NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

EdwardHeisler · 2018-03-24 08:16:22

NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion
By Lee Roop
March 23, 2018
Real-Time News from Huntsville

NASA spending in Alabama and other states will surge more than $1 billion above current levels this year under a spending bill that cleared Congress this week and was signed by President Trump today.

House approval late Thursday of the Omnibus Spending Bill for fiscal year 2018 means NASA will get get $20.7 billion. That's $1.1 billion more than 2017 funding and $1.6 billion above the White House request.

A big beneficiary will be the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, which will get $2.15 billion, and the Orion crew capsule, which will get $1.35 billion. Development of SLS is being led by the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, and $2.15 billion is a significant injection of cash for a program that has been challenged by delays since its beginning.

NASA has spent an estimated $10 billion on SLS since Congress forced President Obama to accept it in 2010 after Obama canceled its predecessor Constellation rocket program. The engines are ready to go, Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot said in Huntsville this week, and several segments have also been completed. The first uncrewed launch is now expected in early 2020.

"This is a strong bill that provides significant support for my priorities on the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee, such as law enforcement, national security, economic development, scientific research, and space exploration," U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala) said in a statement.

Also notable in the budget is $100 million for NASA education programs that had been marked for closure by the Trump administration.

Vice President Mike Pence, center, visits Alabama's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville in late 2017 to get an update on NASA's Space Launch System. Marshall is leading the development of SLS, which got a major boost in a federal Omnibus Spending Bill passed by Congress this week. With Pence are U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), left, and Marshall Director Todd May.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index … h_big.html

louis · 2018-03-24 08:21:03

Pork barrel politics by the sound of it. All politicians engage in that. I really can't see how anyone can justify continuing with the SLS on rational grounds now the Falcon 9 Heavy has been proven.

GW Johnson · 2018-03-24 10:18:36

Louis:

F-H has only flown once! Give it some flight history before calling it "proven". I'm rooting for them, too. But one flight proves nothing.

That being said, your assessment of pork-barrel politics is exactly right. SLS / Orion is just the latest name for a long-running corporate welfare program for "old space". It might not have cost Trump quite so much SLS / Orion money at Marshall, if he hadn't been insulting Jeff Sessions so badly the last year or so.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-03-24 10:21:53)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-03-24 10:19:02

Oink! Oink!
There is absolutely NO justification for continued support for SLS/DSG. The private sector is making progress which is measurable--not glacially the way ULA is proceeding.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-03-24 10:21:19

GW-
Only one FH flight--and one more than SLS.

Let's push all our representatives in Congress to confirm Bridenstine. He's at least a Naval Aviator, if not a "space science professional." He can certainly relate to the Astronaut corps. Other Naval Aviators past: John Glenn, Scott Carpenter, Alan Shepard. Plus many more.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-03-24 10:23:52)

Void · 2018-03-24 13:31:18

O.F. I have seen enough of your hints, to know that I am a punk in relationship to you. But please tollerate me for a bit.
The SLS might be a sacrificial pig that we have to be thankful for as it keeps the natives with bones in there noses from putting the really good stuff into the stew pot. We just may have to oink our way around what is otherwise a insurmountable impediment. My own suspicion about such programs is that they are not only pork, but hide other things that cost a lot. Don't wish to be unfortunately probed in a cave somewhere in a cage in an undergound facility in N.M. so enough said about that.
I do like SpaceX and the BFR. Hope it works out. But;
I also want Vulcan, or a drivative of it.

My feeling is that since Vulcan wants to discard it's fuel tanks, I want them to take them to orbit. External fuel tanks, then. A symbiotic relationship between SpaceX and ULA then. Or so I would hope. It just bugs me to have BFR bring all those big engines to orbit, and not use the heck out of them.

In fact, I have to wonder if the "Raptror?" engines start off relatively whimpy, and eventually prove out to their full potential, could there not possibly be a potential future where, BFR discards an engine or two upon reaching orbit, and the ULA method might be used to bring them back to Earth. Why lug more engine with you than you need to lift off from Mars?
And from my point of view, I want those fuel tanks from ULA for external fuel tanks for BFR. I also want some of those tanks in Martian orbit as a fuel depot per your notions.

