Former NASA official on trying to stop SLS: “There was just such visible hostility”

"I still don't know to this day if my boss, Charlie, was in on the whole deal."

Read the whole story

 

[Admaku]

I am still amazed how they can burn 10 billion and not have much to show for it.

 

[Wickwick]

Damn, Eric is on fire this week. What's next, an interview with Gwynne Shotwell?

I cannot recommend Lori Garver's book enough. If you haven't read it, do so.

 

[mhalpern]

I am still amazed how they can burn 10 billion and not have much to show for it.

it's not much, because there's other vehicles to compare to

 

[ReactorPulse]

Bolden is still against Starship to this day because "it's too big".

 

[ReactorPulse]

Bolden is still against Starship to this day because "it's too big".

It's going to be impossible for NASA to use because cost modeling they use is basically "1kg = $this much", so suddenly having such a large launch capacity will screw this.

That's not true. With commercial companies, the government pays for a service. With SLS, the government was buying a capability.

 

[Wickwick]

Bolden is still against Starship to this day because "it's too big".

It's going to be impossible for NASA to use Starship because the cost modeling they use is basically "1kg = $this much", so suddenly having such a large launch capacity will screw this and make building anything for it impossible.

Starship doesn't have to be full when it launches to orbit. Most other customers won't be able to figure out how to use 100-150 tonnes of payload capacity either.

 

[dr_lha]

Bolden is still against Starship to this day because "it's too big".

It's going to be impossible for NASA to use because cost modeling they use is basically "1kg = $this much", so suddenly having such a large launch capacity will screw this.

That's not true. With commercial companies, the government pays for a service. With SLS, the government was buying a capability.

I'm talking about building something to go into Starship. It represents a huge opportunity to completely change the way we think about building satellites and probes, suddenly being essentially freed of mass restrictions and so cripple us when designing spacecraft. It will take a sea change as NASA to take advantage of this, one they are not currently planning for.

 

[EricBerger]

Damn, Eric is on fire this week. What's next, an interview with Gwynne Shotwell?

Headed to Boca Chica this evening for the SpaceX and T-Mobile announcement, and then Florida's Space Coast this weekend for the Artemis I launch. So yeah, busy times.

 

[josephandrews222]

Very nice Q&A...one that makes me want to read her book.

My sense of things is that I believe Garver's narrative as outlined here.

I do have a question, though: is there ANY narrative out there, one that makes sense, that opposes Garver's views (as expressed here)?

My oh my what a boondoggle.

 

[stefan_lec]

I like her point that SLS was competing with Falcon Heavy to reach orbit first, not Starship.

SLS just lost that competition so incredibly badly that it might end up getting beaten by the rocket AFTER Falcon Heavy, too.

SLS is like the guy you think is narrowly in the lead, then you realize that's only because he got lapped...

 

[ReactorPulse]

Bolden is still against Starship to this day because "it's too big".

It's going to be impossible for NASA to use because cost modeling they use is basically "1kg = $this much", so suddenly having such a large launch capacity will screw this.

That's not true. With commercial companies, the government pays for a service. With SLS, the government was buying a capability.

I'm talking about building something to go into Starship. It represents a huge opportunity to completely change the way we think about building satellites and probes, suddenly being essentially freed of mass restrictions and so cripple us when designing spacecraft. It will take a sea change as NASA to take advantage of this, one they are not currently planning for.

Unfortunately that is not how the government thought process works or will likely ever work. In terms of acquisition strategy, the government plans for future capabilities that they themselves are funding but do not plan for announced future commercial capabilities. This is partly do to the lack of contractual obligations to meet government-specific requirements post-development or in this case, NASA hasn't been given the funding to develop Starship HLS/ CLPS payload requirements.

 

[r0twhylr]

I like her point that SLS was competing with Falcon Heavy to reach orbit first, not Starship.

SLS just lost that competition so incredibly badly that it might end up getting beaten by the rocket AFTER Falcon Heavy, too.

