Palazzo Vision: SLS and Orion…Now and Forever More
Continuing our look at the House’s spending plan for NASA, this edition of “Palazzo Vision: $3 Billion is Not Enough” examines provisions that would prevent NASA from ever canceling the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion without prior Congressional approval while immediately freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars more to spend on the two programs.
The NASA budget bill marked up by the House Subcommittee on Space on Wednesday would accomplish these goals through changes in terminal liability funding provisions. This funding is set aside in reserve by prime contractors to cover costs should the government decide to cancel a program in the future.
“Contractors are currently holding program funding, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, to cover the potential termination liability should the Government choose to terminate a program for convenience,” the bill reads. “As a result, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are unavailable for meaningful work on these programs.”
With the House deeming SLS, Orion and the International Space Station too crucial to NASA’s deep space exploration to ever be canceled, it has mandated the following actions:
- declaring void provisions relating to termination funding in any existing prime contracts;
- prohibiting NASA from including termination liability provisions in any future prime contracts;
- preventing NASA from terminating programs for convenience without Congress first passing a law approving the action.
- requiring that the NASA Administrator “notify the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate before initiating termination for cause of a prime contract.”
If sufficient funding is not available to cover termination costs on a program, Congress would have to authorize additional appropriations.
This is a significant shift of power away from the Executive branch toward Congress. And it would pretty much prevent the Obama Administration — and any of his successors — from canceling these programs in the future.
The House believes freeing up funds is essential because the SLS and Orion aren’t making sufficient progress on the $3 billion dollars plus construction funding they receive every year.
“While the Space Launch System and the Orion programs, currently under development, have made significant progress, they have not been funded at levels authorized, and as a result congressionally authorized milestones will be delayed by several years,” the bill reads.
And, in any event, NASA doesn’t terminate very many contracts.
“According to the Government Accountability Office, the Administration procures most of its goods and services through contracts, and it terminates very few of them,” according to the bill. “In fiscal year 2010, the Administration terminated 28 of 16,343 active contracts and orders—a termination rate of about 0.17 percent.”
In 2009, the Obama Administration canceled NASA Constellation program — which included Orion and the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles — citing severe cost overruns, significant schedule delays, and insufficient budgets to sustain them.
The Administration and Congress later compromised, canceling the smaller Ares I rocket but saving Orion. The heavy-lift Ares V has morphed into SLS.
Editor’s Note: Article updated at 12:30 pm PDT to reflect the inclusion of ISS among the programs covered by the provisions. Also added additional text to distinguish between the cancellation of programs for convenience and for cause.
107 responses to “Palazzo Vision: SLS and Orion…Now and Forever More”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s really easy to see where his vision originates.
Look who many of his largest campaign contributors are.
http://www.opensecrets.org/…
Yep. All the usual suspects.
Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and United Technologies….
<img src=”http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/palazzo_top_20_contributors.jpg”>
Is there no requirement in the USA for congressmen and senators to declare vested interests before serving on these committees? In any other country this would be seen as highly suspicious surely?
i believe such things are even worse in other countries. the US government is relatively open and transparent compared to many governments around the world. corruption is rampant elsewhere.
I guess that makes it ok here then. Give Lamar, Mo and Ralph, the three stooges – a real big hug for me, Doug.
Corruption is rampant in USA as well. It is legalized and called “lobbying”.
and you can look up who the lobbyists are – a very open and transparent system, compared with other countries.
Which makes their corruption in the United States of America almost seem acceptable! We’re just a third world nation!
It’s all clear now Doug.
It rots USA from within all the same.
<img src=”http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-con...“>
the SLS / Orion isn’t a bad thing. it’s just an expensive thing. and it does have capabilities that no other private space venture can match.
well if you see “never leaving ground for a meaningful mission” as a capability, then I’m inclined to agree with you on that one! 😉
you don’t know that.
What is there to know, you are an engineering illiterate.
while you are simply the normal kind of illiterate.