Having said that I do not want to give up Dream Chaser, or Mr. Bransons project. I want it all. We do not want to be specialists at this point. We want to be generalists. That is my opinion.

Life can suck sometimes, it isn't fair, but you just have to try to make it work.

Last edited by Void (2018-03-24 13:34:28)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-03-24 17:25:44

Void-

There is no animosity in any of my posts towards anyone here. I have strong opinions, I concede that. I'm looking for putting all our nickels and dimes together on something that is working and not on a never ending development program. I would like to see us reach Mars in my ever diminishing lifetime. If SLS were anything other than a program consuming a billion a year and is not even close to execution of mission 1, I'd be rooting for them as well. But--when the glass of water is spilled on the floor, it only goes "so far." The space budget is decent, but NASA needs to get a better sense better direction, and fund the inners and pull the cash from the weak sisters.

Void · 2018-03-24 19:25:55

I feel the pain as well. But at least somehow, semi-private entities are trying to breach the wall that has been imposed.

The trick we need to be careful about is a planed failure. Don't fly to close to the sun sort of stuff. You have to think you are dealing with vampires. They don't want their food to simply escape their grasp. Still I am reasonably optimistic. But yes it is pathetically painful.

All these wasted years of so many peoples lives and hopes to the graveyard, so that the pigs can feed. But still hope. Just be careful not to fall for a trap.

Last edited by Void (2018-03-24 19:26:30)

RobertDyck · 2018-03-25 11:06:58

With Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, BFR, and SLS, we don't need Vulcan.

I am highly skeptical BFR will be ready soon, it'll probably take longer than Falcon Heavy. Remember, in May 2004 in an appearance before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Elon Musk announced "Long term plans call for development of a heavy lift product and even a super-heavy, if there is customer demand. We expect that each size increase would result in a meaningful decrease in cost per pound to orbit. ... Ultimately, I believe $500 per pound or less is very achievable." This was first announcement of Falcon Heavy. In 2008 at a Mars Society convention, Elon Musk announced first launch of Falcon 9 in 2009, while "Falcon 9 Heavy would be in a couple of years". He also indicated that he expected a hydrogen-fueled upper stage would follow 2–3 years later (which would have been around 2013). Falcon Heavy actually launched February 2018, and the hydrogen-fueled upper stage still hasn't launched. Details of ITS (now called BFR) was announced September 2016. Given all that, I don't expect BFR to fly before 2026.

Yes, I want DreamChaser. Mr Branson's project (SpaceShipTwo) is privately funded, has nothing to do with NASA.

We also need (and are not working on):

Centrifuge Accommodation Module on ISS - test long term effects of Moon and Mars gravity on laboratory animals (mice, etc)
upgrade life support equipment on ISS so it an be used for a Mars mission - toilet to recover water from feces, recover oxygen from CO2 currently dumped in space (MOXIE or similar), install sink and shower
require all future Mars orbiters to use aerocapture
demonstrate a deployable heat shield on Mars: ADEPT and/or HIAD
MCP spacesuit
demonstrate ISPP with a Mars sample return mission. Keep it small, we don't want to replace Mars explorers, intention is to demonstrate ISPP in preparation for humans
demonstrate manoeuvring while rotating in tethered flight - intent is to use the Robert Zubrin / David Baker idea of using a tether to connect the Mars habitat to the spent TMI stage to produce artificial gravity in transit to Mars. The trick is to do mid-course corrections without stopping rotation. This can be demonstrated in LEO with a capsule with humans onboard tethered to a cargo ship filled with garbage. This can be done with Dragon v2 tethered to Dragon v1, or Soyuz tethered to Progress, or CST-100 Starliner tethered to Cygnus, or mix-and-match. You could add the Japanese cargo ship HTV launched on the H2 to the list.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2018-03-25 11:24:43)

Terraformer · 2018-03-25 11:25:22

With Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, BFR, and SLS, we don't need Vulcan.

The first three are all SpaceX, and SLS is NASA. Having another company besides SpaceX is a good idea.

RobertDyck · 2018-03-25 11:36:53

Terraformer wrote:

With Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, BFR, and SLS, we don't need Vulcan.
The first three are all SpaceX, and SLS is NASA. Having another company besides SpaceX is a good idea.

