SLS Program $400M short according to US Government Accountability Office

[DaRocketCat]

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-631

"The Space Launch System (SLS) program is making solid progress on the SLS design. However, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has not developed an executable business case based on matching the program's cost and schedule resources with the requirement to develop the vehicle and conduct the first flight test in December 2017 at the required confidence level of 70 percent."

The worrisome part:

" According to the program's risk analysis, however, the agency's current funding plan for SLS may be $400 million short of what the program needs to launch by 2017."

And some reassuring words:

"the program has opportunities to promote affordability moving forward."

"There are opportunities, however, to improve long-term affordability through competition once the development path has been determined and NASA can finalize its acquisition approach."

[Kryten]

Launch in 2017 is no longer necessary anyway, it was part of the requirement for emergency launch to ISS if CCDEV vehicles weren't ready.

[Tommygun]

Are any of the developing CCDEV vehicles close to being man rated?

Or I should say started the process?

[montyben101]

I just hope the SLS dosent go the same way as the Constellation project, As much as i dislike SLS i think this time NASA would find it harder to recover

[Sky_walker]

I just hope the SLS dosent go the same way as the Constellation project, As much as i dislike SLS i think this time NASA would find it harder to recover

Elections are in 2016. First flight is planned for 2017.

I find it very, very unlikely that they'll cancel it.

Oh, and BTW: SLS Block II is very much Constellation Ares V Lite under a different name, new paint, and some modifications. Just look at the Ares V picture and imagine that orange is white with black stripes:

All that R&D invested in Ares didn't go in vain.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Sky_walker

[jwenting]

Elections are in 2016. First flight is planned for 2017.

I find it very, very unlikely that they'll cancel it.

Moment there's no more votes to be bought, the funds go elsewhere. And that's 1 day after the 2016 elections.

[Sky_walker]

Moment there's no more votes to be bought, the funds go elsewhere. And that's 1 day after the 2016 elections.

By the time new president gets into the white house - majority of SLS contracts will be signed and at least the first round of payments for construction will be already done.

Elections are 13 months before the SLS launch.

As I said - everything is possible, but I find it extremely unlikely to cancel SLS so far into development.

At a very least - we will see one launch of a Block 1.

Future is uncertain though...

Especially because for some reason I don't understand - they planned 4 years gap between first and a second launch.

[Red Iron Crown]

I thought there was a bill passed by Congress that SLS couldn't be cancelled without Congress' express approval. I don't think a president or NASA administrator can cancel it unilaterally. Four hundred million is small potatoes in US federal budget terms, just buy four or five fewer F-35s and we're good.

Honestly, I think it's time to start developing the payloads that require this kind of heavy lift capability. Is there much more than paper studies for what SLS will be used for?

[Comrade Jenkens]

Hope they don't cancel it. I know its not great but otherwise they'll just spend another 10 years developing a practically identical launch vehicle.

[CptRichardson]

I thought there was a bill passed by Congress that SLS couldn't be cancelled without Congress' express approval. I don't think a president or NASA administrator can cancel it unilaterally. Four hundred million is small potatoes in US federal budget terms, just buy four or five fewer F-35s and we're good.

Except for that pesky republican party of "CUT EVERYTHING!" Especially science. After all, what good is science? [/Average Insane Republican in Government.]

[R0cketC0der]

Except for that pesky republican party of "CUT EVERYTHING!" Especially science. After all, what good is science? [/Average Insane Republican in Government.]

Please don't start an argument about that if you don't want this thread to become locked.

[Sky_walker]

I thought there was a bill passed by Congress that SLS couldn't be cancelled without Congress' express approval. I don't think a president or NASA administrator can cancel it unilaterally. Four hundred million is small potatoes in US federal budget terms, just buy four or five fewer F-35s and we're good.

US DoD spends more money on air conditioning of the tents than NASA. You really think they're going to give up even a single F-35?

Everything can be cancelled if there's political will to do so. And as history have proven many times before: it's by far easier to make a cuts in NASA than give them the money they want.

Honestly, I think it's time to start developing the payloads that require this kind of heavy lift capability. Is there much more than paper studies for what SLS will be used for?

You mean commercial or government?

[Red Iron Crown]

US DoD spends more money on air conditioning of the tents than NASA. You really think they're going to give up even a single F-35?

Everything can be cancelled if there's political will to do so. And as history have proven many times before: it's by far easier to make a cuts in NASA than give them the money they want.

That's true, but there's more hoops to jump through to cancel SLS than other programs due to its mandated nature.

You mean commercial or government?

Either. Both. Yes.

[Streetwind]

Well, the asteroid redirect mission is meant to launch on the SLS - both the robotic tug for capturing the asteroid, and later-on the Orion capsule for manned rendezvous.

The larger sizes are pegged for future Mars missions. Which, admittedly, do fall under "paper studies" at the moment.

[Everten P.]

Simple use the OTRAG Kayser rocket till' it's ready