Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#51

Post by robomartin »

chroma wrote: post #36
robomartin wrote: post #5

Space isn’t easy. Going to the moon is significantly harder than LEO. I don’t think one can claim functional and performance equivalence between SLS to FH. https://youtu.be/Y81vx__JngY Now, if the argument is: Why go to the moon? Well, that’s a different conversation.

Jim Bridenstine sounds like a competent guy, but the fact is that NASA as an organization is no longer competent. They can't build rockets anymore. SLS has been a complete failure. The program was announced in 2011. The plan was to make an expendable vehicle based on existing RS-25 engines, existing SRBs, and the existing Space Shuttle external tank. This idea of reusing all of these systems was based on the previous…

I am not going to dispute the idea that NASA, just like any government enterprise, isn’t as efficient as private enterprise. Just look at what happened with CDC COVID-19 tests as a data point from another domain.

That said, having experience working both with SpaceX and NASA, I can tell you that companies like SpaceX would not exist without NASA’s research and experience. The simplest example of this that comes to mind, again, having worked with both, is NASA’s decades-long work in materials science for space. The cost of acquisition for such knowledge is absolutely incalculable —some of it measured in lives.

The real cost and development timeline of a FH would be dramatically higher and longer without NASA.

A fair question, then, might be: Why can’t NASA use this knowledge to develop products as efficiently as SpaceX then?

In order to answer this question you would have to have access to documentation spanning at least from MCR to CDR in order to understand what we are comparing against. A rocket isn’t just a tube full of fuel and LOX.

I am not defending anyone, just highlighting context I am privy to within the limits of what I can disclose. I can say we are working on a small portion of the Artemis Mission.

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#52

Post by scrumbledober »

valuearb wrote: post #50
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say there's two main justifications: 1. Lower Risk - based on 40+ year old proven rockets. NASA can't have failures if it wants to get future funding. 2. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs! - spreading out jobs means politicians are more likely to approve funding

40 year old rockets proven to kill 17 people and miss every cost and performance metric when they were operated.

Were any of those deaths due to a failing engine though? That's the only part they're really reusing afaik

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#53

Post by nickik »

tectonic wrote: post #2

Tim Dodd just released an excellent (and long) video comparing the costs of SLS with Falcon Heavy and (eventually, maybe) Starship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA69Oh3_obY&feature=youtu.be SLS will cost upwards of a billion per launch. Compare that to $90 million for a reusable Falcon Heavy launch or ~$150 million for a disposable one.

And SLS Orion Launch:

4x RS-25: 520M

2x SRB: 200M

ICPS: 150M (EUS will be more)

Core Stage: (not sure) 30M+ given how long they work on it

Orion Capsule: 900M

That is all without ground infrastructure or people working at NASA. Given that it will probably not launch more then once a year. 100s of M extra.

In comparison, a SpaceX Raptor internal cost is 1-2M, Merlin less then 1M. The sale price of the BO BE-4 is 8M.

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#54

Post by nickik »

voz_ wrote: post #6

I don't understand - what is the motivation here? The article is a little short, and it gives good insight into just how expensive this is (compared to other similarly classed potential space purchases). However, what I am failing to grasp is... why? Why spend so much when these other options are available? Surely not ignorance. Is it malice? corruption? Someone's ego?

I guess this is more target at people who want to keep up with NASA. NASA has to build SLS, the company knows that they are the only ones, so they can charge whatever they like.

Thankfully NASA is slowly moving away from insane stuff like this, but SLS/Orion are still done this way.

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#55

Post by valuearb »

scrumbledober wrote: post #52
valuearb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40 year old rockets proven to kill 17 people and miss every cost and performance metric when they were operated.

Were any of those deaths due to a failing engine though? That's the only part they're really reusing afaik

They are reusing very similar SRBs, which killed one crew and complicates SLS abort modes since SRBs cant be turned off and Orions parachutes will melt if they come into contact with SRB exhaust.

The RS-25 also requires Hydrogen fuel, which in addition to being a terrible first stage fuel because of its low density and heavy tankage (which is why SRBs are required) also has been a causative factor in most of the SLS delays to date.

The RS-25 is viewed as the Ferrari of engines because of its complexity and high ISP (which is only because it uses H2 as fuel). The main thing it has proven us that it’s far too expensive for any useful application. When used on the Shuttle each RS-25 had to be entirely torn down and rebuilt between flights, a process that took months and great expense.

