
The program to build NASA’s moon rocket could double in price to $9B - hef19898
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/10/program-build-nasas-moon-rocket-could-double-price-billion-ig-says/
======
Rooster61
Boeing: “[We have] restructured our leadership team to better align with
current program challenges, and we are refining our approaches and tools to
ensure a successful transition from development to production.”

Sounds to me like utterly worthless corp-speak for "shit isn't going so hot,
but we are going to fix everything, just you wait". I think there might be
trouble in paradise among Boeing's top brass.

In no way surprised to hear this, especially after seeing Boeing spreading FUD
here recently
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18139146](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18139146)).
They must not be comfortable with all of the other upstarts in the industry
threatening their comfy spot as one of NASA's go-to contractors.

------
anovikov
Meanwhile, Falcon 9 became the world's most reliable launch vehicle today
(after today's Soyuz-FG launch failure):

[http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/log2018.html](http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/log2018.html)

Vehicle /Attempts Est* 95%CI* Succes Fail

================================================================

Falcon 9 v1.2 42/42(D) 0.98 0.90-1.00 42 None 2015-

Atlas 5 77/78 0.98 0.92-1.00 68 06/15/07 2002-

Delta 4M(+) 27/27 0.97 0.85-1.00 27 None 2002-

Soyuz-FG 54/55 0.96 0.89-1.00 0 10/11/18 2001-

Ariane 5-ECA 65/67 0.96 0.89-1.00 2 01/25/18 2002-

~~~
Rebelgecko
It seems weird that the Falcon 9 only includes numbers for "v1.2"(I'm assuming
this is block 4/5?), while other vehicles don't have the same granularity.
Also IMO it should count as a failure to blow up on the pad and destroy your
payload, even if it's before the launch.

~~~
jccooper
All of the OP's vehicles have specific versions, which are (mostly) the latest
flying iteration. They just use different nomenclature.

------
Jaruzel
I don't get it. NASA should re-vector as an overseeing space administration
for US based space projects, and let the commercial sector do the actual
building, testing, and flying. Think of all that money saved that can be used
for a better purpose elsewhere.

~~~
londons_explore
This is what they do already right?

NASA doesn't actually build any rockets anymore - it's all contracted out to
various companies.

~~~
Latteland
There is billions of spending on projects they don't need, forced by congress,
like SLS. It's mostly not independent systems - space x is far more separate
than boeing and other companies.

~~~
moreira
"There is billions of spending on projects they don't need"

On the list of governemnt expenses... NASA is almost a rounding error ($18.4
billion in 2011, about 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion US budget). Perspective is
important.

~~~
pc86
I think their point may have been (and if it wasn't, mine is) not to cut that
funding but to reallocate it to more oversight so the overall pace of space
production and research can be expanded.

~~~
Latteland
Yes my point is not that nasa is a bad thing - I want to increase spending at
nasa. But I don't want it to be wasted on basically congressional district
earmarks. There's always been some of that going on, unfortunately, but the
SLS is a major drain on other things at Nasa. They can't afford to waste money
on this. SLS may never fly, it's at least a big rocket looking for a use case.

~~~
ethbro
The problem seems inherent in large engineering projects (> 2 terms worth of
work) and the ephemeral nature of politicians.

I feel like there's probably a "law" using a constant that states "As a
project's ETA approaches T, the actual delivery date approaches infinity."

Where T is ~10 years.

------
InclinedPlane
This is one of the nasty legacies of the Apollo program. NASA crewed
spaceflight has always been a lot messier, a lot more political, and a lot
more pork-barrel oriented than robotic spaceflight. That goes back to the
Johnson administration and the extensive politicking he did to make Apollo
happen. He very cleverly figured out how to locate NASA centers and contractor
jobs to areas with a lot of political power in congress. However, that legacy
has outlasted the Apollo program and today we have the SLS, which has the
primary purpose of funneling government money to several very specific
corporations in very specific congressional districts. Results are, at best, a
secondary objective.

~~~
topspin
> NASA crewed spaceflight

Fixating on the troubles of NASA's crewed programs might make sense if NASA
were doing well with their uncrewed programs. Except they're not[1].

[1] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-james-
webb...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-james-webb-space-
telescope-too-big-to-fail/)

~~~
InclinedPlane
JWST is just one program among many. Also, it may seem that it matches the
level of problems of crewed spaceflight but it really doesn't. The JWST
program's enormous budget is small (in per year amounts) compared to things
like Orion or SLS. If JWST was burning through money the same way SLS was it
would be a $40-50 billion program.

Additionally, there is a huge number of highly successful robotic missions
that have been running or are in the works. Just now in terms of active
programs there is the Curiosity rover, the Juno Jupiter orbiter, the Parker
Solar Probe, New Horizons, InSight, Dawn, TESS, Osiris-REX, MRO, Fermi,
STEREO, and many more.

------
mfer
FWIW, going far over budget is pretty typical on gov contracts like this.
Often times everyone knows this is going to happen from the start.