No, I’m your worst nightmare come true, a published asshole who has Constellation, Orion and the Space Launch System firmly in my sights.
PUBLISHED? i don’t believe that for a second LOL, most of what you’ve written here has been sentence fragments jumbled together into incomprehensible phrases. better give your editor a bonus if you’ve really been published LOL
Well then I look forward to reading your NRC Space Committee submission. Thanks in advance.
“…published…”
Reference, please? URL? Anything?
Read the NRC Space Committee papers. That should get you into the ballpark. I would be happy to read yours as well. One page, straight to the point, no references or embedded links.
You submitted one, right?
Never leaving the ground for a meaningful mission isn’t quite accurate. Orion will fly unmanned next year on a Delta IV. Then it will fly unmanned again in 2017. Then in 2021, it will fly with a crew. And then again in 2025. All those will have some meaning to some people.
The problem is these things will fly about as often as we have presidential elections, the Olympic and the World Cup. It’s hard to see any sort of sustainable space exploration and settlement coming out of them.
Well it all depends on how you or anybody define(s) “meaningful mission”.
Of course it will have some meaning for some people.
But even IF those manned flights 2021 and 2025 take place (like you, I find those time frames ridiculous), then how does this contribute to the progress of human space exploration?
I can’t really see any big advancements coming from SLS/Orion. Orion has _some_ value (although I disagree with Hug Doug’s statement, that private companies can’t match those), but just stick it onto an existing booster and stop that SLS money sink…
And with the long years before any manned flight will take place, I would really not bet any money on those flight actually happening. Once any of the CCiCap (or what ever it is called at the moment) contenders succeed (and F9H becomes operational), then more and more people will question the necessity for SLS!
ok. tell me which private company can send a manned vessel to Mars. which rocket can lift 150,000 lb into low earth orbit?
Sending manned vessel to Mars: as of 2013? Not one, but there is also no government agency in the world who could!
~68t rocket: as of 2013: not a single one, but a 53t rocket is probably going to be flying long before your 68t rocket.
So why exactly do you need a 68t rocket when launching 2 53t rockets is a whole lot cheaper?
because the Falcon Heavy can’t send more than a ton of payload to Mars.
Many question now even the need to send more than a ton of payload to Mars on the government’s dime. People are getting sick of a government space agency that can’t even get a $500 million dollar asteroid detection missing into the immediate queue, let alone a nearly duplicative and unneeded space telescope mission and Mars rover. Humans on Mars by the government is almost over the top even for space nuts now.
slow down there. take a deep breath, and write a coherent sentence.
No thanks, you aren’t worth the extra time.
very well. your incoherent and incomprehensible ramblings are best kept to yourself, then. please do not type any more comments here.
No thanks to that either. I’m basically sick and tired of hearing the the idiotic comments of the technically illiterate and innumerate being presented as anything other than drivel, certainly with respect to heavy lift launch vehicle design and space architecture, something I do know a little bit about. Therefore, until I am banned here, I will continue to comment.
all right, so long as you are coherent and comprehensible.
There is no longer any coherent response to the SLS and Orion, the program is a farce that is beginning to dwarf Constellation.
if you really thought about it, i’m sure you could come up with something actually comprehensible.
Insanity is not conprehensible, Doug, and that is what we have with Constellation/SLS/Orion. Brain damage can be determined by suitable instruments, though, and can certainly explain the origin of the Constellation/SLS/Orion problem.
Oh, i see. i’m sorry, i didn’t know. i hope you’re getting treatment for your mental problems. i didn’t mean to make fun of your insanity. best of luck with your recovery from brain damage!
Best of luck surviving your corrupt third world congress.
third world? i’m from the USA.
Then you have the National Launch System you deserve.
that makes utterly no sense whatsoever.
If you don’t understand the acronym then you wouldn’t understand the joke, or that the joke is on you.
And this is a problem because?