So the SLS takes these enormously expensive engines and burns them up after each use. The only reason RS-25s aren’t long ago put into junkyards is congress trying to favor existing space contractors.

A keralox or metholox first stage would not need super expensive SRBs, would be far easier and cheaper to build. Raptors cost $2M each in prototype form and are expected to cost under $1M in production. Each raptor also provides more thrust than an RS-25, using a far denser and easier to handle fuel.

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#56

Post by dwaltrip »

pfdietz wrote: post #28

The purpose of the space program isn't to explore space, it's to consume federal funds, accruing influence and kickback contributions to the politicians who arrange it. It's important you understand this primary purpose if you want to understand what happens at NASA. If you are a space program supporter who is okay with the situation as long as NASA is getting money, then you are the reason they can get away with thi…

It's so tiring that people are unwilling or unable to handle nuance and complexity. An organization can both be bloated and inefficient as well as bold and daring and on the cutting edge of science.

I'll take a bloated NASA that sends probes to Pluto and funds new exciting programs such as Commercial Crew over no space program any day.

If you'd like to provide a specific plan for effective reform, I'd be interested in that as well.

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#57

Post by etrabroline »

valuearb wrote: post #48
etrabroline wrote: post #14

> The core stage is structurally similar to the Space Shuttle external tank,[24][25] and initial flights will use modified RS-25D engines left over from the Space Shuttle program.[26] Later flights will switch to a cheaper version of the engine not intended for reuse.[27] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System So they reused as much of the space shuttle as possible, down to using left over engines. Develop…

Each Merlin Engine costs $1M. A Raptor is expected to cost less than $1M each. Blue Origins BE-4 is priced at $8M each. So how did conservative NASA get cheaper RS-25 engines for only $147M each?

Those numbers are not measuring the same thing. Those are the marginal cost per engine. What did it cost Space X to develop the design, and what did it cost them to build the production facilities? The price NASA is paying is for delivery, not the cost to produces one more after billions have been sunk. Also, how many do they plan to produce? NASA probably only needs a few dozen RS-25s for the life of SLS, so probably not worth the billions Space X spent developing a new engine.

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#58

Post by testrun »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #40
bpodgursky wrote: post #3

I feel like we'd all be better off if the federal government just cut an equivalent no-strings-attached check to Alabama in perpetuity, cancelled the SLS, and freed up all the rocket scientists to build something useful. They could probably even do it in Alabama! SpaceX could open a local branch and mop up the talent. The current "waste money on the SLS for political reasons" just feels like the worst of all possible…

I feel we are better closing down instagram/ , and using freed up computer scientists to build something usefull.

I don't think you understand the difference between public and private money

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#59

Post by valuearb »

etrabroline wrote: post #57
valuearb wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each Merlin Engine costs $1M. A Raptor is expected to cost less than $1M each. Blue Origins BE-4 is priced at $8M each. So how did conservative NASA get cheaper RS-25 engines for only $147M each?

Those numbers are not measuring the same thing. Those are the marginal cost per engine. What did it cost Space X to develop the design, and what did it cost them to build the production facilities? The price NASA is paying is for delivery, not the cost to produces one more after billions have been sunk. Also, how many do they plan to produce? NASA probably only needs a few dozen RS-25s for the life of SLS, so probabl…

The Merlin was developed for the Falcon 1, at a total cost of $90M (including the rocket itself; and Kestrel engine for 2nd stage).

It was enhanced for Falcon 9, which has a total development cost of $300M for the first versions, including rocket, tanks, second stage, Merlin Vacuum.

The RS-25 was developed in the 70s for the Shuttle, and had a quoted cost of $47M at end of Shuttle life. This is literally the cost to make a few more after all design and testing was done. NASA has spent over $15B developing the SLS, why are they paying three times more for these engines?

Re: NASA will pay $146M for each SLS rocket engine

#60

Post by navaati »

bostik wrote: post #17
tectonic wrote: post #2

Tim Dodd just released an excellent (and long) video comparing the costs of SLS with Falcon Heavy and (eventually, maybe) Starship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA69Oh3_obY&feature=youtu.be SLS will cost upwards of a billion per launch. Compare that to $90 million for a reusable Falcon Heavy launch or ~$150 million for a disposable one.

Kind of off-topic, but trying to watch that video brought this to mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22792243

That’s a bit harsh, at the beginning of his videos he does a kind of outline of the content. But the content is there ! Kind of understand why you say that when, at one point, he mentions a future video.
Post reply on HN