SLS is like the guy you think is narrowly in the lead, then you realize that's only because he got lapped...

Self-moving goalposts to go with the self-licking cone.

That said, commercial space (led by SpaceX) has moved rocket technology forward at a pace that the US space industry hasn't seen since the Apollo days, if ever.

 

[wagnerrp]

Damn, Eric is on fire this week. What's next, an interview with Gwynne Shotwell?

Headed to Boca Chica this evening for the SpaceX and T-Mobile announcement, and then Florida's Space Coast this weekend for the Artemis I launch. So yeah, busy times.

They really didn’t give much advance notice on that one. At least it’s a direct flight from Houston.

 

[Wickwick]

Damn, Eric is on fire this week. What's next, an interview with Gwynne Shotwell?

Headed to Boca Chica this evening for the SpaceX and T-Mobile announcement, and then Florida's Space Coast this weekend for the Artemis I launch. So yeah, busy times.

I'm sorry you have to go to Melbourne. Maybe you can hop over to Orlando for a few days during the first couple of SLS scrubs.

 

[Wickwick]

Very nice Q&A...one that makes me want to read her book.

My sense of things is that I believe Garver's narrative as outlined here.

I do have a question, though: is there ANY narrative out there, one that makes sense, that opposes Garver's views (as expressed here)?

My oh my what a boondoggle.

Garver herself quotes several books written by others that were critical of her role in commercial space and time in NASA in general. So there's clearly an opposing narrative. Whether any of them make sense is a question I cannot answer because I haven't read any of them.

 

[arcite]

A few years from now, SLS will be nothing more than an historical oddity.

Meanwhile; SpaceX will dominate the cosmos.

 

[dwrd]

So far, I don't think people beyond our community really know what's happening.

Don't worry, we know. This is a daring technology demonstration to show the world that you can build an entire rocket out of pork.

 

[DistinctivelyCanuck]

Damn, Eric is on fire this week. What's next, an interview with Gwynne Shotwell?

Headed to Boca Chica this evening for the SpaceX and T-Mobile announcement, and then Florida's Space Coast this weekend for the Artemis I launch. So yeah, busy times.

Guess I need to do some googling to find out what that's about.
(SpaceX + T-Mobile? huh? ).

Have a nice trip Eric.

 

[U-99]

I am still amazed how they can burn 10 billion and not have much to show for it.

That's the whole point of the program, though. Maximum spend and churn for minimal deliverables.

 

[dwrd]

A few years from now, SLS will be nothing more than an historical oddity.

Meanwhile; SpaceX will dominate the cosmos.

Given Elon's behavior, maybe don't say that like it's a good thing.

 

[wagnerrp]

Damn, Eric is on fire this week. What's next, an interview with Gwynne Shotwell?

Headed to Boca Chica this evening for the SpaceX and T-Mobile announcement, and then Florida's Space Coast this weekend for the Artemis I launch. So yeah, busy times.

Guess I need to do some googling to find out what that's about.
(SpaceX + T-Mobile? huh? ).

Have a nice trip Eric.

Nothing but speculation. Not sure if there was/is a news embargo, but this was only released just yesterday, with little more information than "there will be an announcement".

 

[mhalpern]

Bolden is still against Starship to this day because "it's too big".

It's going to be impossible for NASA to use because cost modeling they use is basically "1kg = $this much", so suddenly having such a large launch capacity will screw this.

That's not true. With commercial companies, the government pays for a service. With SLS, the government was buying a capability.

I'm talking about building something to go into Starship. It represents a huge opportunity to completely change the way we think about building satellites and probes, suddenly being essentially freed of mass restrictions and so cripple us when designing spacecraft. It will take a sea change as NASA to take advantage of this, one they are not currently planning for.