It would be surprising (out of character) if this didn't happen.

~~~
ardfie
This is a good interview on the subject you mention
[http://www.econtalk.org/bent-flyvbjerg-on-
megaprojects/](http://www.econtalk.org/bent-flyvbjerg-on-megaprojects/)

------
woodandsteel
The big danger for the SLS will be when SpaceX's BFR starts flying. Not only
will both stages be reusable, but for flights beyond the Earth a BFR will
first go into orbit, and next be refueled there by another BRF, and then take
off with full tanks, instead of the almost empty ones as will be the case with
SLS.

The result is the BFR will be able to land 10+ times as much cargo on the Moon
or Mars as the SLS, and at maybe 1 percent the cost per ton.

I think what is going to happen is the tax payers will finally wake up to how
they are being ripped off, and the SLS program will be canceled.

------
dsfyu404ed
Technically it's NASA's second moon rocket.

Also the timing here is really lucky. This will get buried under today's
aborted launch.

~~~
adventured
It was all over the news yesterday. It didn't get buried.

More likely, today's event provides some positive increase to the political
argument in favor of plowing billions more into getting all the new US launch
systems up to where they need to be.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
SLS will necessarily cost ~1B per launch. It will definitely never ferry
people to ISS.

~~~
craftyguy
Most people reading the news won't understand these valid points you are
making. To them, any US-made rocket is sufficient for "doing necessary space
stuff that the government tells me they need to do."

------
maxxxxx
What do they actually plan to do with the SLS? I only hear that it's really
needed but they are pretty vague about what for.

~~~
garmaine
It is really needed to ensure that NASA still exists as a funded agency.

~~~
craftyguy
Technically, it is _not_ needed to ensure that NASA is funded. Congress and
the current administration _think_ it is needed, because they're stuck in the
1960s and think the space race is still a thing (meanwhile
ignoring/underfunding crucial planetary and Earth climate sciences that NASA
also performs).

~~~
garmaine
It was sarcasm. The jobs in key congressional districts would disappear if
NASA was allowed to do what makes sense for an effective space exploration
program. So congress has taken over mandating what NASA's goals should be, to
make sure that their key constituents remain employed on government contracts.

------
thinkcontext
Should NASA scrap it and save some money by chipping in to SpaceX's efforts?

~~~
sorrymate
It seems like no one is hold Boeing accountable for completing the project
with the given budget. And to add insult to injury, Boeing is being improperly
awarded tens of millions of dollars for performance fees the company has not
earned [1]. If a project is failing, just cut your loses and scrap it. This
political pork spending doesn't help anyone excited about space exploration.

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/theres-a-new-
report-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/theres-a-new-report-on-
sls-rocket-management-and-its-pretty-brutal/)

~~~
Rooster61
> This political pork spending doesn't help anyone excited about space
> exploration.

Nope, but it keeps asses in congressional seats and the pockets attached to
them full.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/aEJbG](http://archive.is/aEJbG)

[https://outline.com/k7bktY](https://outline.com/k7bktY)

------
ProAm
9B is nothing when you look at how much waste is spent in the military, like
the the Abrams tanks that the military consistently says it doesnt want but
always gets [1] [2]

[1] [https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-
agai...](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-
abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html)

[2] [https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/02/11/ohio-wins-
aga...](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/02/11/ohio-wins-again-in-
armys-budget-for-more-m1-abrams-tanks.html)

~~~
madeuptempacct
Why wouldn't you want an Abrams? It does all the things. Sure, it's pigfat,
but it's a proven design and it's not hard to stick an APS on it. Honestly,
the Abrams is kind of like the A-10 and the F-22, even if you are trying to
make fun of the US military, there is just nothing to latch on to with those
platforms. They do what they are supposed to do, even when taking cost into
consideration.

Edit: I admit to not reading the article and not knowing about the over-
production.

~~~
ProAm
My whole point was spending 9B on a rocketship is nothing compare to what we
waste (not all military spending is waste, but there is plenty of waste in the
defense budget) that we can afford to buy this rocket from Boeing. We probably
spending more on healthcare for retired politicians than space exploration

~~~
njarboe
The US Government spends almost twice as much on the kidney failure program
(the End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program), $32.8 billion[1] than on NASA
$19.5 billion. Very hard to find the ESRD figure, if you don't already know
what it is called. NASA budget is very easy to find.

[1]
[https://juniperpublishers.com/joju/pdf/JOJUN.MS.ID.555651.pd...](https://juniperpublishers.com/joju/pdf/JOJUN.MS.ID.555651.pdf)

------
TheOtherHobbes
$9B? Over a decade or so? $900M a year?

That's something like 0.15% of the annual military budget of the US.

For comparison, the F35 program has already cost nearly $500B and is going to
cost at least $1.5T over its lifetime.

$9B - for a Moon rocket - is pocket change.

Sure, cost overruns = bad. But let's at least have some perspective here.

~~~
pavelrub
So pretty much every government expense, no matter how shitty or worthless, is
"pocket change" and can be ignored, as long as it's at least an order of
magnitude less that the cost of the F-35?

Do you use the same reasoning in your personal life as well? Buying worthless
stuff as long as they cost less than 1% of the cost of your house?

------
tabtab
Why so pricey? It's not like it's rocket science ... oh, wait

------
nwah1
If Trump is good for anything, it is for complaining about contractors
charging too much money. Hopefully he complains.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Spoilers: Trump is not, in fact, good for anything.

