NASA Space Launch System Costs

Wildman Rocketry
Advertise with us
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Apparently the Artemis I lunar flyaround is going to have a flash drive on it that you can add your name to... when you apply, they give you a cute little "boarding pass". Until Musk or Bezos start selling seats to the Moon, this is probably as close as you're likely to get...

https://www.nasa.gov/send-your-name-with-artemis/
 
Amazing, but also logical and inevitable outcome of the "cost-plus" government contracting structure.
If NASA (or any other government agency) ever wants to achieve financial control over its budget, all they have to do is ditch "cost-plus" porkware.

Alas, NASA can't do that.
"Cost-plus" structure was baked into Congressional budget resolution. So....
... now Congress can take pot shots at NASA for adhering to the letter of the law that required it to supply a handful of states with cushy jobs at legacy defense contractors on cost-plus contracts.
https://www.thecgo.org/benchmark/the-space-launch-system-is-an-irredeemable-mistake/
:facepalm:
 
Last edited:
It's a bargain if you keep in mind that inflation in 2024 is going to be 33%. So by printing money now, we're getting ''buy two, get one free''.

11% more thrust than a Saturn V? Pathetic. Hopefully it costs a fraction of what they claim, and the rest went to a black weapons program project. Most likely it's just lining someone's pockets.

How much does Barbados cost? If ya'll vote for me, I'll scrap NASA and just start buying islands.
 
MidOH said:
11% more thrust than a Saturn V? Pathetic. Hopefully it costs a fraction of what they claim, and the rest went to a black weapons program project. Most likely it's just lining someone's pockets.
Click to expand...
I totally believe that's the full price that NASA was charged. When Congress tells NASA to sole source, nobody has an incentive to quote competitive pricing. I remember seeing how they built the structure for the core stage tanks and being appalled at the hideous amount of waste. They took a thick plate of aluminum and then *machined in* a diamond waffle structure to give a thinner plate with integrated stiffeners. Then rolled that into barrels and welded them together. I can't think of a more expensive way to build a stiffened plate structure.
 
boatgeek said:
I totally believe that's the full price that NASA was charged. When Congress tells NASA to sole source, nobody has an incentive to quote competitive pricing. I remember seeing how they built the structure for the core stage tanks and being appalled at the hideous amount of waste. They took a thick plate of aluminum and then *machined in* a diamond waffle structure to give a thinner plate with integrated stiffeners. Then rolled that into barrels and welded them together. I can't think of a more expensive way to build a stiffened plate structure.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to a point, but I guess a counterpoint would be if it required technology like this to meet the mission objectives. I saw the ULA video about making plates this way, but conventional airplanes (aluminum skin, not composite) do this to a level as well. It is common for large sheets (maybe 1/8" thick, just for a magnitude) are stretch-formed to get the outer skin shape. They then go to various machining operations to get the outline and other features. At times, they go to chemical milling to reduce the thickness in various sections that didn't need to be as strong. Its crazy the number of steps involved, but at some level the economics must play out and it lowers the value of trying a different method.

A technology called mirror milling is a competing option to chemical milling. Historically, it hasn't been an economically viable option, it seems, as most work is still done with chemical milling. Environmental regulations are changing that dynamic.

Sandy.
 
Sandy H. said:
I agree with you to a point, but I guess a counterpoint would be if it required technology like this to meet the mission objectives. I saw the ULA video about making plates this way, but conventional airplanes (aluminum skin, not composite) do this to a level as well. It is common for large sheets (maybe 1/8" thick, just for a magnitude) are stretch-formed to get the outer skin shape. They then go to various machining operations to get the outline and other features. At times, they go to chemical milling to reduce the thickness in various sections that didn't need to be as strong. Its crazy the number of steps involved, but at some level the economics must play out and it lowers the value of trying a different method.

A technology called mirror milling is a competing option to chemical milling. Historically, it hasn't been an economically viable option, it seems, as most work is still done with chemical milling. Environmental regulations are changing that dynamic.