"Old Space" contractors and their corporate executives working on SLS are the same ones working on Vulcan. I don't see Vulcan as separate from SLS.

GW Johnson · 2018-03-25 12:28:45

The idea with Vulcan is two-fold: (1) it will have growth potential no longer available in the Atlas design, and (2) it'll no longer be a defense launcher using engines purchased from a hostile power. It replaces Atlas-V entirely, and fills that role as a much improved capability, the same as Falcon-Heavy replaces Falcon-9.

I don't much in common with SLS except the identity of the contractors. Those contractors will have to compete to stay in business, and they know it.

Once Blue Origin catches up, there will be 3 of these heavy lifters: Vulcan, Falcon-Heavy, and New Glenn, all near the capacity of SLS, and at least factor-10-ish cheaper to use, plus far more widely available. Even if it flies a few times, SLS is going to be left in the dust. That's the real future here, guys!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-03-25 12:31:34)

SpaceNut · 2018-03-25 13:25:21

The Vulcan rocket is an American heavy-payload launch vehicle under development since 2014 by United Launch Alliance (ULA), funded by a public–private partnership with the US government. ULA expects the first launch of the new rocket to occur no earlier than mid-2020

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organ … as-vulcan/

Done as GW has said. With the engines for this being made by

Blue Origin to develop the BE-4 liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid methane (CH4) engine to replace the RD-180 on a new first stage booster. The engine was already in its third year of development by Blue Origin, and ULA said it expected the new stage and engine to start flying no earlier than 2019. Two of the 2,400-kilonewton (550,000 lbf)-thrust BE-4 engines were to be used on a new launch vehicle booster.

With

Aerojet Rocketdyne's AR1 engine is being retained by ULA as a contingency option, with a final decision to be made in 2016.

The creates and gives the possible off the shelf develpoed engines for anyone to create a rocket with if they should chose to do so.
This design is very much an Atlas for how its will function.

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/vulcan.html

Now Blue Origin's is no fool in this as what's good for Vulcan is good for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn and all done with reuseability in mind.

https://www.blueorigin.com/new-glenn

kbd512 · 2018-03-26 10:41:18

Vulcan is a good investment. These are the affordable and reusable rockets we've been waiting for. They're either "here" (Falcon Heavy) or "nearly here" (New Glenn and Vulcan). We've waited an entire generation for the availability of reusable launch vehicles that enable affordable space exploration and it's time to start using them. We've perfected on-orbit assembly and mating a propulsion stage to a habitat module is simply routine work now.

The availability of several partially reusable heavy lift launch vehicles negates the requirement for SLS and all three companies should compete for government contracts for launch vehicles and spacecraft. NASA should exit the launch vehicle and spacecraft design business at best possible speed, instead focusing on development or refinement of individual systems. Examples include closed-loop life support, avionics, sensors, communications, batteries, solar panels, rocket engines, and applied materials science. That is what the agency does better than corporations because it need not cover the development costs of those systems with profits from manufacturing. The private corporations should determine how to use the advanced research that NASA conducts to produce launch vehicles and spacecraft that cost less, perform better, and are more reliable.

I think NASA's proper role in this should be as an inspector to assure that basic standards are met, as a services provider that provides highly specialized knowledge such as orbital mechanics, and as the aerospace R&D arm of our government. When it comes to manufacturing, virtually all corporations have proven themselves more cost effective than our government. This is why the government arsenals that manufactured something as simple as infantry rifles were shuttered in the same era as the Apollo Program, replaced by corporations that manufactured better rifles for fighting in Viet Nam for less money.

I think the proper role of the corporations (Blue Origin, SpaceX, United Launch Alliance) is as manufacturers and launch services providers. This is not to say that corporations can't conduct R&D, but the R&D effort should be limited to what is required for cost effective manufacture of rockets, spacecraft, and associated systems.

Everyone needs to play to their strengths and avoid their weaknesses. If a corporation wants to conduct a research project to improve batteries, then a private-public partnership should be formed for that exclusive purpose and the government and corporation pay an agreed-to percentage of the development costs. Boeing does this frequently, and the result has been more fuel efficient jetliners that require less maintenance and have better flight safety records. Anyway, this is just my $.02 on this issue.