Unfortunately that is not how the government thought process works or will likely ever work. In terms of acquisition strategy, the government plans for future capabilities that they themselves are funding but do not plan for announced future commercial capabilities. This is partly do to the lack of contractual obligations to meet government-specific requirements post-development or in this case, NASA hasn't been given the funding to develop Starship HLS/ CLPS payload requirements.

this is why with the decadal study, you can swap most of the "SLS" for Starship

 

[Wickwick]

Damn, Eric is on fire this week. What's next, an interview with Gwynne Shotwell?

Headed to Boca Chica this evening for the SpaceX and T-Mobile announcement, and then Florida's Space Coast this weekend for the Artemis I launch. So yeah, busy times.

Guess I need to do some googling to find out what that's about.
(SpaceX + T-Mobile? huh? ).

Have a nice trip Eric.

Nothing but speculation. Not sure if there was/is a news embargo, but this was only released just yesterday, with little more information than "there will be an announcement".

My own speculation:

Boring version: T-Mobile is going to use Starlink for backhaul.

Super-speculative version: SpaceX is going to use T-Mobile's spectrum to provide direct cellular service. That wouldn't be a Starlink satellite as they exist now, but I do know at least a few groups are working on schemes where that would work.

 

[kd1sq]

"And we could have been doing it in a way that when it was happening, the public was excited, and it showed it was something new and different from Apollo. That was our goal."

One of the shortest, saddest phrases in the English language - "If only..."

 

[DougF]

Damn, Eric is on fire this week. What's next, an interview with Gwynne Shotwell?

Headed to Boca Chica this evening for the SpaceX and T-Mobile announcement, and then Florida's Space Coast this weekend for the Artemis I launch. So yeah, busy times.

I'm sorry you have to go to Melbourne. Maybe you can hop over to Orlando for a few days during the first couple of SLS scrubs.

We can meet at Fishlips after the 2hr window expires and either commiserate or rejoice at the delay, launch or WwE, depending on your POV…

 

[mhalpern]

I am still amazed how they can burn 10 billion and not have much to show for it.

That's still chump change compared to the F-35 development. Not sure which was less worth it, either.

F-35 replaces several aircraft (including the aging Harrier) and will help defend the interests of the US and Allies, SLS will fly every one or two years until it collapses under the weight of being compared to the commercial offers

 

[Wickwick]

I am still amazed how they can burn 10 billion and not have much to show for it.

That's still chump change compared to the F-35 development. Not sure which was less worth it, either.

Which is why I don't really care about the financial cost of SLS. It's the opportunity cost that's the real killer. Sure, the F-35 program ran over-budget but the engineers and technicians working on developing that plane were working on bleeding edge technology development and integration. The same cannot be said for SLS.

 

[mhalpern]

NASA for the most part has become a crapshow.

I'd hardly call SLS "for the most part" unless you are counting by budget

 

[tlgretzky]

Definitely going to pick this up - very interesting article here.

 

[EricBerger]

Very nice Q&A...one that makes me want to read her book.

My sense of things is that I believe Garver's narrative as outlined here.

I do have a question, though: is there ANY narrative out there, one that makes sense, that opposes Garver's views (as expressed here)?

My oh my what a boondoggle.

The narrative from Nelson and Hutchison, both of whom I have spoken with about this topic, is that they were working to preserve NASA's (and by extension that of the United States) launch work force. They felt that American capabilities in large launch vehicles, and solid rocket motors, and high-energy propulsion, needed to be conserved. So in their minds they were "keeping the band together" to ensure that the United States retained these key capabilities as strategic national assets. They also felt that by giving up Constellation, the Obama administration was turning away from human spaceflight for good.

 

[Wickwick]

NASA for the most part has become a crapshow.

NASA's oversight of Boeing during SLS (and Starshipliner for that matter) has been sub par. But SLS was imposed on NASA. They really had no choice but to go along. So while they might have held Boeing more accountable, there was no getting around they were going to launch a dinosaur into the ocean. Even the delays for JWST can't really be placed on NASA's performance. Those can really be blamed on the mass allocation really early on in the program and less-than-stellar performance by external contractors. But again, Congress was willing to pay the bills so NASA had to continue on for the ride.