I think (I don’t know actually) not even the evolved Block II 130t version of SLS has a payload to Mars capacity that is enough for any meaningful space architecture beyond “Apollo on steroids” style missions (not even sure those would be possible in a single launch). And with a launch schedule of once every 4 years, thinking about expanding the human sphere of influence beyond LEO is even beyond ridiculous!
So again, why is SLS required?
yeah, i’m not sure the numbers have been published for the SLS Block II. but then again, “meaningful” is what you make of it. a subjective measure that doesn’t count tonnage.
the SLS launch schedule on wikipedia shows launches once a year from 2021 onward. but we’ll see… as for now, NASA doesn’t have any alternatives but to continue with the SLS. however in the future…
i think a lot depends on how successful SpaceX is in delivering on its promises. the testing problems and subsequent schedule slips for the Falcon 9 v1.1 worry me.
Doug, the concern troll.
You have got to be kidding. An expendable launch vehicle carrying four almost priceless and irreplaceable legacy cryogenic engines that immediately self destructs violently, after almost but not quite reaching orbit, is a BAD THING. People like you give reality and engineering science a BAD NAME. Try your FUD on people who can’t tell the difference between reality and fraud.
tell me, what in my message was any kind of Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt?
FUD that the SLS is a pig.
I never said that.
You said the only flaw with SLS is that it is too expensive, completely neglecting the fundamental technical design flaw that it is EXPENDABLE, when in fact, it doesn’t have to be. Not only are you technologically illiterate, you are in total denial and spreading your misunderstandings to the general public.
I never said it was the only flaw. and since when is expendability a design flaw? ALL launchers today are expendable.
Expendability is and always has been a critical design flaw to those who intend to make space available to every man, woman and child on Earth, and make it capable of solving crucial global problems, as the airline industry already has done over the last one hundred years or so. If you don’t think this (commercial space for the masses) is coming then there is no hope for you, and clearly my informed technical comments and publications will continue to fly over right your head.
Woosh. Be sure to give Steven a big hug for me as well.
i very much doubt that reusable rockets will solve any crucial global problems. i don’t think the airline industry has solved any, either.
who is Steven?
That’s only because you don’t believe there are any crucial global problems to solve. Steven, as in Pizza Brain Palazzo, the corrupt US politician still defending and funding Orion and SLS as you are.
there are plenty of crucial global problems. please give an example of one that the airline industry has solved, and that reusable rockets would solve in the future.
i’m not defending anyone. i don’t know anyone named Steven Palazzo.
I think I’m going to have to pass on further explanations for your benefit, Doug. Your critical thinking abilities are just not up to it.
thanks for absolutely nothing. your comments are a waste of time, if you can’t back them up.
There is nothing to back up, SLS and Orion to that adequately by their mere continued existence as fraudulent space programs without any value or return on investment.
how are they fraudulent?
If you are still asking that after eight years and twenty billion dollars of Constellation redux then you aren’t paying attention.
the expense does not make it fraudulent. i think you need to look up the definition of the word.
I already explained this to you, Doug, it’s mere existence after eight years and twenty billion dollars spent without a single orbital flight makes the entire program fraudulent. This is far worse than even the ISS which still existed on paper after eight years and eight billion dollars spent, but since you apparently are not familiar with the history of the ISS you wouldn’t understand that reference either, and certainly the reference to the NLS flew right over your head as well.
its existence means it is, in fact, NOT fraudulent. look up the definition of the word!
mind to point out where your awesome ” informed technical comments” are? On this topic pretty much everything you did was to attack Hug Doug on a personal level, simply because he disagrees with you.
Not seen a single “technical” statement from you.
The SLS is designed to undergo a destructive self demolition without even reaching orbit, which it is otherwise easily capable of achieving. There is no need to address that technical merits of that fundamental design decision, it’s insanity and corruption without par. My stuff is ‘out there’, if you haven’t read it, it’s your problem, not mine. I take great enjoyment watching NASA, congress and the US public utterly founder on the issue of government sponsored human spaceflight, and I will be sticking the knife in it and twisting it until it is dead. How’s that for ‘technical’?