Void · 2018-03-26 12:03:58

I support your arguments.
I am facinated by Vulcan. An entirely different method of hardware reuse. But understand I would not like to see any of the new methods killed.
BFR
Vulcan/Bigelow stuff
New Glen
I also care about;
Mr. Bransons efforts, and Dreamchaser.
......
It is really interesting to also compair the focus of each body of effort.
BFR appears to be a very generalist approach, emphasizing cost savings through complete hardware reuse. This one does have a primary mission of Mars, though, but also to earn money in non-Mars actions.
Vulcan appears to be selective about what they reuse, just what they consider the most valuable parts. And I love their recovery method, if they can pull it off. (That is not to say that I would ever want to part with SpaceX methods either). This one does also seem to have a notion of Mars, but I am not sure I understand all of their other objectives.
New Glen is not very defined, as Mr. Bezos apparently chooses it to be undefined at this point, except the Moon seems to be the farthest reach they currently care about.
Mr. Branson, I think may have only the objective of sub orbital and perhaps some LEO activity.
Dreamchaser appears to be strictly a much more rational, automated, and smaller space shuttle. With lifting body capabilities???
......
For now, BFR, the generalist is a great option. But I feel that eventually specialization for the purpose of efficiency will take place.
For instance, I think the BFR would be broken into an Earth Version surface to LEO, and a Mars version, surface to LEO. But to do that Mars infrastructure will have to be made very good.
Transfers of materials between the planets would no longer be done by a generalized BFR.
On the other hand, Vulcan will not be useful on Mars, as you cannot utilize the recovery methods of Vulcan with the Martian atmosphere being what it currently is.
But I do think Vulcans capabilities will be very interesting for recovering large objects to Earths surface, and perhaps to make sense for delivering things to Venus.
I also think the Vulcan will be able to deliver large items to LEO, such as it's expendable fuel tanks? But only when desired.
New Glen will do whatever it is going to do. I don't know much more than the Moon as it's automated specialty???
Mr. Branson, also may evolve to greater things.
Dreamchaser is important, as for Earth and Venus return craft with wings may make sense.
BFR avoids wings for lift, as SpaceX has made it's speciality to be able to land in spite of atmospheric conditions, not to use them as an asset for lift. Of course this is because they want to access Mars, and atmospheric lift in the Martian atmosphere is rather futile.
......
So, I am thinking "Frenemy". That is for massive goals, it should not be wrong to part out a job. Symbiotic mutual assistance.
That would be wonderful already. For instance I really think that BFR should be refueled in Martian orbit, and also have ULA's magnetic radiation shield. ULA could provide the magnetic device??? And perhaps ULA could provide the in Martian orbit refueling tank???
But this option is not available yet, so I guess BFR will do what SpaceX says it will do. Win or Loose.

SpaceNut · 2018-04-04 17:36:19

EM-1 Update: Making progress, but still behind schedule

Top NASA human exploration administrators briefed the Human Exploration Operations (HEO) committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) on March 26, providing an update on development, testing, and preparations for the first integrated flight of the Orion crew spacecraft and the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1) is currently expected to launch in 2020.
The pacing items for reaching launch readiness, referred to as “critical paths” in the schedule, continue to be construction of the first SLS Core Stage and the first Orion European Service Module (ESM). The agency is targeting the end of 2019 as a target launch date, but both critical path items are running around three months behind that schedule.

So pittifully slow....

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-02-18 10:39:43

QUOTE

This is also a reminder of how important it is to identify near-Earth objects. Despite being behind on a deadline to catalogue potentially hazardous objects, the Admin wants to cut funding for the NEO Surveyor space telescope.

https://twitter.com/housescience/status … 8784686084

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-02-18 10:39:57)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-05-27 09:21:37

NASA's Artemis moon rocket will cost $6 billion more than planned: report

https://www.space.com/nasa-sls-megarock … ays-report

Our auditors found that long-standing issues related to NASA’s management of #SLS contracts for the RS-25 Engines and Boosters—the two components that will power the mega rocket to space—have contributed to $6 billion in increased costs and delays of 6 years

https://twitter.com/nasaoig/status/1661808907449237522

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-05-27 09:23:02)

kbd512 · 2023-05-27 14:10:56

Ignoring cost, which does become much more important for non-governmental missions, the fact of the matter is that now we have multiple heavy lift and super heavy lift options on the table. Maybe this is just an "American thing", but we like having a menu of options to select from. At no point in time in human history, have our options for space exploration and exploitation looked so promising as they do right now.