Sandy.
Click to expand...
It's certainly possible that this was the best option. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In this case, they were starting at something like 3" thick and machining down to 1/4" or less plate thickness.
 
boatgeek said:
They took a thick plate of aluminum and then *machined in* a diamond waffle structure to give a thinner plate with integrated stiffeners. Then rolled that into barrels and welded them together. I can't think of a more expensive way to build a stiffened plate structure.
Click to expand...
Looking at the entire part holistically it may be less of a difference than you think. Anywhere where there is a weld inspections are required and can really bog down the fabrication. This adds an enormous amount of cost to aerospace parts as each inspection step adds time and dollars.

As Sandy mentioned chemical milling can get very clever profiles in the parts and really minimise mass. Minimum mass is worth paying for as it translates directly into much greater payload capability for the vehicle.

3D printing is one process that has merit in this area as the part can be printed and inspected once. Unfortunatley it is not a suitable process for such a tank yet.

Cape Byron said:
Maybe 'the crawler' should be the nickname for the whole SLS program. 🤔
Click to expand...
I so wish I could multiple like this comment.
 
I would like to know more about how Starship is made and may find out more soon. You never know when a Tim Dodd visit will happen. . .

I imagine it is more of a stick and ring construction, but I don't know if the insides of those rings are milled, chem milled or otherwise modified or if those are just big round 'water tower' rings like they joked about in the early testing.

I do think SpaceX is doing things in a way that the old-school aerospace manufacturers can't. I think they are more in the early space race mentality of iterate vs. the later space race and the completely overloaded version of redundant, redundancies we have today. He is willing to blow up a lot of stuff. I don't think NASA ever will be again.

Sandy.
 
Boondoggle. White Elephant. Don't you just love the way Nasa continously wastes taxpayer monies? This isn't your grandfathers Nasa and hadn't been for decades.

Only thing the US makes anymore is weapons of war. Everything else is made in China or Vietnam.
 
The problem here is not that NASA is bad at doing things, or that the government is fundamentally inefficient, or the bidding process, or any particular manufacturing technique.

The problem is that the SLS project lacks a meaningful and consistent vision. The project lives in the netherworld where no one is really sure what it's for, but as soon as it's threatened with cancellation everyone gets sad about the idea that NASA doesn't have a rocket anymore so it won't die.

NASA can do great things, they do it all the time.
Like this one: https://www.nasa.gov/perseverance
And this one: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/overview/index.html
And even this one (despite all the growing pains and cost overruns and stuff): https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/webb/about/index.html

There are dozens of NASA missions flying around deep space doing amazing things every day.

Give NASA a sane set of requirements, a meaningful goal and consistent support and you get a much better product at the end.
 
The real problem is NASA has plenty of funding. The problem is the contracting process and over budget process. If I hire someone to do a job, they agree to a price. Rarely do they come back and say I can’t do that mid process. The military, GOV, and NASA need to change this ASAP.
 
Be careful comparing price per kg to orbit…these are not airliners flying on established routes.

Cost per kg for some SpaceX launches of which I’m knowledgable exceed $200K/kg. Depends a lot on the payload and the rocket is rarely ”full”.

Plus…the US taxpayers have subsidized SpaceX over $5.6B since 2012. Musk is very good at spending OPM.

I still like SpaceX and think that they have some great innovations. They have significantly reduced the cost for access to space, but that’s primarily from doing the dull stuff like turning a stage around in under three months, etc…
 
RocketPro said:
Be careful comparing price per kg to orbit…these are not airliners flying on established routes.

Cost per kg for some SpaceX launches of which I’m knowledgable exceed $200K/kg. Depends a lot on the payload and the rocket is rarely ”full”.

Plus…the US taxpayers have subsidized SpaceX over $5.6B since 2012. Musk is very good at spending OPM.

