Quantcast

New report: NASA spends 72 cents of every SLS dollar on overhead costs

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,049
Reaction score
1,160
New report: NASA spends 72 cents of every SLS dollar on overhead costs
Report suggests NASA should become a customer, just like the US Air Force.
3/27/2017

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-cents-of-every-sls-dollar-on-overhead-costs/

"...according to a new report published by the nonpartisan think tank Center for a New American Security, NASA has spent $19 billion on rockets, first on Ares I and V, and now on the SLS. Additionally, the agency has spent $13.9 billion on the Orion spacecraft. The agency hopes to finally fly its first crewed mission with the new vehicles in 2021. If it does so, the report estimates the agency will have spent $43 billion before that first flight, essentially a reprise of the Apollo 8 mission around the Moon."
 

XolveJohn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
340
Reaction score
5
NASA is not concerned with efficiency. Even back in the Apollo days, it was expected the rush rush race to the moon would be very expensive, and it was. But they got it done. The people back then were different. I actually heard that the techs and builders had practical skills from.................working on hot rods! Everyone was racing. A race car is sort of like a rocket: propulsion, fuel tanks, lines, pumps, electric stuff, structure, it goes fast. Kids getting out of college today cannot use hand tools, and they are lost when asked to design, build, or troubleshoot something.

So NASA is still in that mindset, but with less competence. One exception is JPL, that mars rover landing "crane" system was amazing, and automatic.

Did you ever wonder why Musk can fire stuff into orbit for HALF the cost of NASA and their contractors? What I said.

:bang::bang:
 

cerving

Owner, Eggtimer Rocketry
TRF Sponsor
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,159
Reaction score
1,429
Schools nowadays don't even teach shop. Too many liability issues along with Common Core have killed it. No wonder it's so hard to get kids into a hands-on hobby like rocketry... they're used to everything working out of the box.
 

Charles_McG

Ciderwright
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
2,865
Reaction score
928
Location
SE Wisconsin
My boy's school has wood shop, metals shop ( Alex has to do projects with bending, turning, welding, and casting. They are setting up a donated CNC mill), and a media shop with silk screening, vinyl cutters, laser cutter, and 3D printers.

A few years ago, a parent arranged a spot in the Eagles Nest program and the club students are on their second Van's RV12. The school built a new shop for them to build in.

Academically, the school rates a B, at best. But they do more than Common Core.
 

XolveJohn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
340
Reaction score
5
He will be above average! Fab skills are important, even for maintaining stuff.

Troubleshooting is something they don't teach in any school. I was no good at it until got a night job at a factory

fixing and testing x-ray systems. Very complex and DANGEROUS. Always got someone to help with problems, until they
figured out I was not learning anything, then I was on my own. Took a couple months of sweating and tracing circuits,
finally I mastered it. I got my work done in half a nite, and went around the bays asking if anyone needed help.

Then learned even more. Too bad the company fell apart due to japanese competition, bought by Philips. After 3 layoffs I had already blown out of there. But used those skills on many other types of eqpt.

Learn learn learn. Kids these days have no curiosity about science.


 

Woody's Workshop

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
4,288
Reaction score
189
Location
Reed City, Michigan (Lower)
Schools nowadays don't even teach shop. Too many liability issues along with Common Core have killed it. No wonder it's so hard to get kids into a hands-on hobby like rocketry... they're used to everything working out of the box.
I'll go along with that to a certain point. The fact that my son was learning in 6th grade that I didn't start until 10th grade says a few things. They shove more learning in less time, so somethings have to be cut out. In my 6-8 grade (so called Middle School), shop was mandatory. I Learned Leather Craft, Use of power tools and safety procedures, basic wood projects, basic drafting, and we even did a 6 week trade off in 8th grade from shop to home economics where we learned how to make bread, cookies, pies, properly thaw foods, basic cooking skills. We even had to do the dishes and clean the counters and tables and got graded on it. All of these things have been worth while in my life. Heck, in 6th grade a gave a speech on how to properly clean a shot gun, and brought the shotgun to school and kept it in my locker! They also taught us our gun safety for small game hunting, boater safety, and snowmobile safety to get our right to drive boats and sleds.

Hell, to be honest, I was book dumb. I couldn't learn hardly anything from a book. But I could learn by doing and figuring out how things worked. Or just watching someone else.
If it were not for all the drafting, wood shop, metal shop, small engine repair, PE and teacher's aid in those classes, I would have never graduated. I only took what was absolutely necessary to graduate, and did so with the bare minimum.

No one can get away with that these days.
 

aerostadt

Lifetime Supporter
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
3,333
Reaction score
281
Location
Brigham City, UT
I hate to see NASA spending a lot of their funds on overhead. They have so few dollars relatively speaking to spend on the space program. This makes me think that the space program should be a full plate, so that real progress can be made on many things rather than just on overhead, which is like running in place.
 

Charles_McG

Ciderwright
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
2,865
Reaction score
928
Location
SE Wisconsin
I think you are stereotyping.
Being a parent of two boys, 13 and 17, I have a little different stereotype of them (and their friends) compared to my memories of the mid '80s.

I think today's youth are satisfied with exploring the digital realities available to them - regardless of how well or deeply they model physical reality. Who needs physics when they have Portal? KSP? Minecraft? They use up their curiosity in front of the screen.

Obviously, it's not true of every youth. Stereotypes are never totally true. (Nor false.)
 

Incongruent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
1,735
Reaction score
5
I think today's youth are satisfied with exploring the digital realities available to them - regardless of how well or deeply they model physical reality. Who needs physics when they have Portal? KSP? Minecraft? They use up their curiosity in front of the screen.
You know, the more I observe other people, the more I am inclined to believe that you are right.
I think the issue is that most people don't want to work* or spend time on a project. 45 minutes of time spent was too much for the few interested in building a rocket.
As for digital realities, it's not the exploration but the instant gratification and thus dopamine released.
Also, we all need physics — so the integrated circuits work and thus the games.

*unless it's for a grade; people may not normally be interested in science but before the science test...
 
Top