The rest of NASA is doing about the same as they've always done. Their science missions are humming along. The ISS is still there. The Centers are still executing their various research programs.

 

[mhalpern]

NASA for the most part has become a crapshow.

NASA's oversight of Boeing during SLS (and Starship for that matter) has been sub par. But SLS was imposed on NASA. They really had no choice but to go along. So while they might have held Boeing more accountable, there was no getting around they were going to launch a dinosaur into the ocean. Even the delays for JWST can't really be placed on NASA's performance. Those can really be blamed on the mass allocation really early on in the program and less-than-stellar performance by external contractors. But again, Congress was willing to pay the bills so NASA had to continue on for the ride.

The rest of NASA is doing about the same as they've always done. Their science missions are humming along. The ISS is still there. The Centers are still executing their various research programs.

Starliner not Starship

 

[Wickwick]

Very nice Q&A...one that makes me want to read her book.

My sense of things is that I believe Garver's narrative as outlined here.

I do have a question, though: is there ANY narrative out there, one that makes sense, that opposes Garver's views (as expressed here)?

My oh my what a boondoggle.

The narrative from Nelson and Hutchison, both of whom I have spoken with about this topic, is that they were working to preserve NASA's (and by extension that of the United States) launch work force. They felt that American capabilities in large launch vehicles, and solid rocket motors, and high-energy propulsion, needed to be conserved. So in their minds they were "keeping the band together" to ensure that the United States retained these key capabilities as strategic national assets. They also felt that by giving up Constellation, the Obama administration was turning away from human spaceflight for good.

So while Garver doesn't quite say "I told you so," there are quite a few passages which could be boiled down to "scoreboard..."

 

[stefan_lec]

I am still amazed how they can burn 10 billion and not have much to show for it.

That's still chump change compared to the F-35 development. Not sure which was less worth it, either.

F-35 replaces several aircraft (including the aging Harrier) and will help defend the interests of the US and Allies, SLS will fly every one or two years until it collapses under the weight of being compared to the commercial offers

F-35 is also similar in price (or even cheaper!) than other modern fighter aircraft on the market, like the Rafale. The SLS is an order of magnitude more expensive than current competition. Heck, it's twice as expensive as (and less capable than) the 60 year old Saturn V.

I wish SLS got the bad press that F-35 gets, it deserves it more.

EDIT: fixed awkward grammar

 

[Wickwick]

NASA for the most part has become a crapshow.

NASA's oversight of Boeing during SLS (and Starship for that matter) has been sub par. But SLS was imposed on NASA. They really had no choice but to go along. So while they might have held Boeing more accountable, there was no getting around they were going to launch a dinosaur into the ocean. Even the delays for JWST can't really be placed on NASA's performance. Those can really be blamed on the mass allocation really early on in the program and less-than-stellar performance by external contractors. But again, Congress was willing to pay the bills so NASA had to continue on for the ride.

The rest of NASA is doing about the same as they've always done. Their science missions are humming along. The ISS is still there. The Centers are still executing their various research programs.

Starliner not Starship

Bleh - I know that. I hate that mistake.

 

[wagnerrp]

I am still amazed how they can burn 10 billion and not have much to show for it.

That's still chump change compared to the F-35 development. Not sure which was less worth it, either.

Total F-35 development cost is somewhere around $150B, and they'll be making thousands of the things, and using them for the next fifty years. The "outlandish" numbers you see reported are the estimated fully inclusive program cost, out through 2070. An aircraft is going to cost several times the purchase cost in maintenance, fuel, and armament over its lifetime. A "cheap" F-16 costs $300M+ over its lifetime.

SLS/Orion development cost is about $50B so far, with major components left to be developed (likely never to do so), and poor prospects for any significant count of operations.