.

wolf550e 7y ago
I edited to remove that number and add links. Had it been designed by engineers with budget or deadline in mind, we could have debated methodologies. But it was designed by congress with exact hardware to use mandated by them, with no ability by engineers to change it to lower costs. Also, of course, "cost plus" contracting means that an engineer that suggests an idea to lower costs is thrown out of the room by management. See Dr. Dan Rasky from NASA, top expert on heat shields, explain from inside: https://youtu.be/g3gzwMJWa5w?t=679 https://youtu.be/g3gzwMJWa5w?t=679 Also, most talks by Dr. Robert Zubrin (author of Case for Mars) explain that the human spaceflight part of NASA is nuts.