That figure is far higher than NASA might have hoped.
March 4, 2022 4:45 AM Subscribe
Later in the hearing, Martin broke down the costs per flight, which will apply to at least the first four launches of the Artemis program: $2.2 billion to build a single SLS rocket, $568 million for ground systems, $1 billion for an Orion spacecraft, and $300 million to the European Space Agency for Orion's Service Module. NASA, Martin said, had checked and confirmed these figures.
We’ll never get to warp drive with this kind of spending.
posted by Servo5678 at 5:42 AM on March 4, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by Servo5678 at 5:42 AM on March 4, 2022 [4 favorites]
We’ll never get to warp drive with this kind of spending.
On the plus side, warp drive happens some time after WW3, and that is moving right along.
posted by biffa at 5:46 AM on March 4, 2022 [46 favorites]
On the plus side, warp drive happens some time after WW3, and that is moving right along.
posted by biffa at 5:46 AM on March 4, 2022 [46 favorites]
I hate agreeing with Elon Musk on things.
posted by leotrotsky at 5:46 AM on March 4, 2022 [21 favorites]
posted by leotrotsky at 5:46 AM on March 4, 2022 [21 favorites]
in a way it pains me to say this but imo manned space flight should be abandoned both privately and publicly. it's so expensive and futile. all the exploration and science comes from unmanned vehicles and the prospect of actual space habitation is complete nonsense.
posted by AlbertCalavicci at 5:46 AM on March 4, 2022 [41 favorites]
posted by AlbertCalavicci at 5:46 AM on March 4, 2022 [41 favorites]
I read the article and now understand that the Inspector General of NASA, an independent oversight person, says that the cost of the missions is going to be too high to be sustainable, largely due to the contract structure and significant inefficiencies on the part of contractors like Boeing.
Okay cool - not great news, hopefully there are improvements to be made.
Is there a broader context for this that I'm missing?
posted by lazaruslong at 5:54 AM on March 4, 2022 [1 favorite]
Okay cool - not great news, hopefully there are improvements to be made.
Is there a broader context for this that I'm missing?
posted by lazaruslong at 5:54 AM on March 4, 2022 [1 favorite]
in a way it pains me to say this but imo manned space flight should be abandoned both privately and publicly.
Totally. I always hear the same two arguments for it: either A) we created so much new technology as part of the Apollo program that we rely on today or B) we need to get off this planet for humanity's survival.
The first argument is both overblown and stupid; we have different technological challenges today which are very clearly identified and can be worked on directly as opposed to some kind of 'happy accident' resulting from a completely different program. And in the second case, if we screw up the planet so royally that we have to get off of it, there's still no universe in which it would not be easier to just STAY here and engineer a barebones survival solution for the species than it would be to fucking terriform Mars.
Ultimately, manned missions are cool. But that's about it.
posted by Room 101 at 6:15 AM on March 4, 2022 [19 favorites]
Totally. I always hear the same two arguments for it: either A) we created so much new technology as part of the Apollo program that we rely on today or B) we need to get off this planet for humanity's survival.
The first argument is both overblown and stupid; we have different technological challenges today which are very clearly identified and can be worked on directly as opposed to some kind of 'happy accident' resulting from a completely different program. And in the second case, if we screw up the planet so royally that we have to get off of it, there's still no universe in which it would not be easier to just STAY here and engineer a barebones survival solution for the species than it would be to fucking terriform Mars.
Ultimately, manned missions are cool. But that's about it.
posted by Room 101 at 6:15 AM on March 4, 2022 [19 favorites]
But damn, what a deal!
Coming from a defense background, I would tend to agree. However, at least in defense (and I think NASA has similar rules), cost-plus contracting is used sparingly and generally only when there is a high risk of program failure. In other words, the government wants some new or novel technology, and it isn't immediately clear if the original goals are achievable in the projected time span. The thinking here is that contractors won't bid if the risk is too great.