At this point, we really should focus on "duck aligning", so that when we undertake a specific mission, all of our ducks are in a row. My irritation at the inordinate cost and protracted developmental timeline of Orion and SLS is no secret, but now that we have them we should identify the roles where they fit in best, and use them exclusively for roles which they excel at.

Here to stay (at least for now):
SLS / Orion
Dragon / Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy
Starship Super Heavy
Vulcan Starliner
Vulcan Dreamchaser
Vulcan Cygnus

Next few years:
New Glenn / whatever capsule and lander systems Blue Origin comes up with

It would've been great to have even more options with air-launch from StratoLauncher and Cosmic Girl, but that was not to be.

In conjunction with ESA, JAXA, and hopefully ROSCOSMOS whenever this Ukraine War nonsense finally ends, we have enough tech and international partners to move forward with lunar and Mars bases and eventual colonization. Potential new partners include India, South Korea, and various Middle Eastern nations. Our inability to work with the Chinese is very unfortunate, but they seem very intent on following in Russia's footsteps with starting unnecessary wars with their neighbors (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Viet Nam, The Philippines, amongst others). Giving up on the "sins of the past" seems very difficult for us to do. President Xi's power won't last forever, though, and hopefully FOMO will cause future leaders of China to start acting in a more hospitable manner towards their neighbors.

The more people we can "get onboard" with this idea of us ceasing to fight over scraps here on Earth and begin expanding our reach into space, the better our ultimate future looks. Space technology allows us to "take a giant sidestep" around many of our energy and resource depletion problems. The planets in the inner solar system alone represents more energy and metal than you can shake a stick at. The asteroid belt and outer planets are an energy and metals bonanza- wildly beyond our chicken scratch efforts at mining back on Earth. This is something we need to do to grow, and the faster the majority of people come to that "general realization", the faster we'll progress in making that necessary part of our future a reality.

So... That $6B price tag for Artemis can be looked at as an appalling waste of money, or merely the cost of doing business. If we start mining Helium-3 from the moon and it allows us to power humanity for another several thousand years, the $6B spent to get there and find all of the "good stuff" looks like "noise" in the overall budget. Back in the 1950s, there was no pissing and moaning over the cost of nuclear weapons to convince the Soviets they were never going to "win" a nuclear war with The West. From that initially strictly military technology set we received personal computers, the internet, GPS, cell phones, and all the other trappings of everyday life in a modern technologically advanced human civilization. No farmer in 1950s America thought he'd one day use military aircraft and satellite technology to drastically increase the productivity of his farmland. Now using that tech to farm food is not seriously questioned by anyone who actually does it as a business. Now we have AI software to analyze satellite images of the crops to figure out what they need to optimally grow. At the present time, it's hard to see how this whole moon base / Mars base venture is going to pay off, but farmers undoubtedly thought and said the same thing 50 years ago. I think it takes a lot less imagination now than it did back then, to realize how this will ultimately help us (all of humanity) if we follow through and do what we must to continue to thrive and grow.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-06-29 09:35:28

SLS not the only one eating the budget but also MSR costs

The Mars Sample Return Mission is Starting to Look Expensive

https://www.universetoday.com/162174/th … expensive/

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-03-24 08:16:22

NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#2 2018-03-24 08:21:03

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#3 2018-03-24 10:18:36

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#4 2018-03-24 10:19:02

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#5 2018-03-24 10:21:19

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#6 2018-03-24 13:31:18

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#7 2018-03-24 17:25:44

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#8 2018-03-24 19:25:55

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#9 2018-03-25 11:06:58

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#10 2018-03-25 11:25:22

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#11 2018-03-25 11:36:53

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#12 2018-03-25 12:28:45

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#13 2018-03-25 13:25:21

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#14 2018-03-26 10:41:18

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#15 2018-03-26 12:03:58

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#16 2018-04-04 17:36:19

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#17 2023-02-18 10:39:43

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#18 2023-05-27 09:21:37

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#19 2023-05-27 14:10:56

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

#20 2023-06-29 09:35:28

Re: NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion

Board footer