I still like SpaceX and think that they have some great innovations. They have significantly reduced the cost for access to space, but that’s primarily from doing the dull stuff like turning a stage around in under three months, etc…
Click to expand...
Ohhh...$5.6B thats a drop in the bucket compared to any single part of SLS.
 
Jeff Lassahn said:
The problem here is not that NASA is bad at doing things, or that the government is fundamentally inefficient, or the bidding process, or any particular manufacturing technique.
Click to expand...
The problem (since the 60s) is that NASA is told what to do and what to spend the big bucks on and where to spend them by representatives on Capitol Hill; by people like Senator Shelby.

TP
 

NASA IG Issues “Scathing Report” On Mobile Launcher Development​


https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/09/nasa-moon-rocket-ig-report/
The Washington Post (6/9) reports that NASA has had “significant problems with an obscure, but vital, piece of hardware used to transport and launch” a rocket intended to send astronauts back to the moon, a “tower of scaffolding known as a mobile launcher.” In a “scathing report issued Thursday,” NASA’s inspector general “said that a second version of the mobile launcher, needed to accommodate a taller version of the rocket, is expected to cost at least $1 billion – more than two times the original contract value that NASA awarded in 2019.” The IG also estimated that it would take an additional two-and-a-half years to build. The inspector general mostly cited contractor Bechtel for its “poor performance” and “underestimation of the ML-2 project’s scope and complexity.” The IG also found that “NASA’s management practices contributed to the project’s cost increases and schedule delays.”
 
OverTheTop said:

NASA IG Issues “Scathing Report” On Mobile Launcher Development​


https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/09/nasa-moon-rocket-ig-report/
The Washington Post (6/9) reports that NASA has had “significant problems with an obscure, but vital, piece of hardware used to transport and launch” a rocket intended to send astronauts back to the moon, a “tower of scaffolding known as a mobile launcher.” In a “scathing report issued Thursday,” NASA’s inspector general “said that a second version of the mobile launcher, needed to accommodate a taller version of the rocket, is expected to cost at least $1 billion – more than two times the original contract value that NASA awarded in 2019.” The IG also estimated that it would take an additional two-and-a-half years to build. The inspector general mostly cited contractor Bechtel for its “poor performance” and “underestimation of the ML-2 project’s scope and complexity.” The IG also found that “NASA’s management practices contributed to the project’s cost increases and schedule delays.”
Click to expand...
I think the guys that built Musks catcher tower are done now..... Could probably get a check quote from them.......
 
rharshberger said:
Hope Elon built a backup...you know how the iterative process goes....blow one up, fix the issue, blow another one up, fix that issue....blow..oh wait that one worked...
Click to expand...
Does seem to be cheaper. But as it's Elon's money there is less of a Spanish inquisition. If a government agency did that, there would be significant backlash. And finger pointing.
Let's not also forget that it was built in a year. During covid...
 
RocketScientistAustralia said:
Does seem to be cheaper. But as it's Elon's money there is less of a Spanish inquisition. If a government agency did that, there would be significant backlash. And finger pointing.
Let's not also forget that it was built in a year. During covid...
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the tower itself went from sketch to standing in around a year, but it has really been under fairly constant work to make it functional. It also reportedly cost 1/5th-ish what the ML-2 was quoted as costing. I doubt its an apples to apples comparison, but it does seem that one program was run more effectively than the other one. . .

Sandy.
 

Similar threads

Ez2cDave
Senate puts NASA on notice over Mars mission
Replies
21
Views
1K
RocketPro
RocketPro
Funkworks
Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) Propulsion
Replies
27
Views
1K
aerostadt
aerostadt
Funkworks
Euclid Space Telescope
Replies
2
Views
327
kuririn
kuririn
Lord Rory Gin
Can you launch a rocket into space with a centrifuge?
Replies
2
Views
128
Lord Rory Gin
Lord Rory Gin
alexzogh
Huntsville Saturn 1b was scrapped
Replies
7
Views
592
CalebJ
CalebJ

Latest posts

Back
Top