Firm fixed price contracting is a lot more common - the government pays a set fee for delivery of a product, and that's the end of it. Except it's rarely the end of it, for a variety of reasons - for one, contractors will tend to bid higher on these programs because of the extra risk involved to them. But also, guess what happens when there are major cost overruns and schedule slips? That's right, the government pays more money, because the contractor can threaten to walk away at the conclusion of the contract and no program manager wants to be responsible for burning hundreds of millions of dollars with nothing to show for it. So it turns into the classic problem of throwing good money after bad, and the FFP contract arguably does little to save money in the long run. (Granted, I'm talking here about large development programs - smaller procurement contracts work very differently.)
The real problem, in my opinion, is that the government is hopelessly outgunned in terms of contracting and program management expertise. Big contractors can simply afford to pay more for people who can run circles around your typical GS-14 managing this stuff on the government side. There's a concurrent issue (at least on the defense side) of the rotational aspect of a lot of upper management's career paths, where a colonel-level manager may only spend two years or less on a given posting before moving on to something else that will help advance their promotion prospects. For decade-plus long programs, their priorities shift from "do the right thing" to "don't rock the boat so I can get out of here intact."
I believe these kinds of cost overruns could be significantly mitigated if the government could hire competitively and shift the career paradigm for upper management (commissioned and civilian both) away from tacking as many postings as possible on to your resume. However, these would both be major changes to the way personnel is managed, and as we've seen in the past there seems to be little interest at the congressional level to, you know, pay government employees.
posted by backseatpilot at 6:32 AM on March 4, 2022 [51 favorites]
Coming from a defense background, I would tend to agree. However, at least in defense (and I think NASA has similar rules), cost-plus contracting is used sparingly and generally only when there is a high risk of program failure. In other words, the government wants some new or novel technology, and it isn't immediately clear if the original goals are achievable in the projected time span. The thinking here is that contractors won't bid if the risk is too great.
Firm fixed price contracting is a lot more common - the government pays a set fee for delivery of a product, and that's the end of it. Except it's rarely the end of it, for a variety of reasons - for one, contractors will tend to bid higher on these programs because of the extra risk involved to them. But also, guess what happens when there are major cost overruns and schedule slips? That's right, the government pays more money, because the contractor can threaten to walk away at the conclusion of the contract and no program manager wants to be responsible for burning hundreds of millions of dollars with nothing to show for it. So it turns into the classic problem of throwing good money after bad, and the FFP contract arguably does little to save money in the long run. (Granted, I'm talking here about large development programs - smaller procurement contracts work very differently.)
The real problem, in my opinion, is that the government is hopelessly outgunned in terms of contracting and program management expertise. Big contractors can simply afford to pay more for people who can run circles around your typical GS-14 managing this stuff on the government side. There's a concurrent issue (at least on the defense side) of the rotational aspect of a lot of upper management's career paths, where a colonel-level manager may only spend two years or less on a given posting before moving on to something else that will help advance their promotion prospects. For decade-plus long programs, their priorities shift from "do the right thing" to "don't rock the boat so I can get out of here intact."
I believe these kinds of cost overruns could be significantly mitigated if the government could hire competitively and shift the career paradigm for upper management (commissioned and civilian both) away from tacking as many postings as possible on to your resume. However, these would both be major changes to the way personnel is managed, and as we've seen in the past there seems to be little interest at the congressional level to, you know, pay government employees.
posted by backseatpilot at 6:32 AM on March 4, 2022 [51 favorites]
Ultimately, manned missions are cool. But that's about it.
It feels like the Manned Missions: Y/N? debate is unavoidable on MeFi and I don't want to rehash it in its entirety, but this is a little reductive. There's also the somewhat intangible factor that young kids watching adults go into space birthed an entire generation of engineers and technicians and mathematicians and pilots and and and. It's a complex question.
