NASA IG Sees Problems Ahead for SLS, Orion Programs
Space Launch System in flight. (Credit: NASA)
The Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion crew vehicle programs are under short-term and long-term budget pressures that could cause significant schedule delays and limit NASA’s ability to conduct human deep-space exploration until the late 2030’s, the space agency’s watchdog said.
Testifying before the House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies last week, NASA Inspector General Paul Martin said the
As we reported in August 2013, even after the SLS and Orion are fully developed and ready to transport crew NASA will continue to face significant challenges concerning the long-term sustainability of its human exploration program. For example, unless NASA begins a program to develop landers and surface systems its astronauts will be limited to orbital missions of Mars. Given the time and money necessary to develop these systems, it is unlikely that NASA would be able to conduct any manned surface exploration missions until the late 2030s at the earliest.
Martin also pointed to near-term problems with the development of SLS and Orion as well as the related infrastructure at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center.
To support the SLS and Orion, NASA’s GSDO Program is modifying launch infrastructure at Kennedy formerly used for the Space Shuttle. For example, the Program is refurbishing the crawler-transporter that will transport the SLS to the launch pad and modifying the mobile launcher and tower (originally built for the Constellation Program’s Ares I rocket), the Vehicle Assembly Building, and Launch Pad 39B. The OIG is in the final stages of an audit examining the GSDO Program’s progress and will be issuing our findings in March.
One of NASA’s challenges in this area is managing the concurrent development of a launch system and crew vehicle while modifying necessary supporting ground systems. Coordinating and integrating development of three individual programs to meet a common milestone date presents a challenge since NASA historically has used a single program structure to manage similar efforts such as the Apollo and Space Shuttle Programs.
Moreover, the SLS and its associated Programs continue to face challenging budget scenarios. For example, the Orion Program anticipates receiving a flat budget of approximately $1.1 billion per year into the 2020s. Given this budget profile, NASA is using an incremental development approach under which it allocates funding to the most critical systems necessary to achieve the next development milestone, rather than developing multiple systems simultaneously as is common in major spacecraft programs. Prior work by the OIG has shown that delaying critical development tasks increases the risk of future cost and schedule problems. NASA Program officials admit that this incremental development approach is not ideal, but contend that it is the only feasible option given current funding levels.
You can read Martin’s full testimony here.
31 responses to “NASA IG Sees Problems Ahead for SLS, Orion Programs”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Under the present funding and progress of SLS, consider Europa Clipper its first mission. Its possible that a human flight with Orion might be achieved by 2022 or 23 (who can inject more a likely date?) but its likely to be confined to a GTO type orbit, maybe a circum-lunar flight. Otherwise, with delays, lack of funding for Orion, no ARM or asteroid prepared or any preparation for astronauts to rendezvous, Europa Clipper will end up being the first and hopefully last use of SLS. Closure will be given to these eningeers – a manned and unmanned use of SLS. Thereafter, cost/performance will rule out use. Alternatives will exist that are far cheaper and free NASA funds for doing something actually adventurous. We know what they are.
Uh oh.
And Houston, roger, but…
I can’t help but shake my head in disbelief…
Ok, so he admits that NASA needs to “develop landers and surface systems” for SLS to actually be used on any meaningful human missions.
However (as I have noticed a few times hearing/reading comments about SLS from various persons/groups), he seems to be under the assumption, that SLS and Orion is everything you need for an orbital mission to Mars?
That is just laughable! (and quite sad actually….)
nobody assumes that. everyone knows that Orion by itself can only carry 21 days worth of supplies for a crew of 4. any mission of longer duration will require, at the very least, a module with extra supplies. NASA has done some preliminary studies for this, such as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
however, there’s no funding to build this, or anything else they’d need to go to Mars. that’s what they’re complaining about.
“nobody assumes that. everyone knows that Orion by itself can only carry 21 days worth of supplies for a crew of 4.”
I seriously suspect that the vast majority of people (i.e. non space/science journalists/TV and “the general public”) who have heard of Orion believe it to be the “Mars spaceship”.
he wasn’t talking about the general layperson, though.
“However (as I have noticed a few times hearing/reading comments about SLS from various persons/groups),”
Various persons/groups may or may not imply “the general layperson”.