Sure. The only true competitor for SLS is the Arian 6. It remains to be seen which one of those two will be cancelled first.
Bureaucrats can’t build rockets. You should have realized this by now…
I do disagree with the way congress has mandated that NASA use a shuttle based design for the SLS, but given that restriction, it’s not a bad rocket. it’s probably been more expensive than a clean-sheet design or a Shuttle-Direct design, but again, congress has the authority to direct what NASA does, and NASA does the best it can with what it’s given to work with.
Dude, the shuttle was REUSABLE. I myself have come up with an entire slew of reusable shuttle derived heavy lift launch vehicle designs. SLS is an expendable pig, and you are here on a space enthusiast forum defending it to people who can do math, physics and engineering at the cutting edge university research level. So by all means, keep posting here. Thanks.
false. only parts of the Shuttle were reusable, and there are no current launchers in existence that are reusable.
anyway, the SLS has the same reusable parts that the Shuttle did: the crew vehicle and the SRBs.
as for “math, physics, and engineering” i would wager you can do none of these things.
Scientists don’t wager. The time to make nice to you people is about five years and ten billion dollars or more overdue, just as the time for expendable shuttle derived heavy lift launch vehicles is about two decades gone. You should grow up, because I’m going to continue to ream you publicly here.
Nit pick all you want. Your beloved national human spaceflight program is a colossal failure, and everybody here but you seems to know that already.
once again, please try to be coherent. you’re not making any sense.
I’m not making sense to you because you are an innumerate, technically illiterate and uniformed fool who has swallowed the kookaide you have been fed by your handlers. Everyone else here ‘gets it’.
On the other hand, he manages to calm down enough before posting so that he is able to post coherent sentences that do not include many typos. Some of _your_ posts are really hard to read…
And your cogent point on topic is? It has nothing to do with calm and everything to do with no longer tolerating SLS fools. I’m not about to invest much more time in that endeavor, hence the appearance of illucidity. I assure you I have the necessary skills in differential geometry to back up my thesis.
no, he and i are on the same page. we both wish you would post something readable.
My posts and my theses are readable. If you can’t either find them or understand them, then again, your problem, not mine.
My problem right now is SLS and Orion. I’ve pretty much already solved almost everything else on my desk with regards to commercial and government human space flight.
nice to see another armchair rocket scientist. everyone’s got the solutions to every problem figured out lol
Point me to your NRC Space Committee submission and MAYBE I might respect your opinion. The only ones I can find by Doug are by Doug Cooke and some Jesus freak. You must be the Jesus freak, or perhaps you didn’t submit one, If so then I can’t take anything you say seriously whatsoever.
what does a submission to the NRC Space Committee have to do with anything?
If you didn’t submit, you have no officially published opinion on this topic. I have quite a few, going back at least seven years, much longer if you look at the gray literature.
my response to that is: So What? who cares? i don’t care if you have a “published” opinion you submitted to the NRC Space Committee or not.
That apparently is your opinion of SLS and Orion as well.
that is not a valid response. please come up with some coherent reply. you’re just being annoying at this point.
Yay! Mission Accomplished! Doug, here is the deal, we’ve broke the comment record and the post has revolved off the page, so the party is over. You lost. Constellation lost. SLS and Orion lost. NASA lost. The US taxpayer has lost and the ordinary citizen loses. You need to get over it. It’s a done deal.
what’s a done deal? the fact that you’re annoying? and what did i lose, since i wasn’t trying to win anything?
Dude, your statement is easy to parse. And since SLS and Orion don’t actually exist and haven’t even flown yet, your statement is patently false.
which statement is this? the Orion capsules are being built right now. the first test vehicle is well under construction. and keep in mind a Falcon Heavy rocket hasn’t flown yet either.