I have to say that without some broader context, a single link article about NASA budget overruns is kind of perfect for touching off the Same Old Flamewar about NASA and manned missions and SpaceX etc etc etc. I know OP is a space nerd, so I'm again really curious if there's some broader context here that might be helpful for guiding the discussion.
posted by lazaruslong at 6:48 AM on March 4, 2022 [17 favorites]
It feels like the Manned Missions: Y/N? debate is unavoidable on MeFi and I don't want to rehash it in its entirety, but this is a little reductive. There's also the somewhat intangible factor that young kids watching adults go into space birthed an entire generation of engineers and technicians and mathematicians and pilots and and and. It's a complex question.
I have to say that without some broader context, a single link article about NASA budget overruns is kind of perfect for touching off the Same Old Flamewar about NASA and manned missions and SpaceX etc etc etc. I know OP is a space nerd, so I'm again really curious if there's some broader context here that might be helpful for guiding the discussion.
posted by lazaruslong at 6:48 AM on March 4, 2022 [17 favorites]
Crewed mission. Not manned. It's 2022. Woman have been flying in space since 1963, thought there was a 20 year gap until the second one went up.
posted by bondcliff at 6:50 AM on March 4, 2022 [52 favorites]
posted by bondcliff at 6:50 AM on March 4, 2022 [52 favorites]
Yep, crewed -- my bad.
posted by lazaruslong at 6:55 AM on March 4, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by lazaruslong at 6:55 AM on March 4, 2022 [12 favorites]
Four billion a launch (a number that is only going to go up) and the benefits are intangible?
posted by thatwhichfalls at 7:00 AM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by thatwhichfalls at 7:00 AM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
in a way it pains me to say this but imo manned space flight should be abandoned both privately and publicly. it's so expensive and futile. all the exploration and science comes from unmanned vehicles and the prospect of actual space habitation is complete nonsense.
I appreciate the desire to expand into new horizons for the human race so that we are not vulnerable to climate change and other existential threats, but if we cannot fix the attitudes and practices that caused it then we will simply repeat them elsewhere.
And yes, I truly believe the dangers and limitations of living in space and/or the Moon and Mars are not appreciated enough.
posted by fortitude25 at 7:06 AM on March 4, 2022 [4 favorites]
I appreciate the desire to expand into new horizons for the human race so that we are not vulnerable to climate change and other existential threats, but if we cannot fix the attitudes and practices that caused it then we will simply repeat them elsewhere.
And yes, I truly believe the dangers and limitations of living in space and/or the Moon and Mars are not appreciated enough.
posted by fortitude25 at 7:06 AM on March 4, 2022 [4 favorites]
The real problem, in my opinion, is that the government is hopelessly outgunned in terms of contracting and program management expertise. Big contractors can simply afford to pay more for people who can run circles around your typical GS-14 managing this stuff on the government side. There's a concurrent issue (at least on the defense side) of the rotational aspect of a lot of upper management's career paths, where a colonel-level manager may only spend two years or less on a given posting before moving on to something else that will help advance their promotion prospects. For decade-plus long programs, their priorities shift from "do the right thing" to "don't rock the boat so I can get out of here intact."
I don't disagree with your main point, but I'm not sure it's for the reasons you think it is. Private industry is plagued by a fixation on short-term profits over long-term viability, which encourages exactly the same kind of myopic behavior in high-level decision makers. If anything, your average GS-14 should be MUCH more willing to think strategically about priorities in the long-term, because of a combination of job security and a feeling of ownership... but, to your point, that only works if the postings are 5 or 10 years instead of 2.
posted by Mayor West at 7:17 AM on March 4, 2022 [5 favorites]
I don't disagree with your main point, but I'm not sure it's for the reasons you think it is. Private industry is plagued by a fixation on short-term profits over long-term viability, which encourages exactly the same kind of myopic behavior in high-level decision makers. If anything, your average GS-14 should be MUCH more willing to think strategically about priorities in the long-term, because of a combination of job security and a feeling of ownership... but, to your point, that only works if the postings are 5 or 10 years instead of 2.
posted by Mayor West at 7:17 AM on March 4, 2022 [5 favorites]
I'm one of those people who agrees that crewed space missions are largely pointless but we should do them anyway. It should be treated more as art than science. Nothing is more beautiful than seeing a smiling face looking out the window of the ISS, astronauts hopping around on the Lunar surface, or a space suited figure floating around outside their spacecraft.