“nobody assumes that. everyone knows…”
but Hug Doug was very specifically talking about : “everyone”
i’ll give you that not “everyone” may know the specific limitations of Orion, but those who were testifying before congress and the congresspeople listening to that testimony certainly ought to be well aware of its capabilities. Aerospike specifically said “he seems to be under the assumption” which clearly should refer to NASA’s Inspector General, who was testifying before congress, which is what this article was about. i can’t really speak for what Aerospike meant, but Aerospke can, so i now call upon him to clarify…
This is my shocked face!
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photo…
Nothing new here. Move along, move along. After all, they’re really just jobs programs and good ones at that.
Cheers
Edit: spelling
“Problems Ahead”
I guess I’ll file this in the -No Fuckin’ Shit- folder.
Every time I see a picture of this monstrosity, I shudder.
I go back and forth on seeing SLS dead, but I hope that NASA will simply turn SLS over to the team building it. Let private space figure how to launch it for 100 m. To compete against FH, and later, when they have the v2 of it, for less than 300m.
However, when MCT is announced and shown, it should be obvious that the current SLS is way too expensive.
Sure, Elon Musk has realized that a launcher larger than FH is necessary for Mars, but he doesn’t want to support SLS because it doesn’t put money in his pocket. There is still the problem of no landers, long term habs for the journey to Mars, or surface systems. Tell me how SpaceX solves these problems.
“but he doesn’t want to support SLS because it doesn’t put money in his pocket.”
Or he doesn’t because he knows the operational costs of SLS will sink any Mars settlement. The SLS/Orion coalition in Congress is making sure that. like the shuttle, SLS/Orion is designed to preserve district jobs. As long as cutting the work force while raising the flight rate is not design priority#1, `any Mars settlement dependent on that design will die before the first settler flies. Musk *shouldn’t* be interested.
“There is still the problem of no landers, long term habs for the journey to Mars, or surface systems. Tell me how SpaceX solves these problems.”
Like Falcon series rockets, SpaceX can develop them internally, for between 5 and 10 times less than the cost+ crowd can do it.
????
Where exactly do I suggest that Musk will support SLS?
I never did.
I suggested that those that are building SLS, should take it over.
As to no landers, transhab, and surface habitations, I suggest noticing that :
1) SpaceX is producing both stages and capsules to land on Earth WITHOUT parachutes. These same vehicles can land on mars and moon.
2) Bigelow’s systems will be tested on the moon LONG before we go to Mars. If it can survive EML1, the moon and earth, then it can survive easily on Mars.
3) I suspect that there is a REAL reason why SpaceX calls the MCT as Mars Colonists TRANSPORTER.
Why do you say that?
I differ with you.
Things are changing.
If Musk really builds out his satellite factory, he will be able to send constellations of sats to other planets. Basically, he will make it dirt cheap to send say 10 or more sats to jupiter in 1 shot from the FH.
most of the Falcon 9 second stages were set on a course to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere, and most have already re-entered. there are not many of them simply drifting around in orbit.
http://space.stackexchange….
i never said it did.
my point is that your characterization of them is wildly inaccurate.
ummm yeah.
“Well that makes the remaining uncontrolled upper stages all ok then super-genius.”
you did say that, which does imply that you think that’s what i meant. and be careful about what you say, i have been trained in formal logic.
they don’t need a satellite bus in order to re-direct a second stage. the avionics already onboard can handle that.
indeed they do. all SpaceX missions since CRS-3 (the DSCOVR mission aside, that upper stage is now in heliocentric orbit) have had their upper stages deliberately set on a course to eventually re-enter the atmosphere.
if my lack of capitalization bothers you, i suggest you learn to build a bridge so you can get over it. i learned how to type by using Microsoft Word, which corrects capitalization automatically. old habits die hard.
do you have any evidence that SpaceX, or anyone else, is building such a thing for the on-orbit recovery of spent upper stages?
what is “unacceptable” to you is by far the cheapest and simplest option – which is extremely attractive to launch providers. what you propose makes things more complex and expensive then they have to be, so you’re going to have a very hard time selling that idea to anyone.
additionally, you want these upper stages to have satellite bus … for what end? they’re just empty upper stages. what benefit are you thinking you will get from having some electronics on them? so they are now just drifting around with some additional hardware… then what?