Your delusions know no bounds. Keep up the good work! Convenient fools will make it only so much easier in the end.
seriously. if you have something to say, say it. stop spewing out words that say nothing.
No thanks. And I would never dream of demanding you stop speaking or posting. Just FYI.
oh, i’m not saying you should stop posting. just stop posting nonsense and instead present comprehensible comments or ideas.
This is an open forum. We live in a country that has basic freedoms. Again, I would never ask you to stop posting. Period. No matter what the content was, or lack of it.
But thanks for letting us know your true beliefs.
comments in a public forum are useless if they are unreadable!
We can only hope that these proposals die a quick death.
Bit disappointed to see the comments below. This site is usually a breath of fresh air, with comments generally well thought out, on topic and of a fairly technical nature. This may be a divisive issue but there’s no need to see the back and forth personal attacks and bickering below. Buck your game up guys.
i’m pretty disappointed, too. i was hoping for better discussion.
Then you should just ignore comments you deem incomprehensible and unworthy of your attention. More so, if you see it going down the personal path. But no, you had to engage, so please, don’t be disappointed. You rip what you sow.
that’s definitely the path i’m going to take from this point on. i was hoping for a meaningful discussion.
You don’t even know who Steve Palazzo is, ergo, you didn’t even bother to read the article or research the topic, and then you come in here and begin to outright defend the program and it’s design. NOT.
other than what the article says, i know nothing about him. so why would i be able to hug him?
and as for the SLS, i only said it’s not a bad rocket. and it isn’t a bad rocket – but that’s not really a defense of the design. nor is it a defense of the program as a whole.
Ignorance is bliss, eh Doug? I posit you know little or nothing about math, physics, engineering or our actual national space program and its history as well.
and you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Well, that’s what happens, when polititians are involved…
Dude, the topic here is congress, NASA, SLS and Orion and big Aerospace contractors. What we have here is a world class whack job. If you think that a rational discussion is gonna fix this problem after eight years, then you are just as delusional as those who have created this problem. I happen to think that it’s at the point where a good old fashioned flame war can be productive.
This is designed to ensure a continuing port train for the incumbents. SLS/Orion are too expensive to be useful in space exploration and do not provide any meaningful additional capability over that available from private industry..
SLS I or II has insufficient capability for single launch manned mission to mars so any realistic mission needs to be assembled in space from multiple launches. For the development cost of SLS alone you could launch 10-15 Falcon Heavy per year.
Orion has insufficient space/propulsion/life support for an extended mission so it would need a habitat/support module for deep space missions. Just like SpaceX Dragon (which has been designed to return from Mars). The only advantage Orion has over Dragon is that Orion could to a Moon flyby without a habitat module whereas Dragon would need one.
By using the capabilities of the private sector NASA and the US government could save billions per year and get deep space and a Mars mission sooner by scrapping SLS/Orion and use SAA contracts build habitat and propulsion modules to attache to Dragon.
SpaceX Dragon has NOT been designed to return from Mars. if launched with the Falcon Heavy, it can GO to Mars, with 1 ton of payload, but not return.
Dragon can not land on mars, take off and return to earth you are correct. But it can go to Mars orbit, return to earth and re-enter the atmosphere as the heat shield has been designed for this. To do this it needs a service module to provide propulsion, just like Orion. Unlike Orion Dragon is designed to land on Mars with 1 ton of payload using its propulsive landing rockets which double as its launch escape rockets. Look up proposed Mars Missions under “Red Dragon” to see what could be done for around $400 million.
Also unlike SLS/Orion SpaceX is planning to re-use its rockets to further reduce launch costs.
no, it can’t return from Mars. it doesn’t have a Mars-departure stage, though one could certainly be designed for that purpose.
i’m well aware of the proposed Red Dragon mission.
To the editor: please do not let the discussions below discourage from further covering this topic (some commentors did attempt a logical discussion), and I think it is important to follow what goes on in government that is relevant to the future of the industry.