i don’t really care. the value of my thoughts has nothing to do with the way i type, and the people who have seen me comment here over the years can attest to that one way or the other.
that’s ironic, because i’m doing better critical thinking than you are.
uh huh. de-orbiting upper stages isn’t exactly a new idea. most launch providers are already doing so, and it doesn’t take the integration of extra material to do this.
it has no value. it’s an empty stage, without fuel, slowly deteriorating as it is exposed to thermal stresses as it tumbles in its orbit. eventually the engines, circuitry, and the structural integrity of the tank itself will fail. that’s why work is being done to deorbit them while they are still operational, or to retrieve and deorbit old ones.
any desired re-use would require lots of expensive refurbishment. it would be cheaper to just launch a purpose-built object for whatever reasons you imagine you wanted to use it for.
i’ve read some of your papers, actually. i can see why the space community at large has ignored your ideas and your proposals to NASA, et al. have gone nowhere – they’re just not very good.
i suspect you’re annoyed because i’m poking holes in your idea (that, by the way, is a part of what critical thinking is all about). how you respond to criticism shows a lot about your character.
and ideas that keep coming up are typically the best ones, or are the ones that are the most practicable.
i see you’ve neglected my previous questions. so let me ask again: what do you hope to accomplish by integrating additional electronics into an upper stage? what do you want to do with them once they are empty and drifting around in orbit?
it’s not me you have to worry about. it’s the fact that all your proposals to NASA, et al. have been ignored.
LOL. well, i got the quality of your character by now. thanks for that.
it is a problem – the quality of your character is to resort to ad hominem when you are backed into a corner and can’t figure out what to say. you have consistently done that in this conversation. nobody is going to take you seriously if you do that, regardless of what your idea is.
i’d listen to you if you could at least sketch our your idea in a coherent fashion, regardless of the problems with it. i’d respect you if you took the problems that are pointed out and and then fixed them.
i’ve read some of your papers, i haven’t been impressed. most of what i’ve seen was wildly impractical or poorly thought out. but you might surprise me this time.
i see your website layout has changed, there’s no longer a list of your papers. perhaps if you’d be so kind as to direct me to the one that specifically outlines the reason you want to add a satellite bus to upper stages?
i’m not interested in anything but the thing you want to put on upper stages. let’s try to take one bit at a time, shall we?
i’m willing to check it out and give your idea a fair shake. we can go from there.
by the way, “i’ve done my homework” is about the most intellectually void thing you could possibly say. conspiracy theorists say the same thing all the freakin time. it doesn’t matter what nonsense you think you know – what matters is if you can explain what you know and why it’s correct.
all right, i’ve read your paper.
first issue is with the engineering / design of the inflatable habitat built into the top of an upper stage idea, there’s a problem with the structure into which that habitat is inflating, namely slosh baffles. they are going to interfere with how the habitat fits in the tank. if it’s a round habitat, as you seem to describe, then it will have to be smaller than the extent of the baffles, which means it’s going to be very small. so the size of the habitat is an issue.
you’d get more habitable space if you make the habitat inflate so it conforms to the shape of the structure of the tank, where again, the slosh baffles interfere. probably the most efficient use of space would be an inflatable that is cylindrical, that extends through the middle of the baffles to (or nearly to) the end of the tank. the design will have to be very precise for this to inflate correctly. it will be difficult to justify adding mass to an upper stage for a minimal useful return on that investment.
the next issue is with the concept itself. upper stages don’t often go where people can get to them. so there will be infrequent use of this concept. most upper stages for most rockets would still remain a normal upper stage.
the best use would be for the upper stage of a rocket that’s going to a space station, where instead of jettisoning the upper stage, it could tag along with the main payload and then be directly connected to an available docking port. at least some utility could be made of it for storage or trash disposal.
i think if you developed the idea along those lines, you might be able to find some traction for it.
i’m just pointing out that this idea is going to produce only a very limited volume of usable space. if you meant for this to be an idea of use only in large rockets in the distant future, you should have said so.
SpaceX is already in the practice of deorbiting their upper stages, and has done so on every mission since CRS-3 (except for the DSCOVR mission, the upper stage is in heliocentric orbit). that is the third time i’ve mentioned this.
and again, if this is how you respond to criticism – i can tell why nobody takes you seriously.