Few things in this world are so beautiful and hopeful. It would be nice to get the cost down, sure, but I'd rather build an Artemis than an aircraft carrier.
posted by bondcliff at 7:19 AM on March 4, 2022 [26 favorites]
Few things in this world are so beautiful and hopeful. It would be nice to get the cost down, sure, but I'd rather build an Artemis than an aircraft carrier.
posted by bondcliff at 7:19 AM on March 4, 2022 [26 favorites]
This is why everything that happens in space should be fully cooperative Earth venture, non profit, of the higest order, with absolute agreements about future lunar development, waste dumping, secular civil society, etc. Otherwise we are going to rob ourselves blind, as a species, and nothing that happens in space will do anything but prop up now and future oligarchies, monarchies, and religious fiefdoms. Allowing a contractor robbery is bad news, the government has to take back development.
posted by Oyéah at 7:25 AM on March 4, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by Oyéah at 7:25 AM on March 4, 2022 [8 favorites]
I hate agreeing with Elon Musk on things.
Then don't. Because most likely you are actually agreeing with Gwynne Shotwell.
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 7:43 AM on March 4, 2022 [8 favorites]
Then don't. Because most likely you are actually agreeing with Gwynne Shotwell.
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 7:43 AM on March 4, 2022 [8 favorites]
If we stop sending people into space, how will we get rid of all the account executives and telephone sanitizers?
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:44 AM on March 4, 2022 [18 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:44 AM on March 4, 2022 [18 favorites]
This is not in any way to say that NASA doesn't hugely overspend for what it often gets from the big aerospace corps, but let's put it a little bit into perspective.
Had DoD decided not to move forward with the F-35 and skipped an aircraft generation, and spent as much as 50% of the F-35's development (so far, $323 Billion according to Wikipedia) on upgrading and improving existing airframes, NASA could do 35 of these Artemis missions at the above rate, presuming no economies of scale at all.
For half of the cost of the F-35 so far. If DoD had decided to simply forgo the F-35 development, the full savings would have been more like $1.1 Trillion, so it would be closer to 125 Artemis missions. Or, probably a Moon base and a Mars base instead.
If Trump's 2017 tax cut weren't implemented, the same money could have been spent on the full F-35 AND around 150 Artemis missions.
NASA spends lots and lots of money, to be sure. And NASA could do a much, much better job of getting value for taxpayers. But Artemis, relative to developing weapons or allowing the richest to have a pointlessly higher score, is not a bad deal.
posted by tclark at 7:46 AM on March 4, 2022 [69 favorites]
Had DoD decided not to move forward with the F-35 and skipped an aircraft generation, and spent as much as 50% of the F-35's development (so far, $323 Billion according to Wikipedia) on upgrading and improving existing airframes, NASA could do 35 of these Artemis missions at the above rate, presuming no economies of scale at all.
For half of the cost of the F-35 so far. If DoD had decided to simply forgo the F-35 development, the full savings would have been more like $1.1 Trillion, so it would be closer to 125 Artemis missions. Or, probably a Moon base and a Mars base instead.
If Trump's 2017 tax cut weren't implemented, the same money could have been spent on the full F-35 AND around 150 Artemis missions.
NASA spends lots and lots of money, to be sure. And NASA could do a much, much better job of getting value for taxpayers. But Artemis, relative to developing weapons or allowing the richest to have a pointlessly higher score, is not a bad deal.
posted by tclark at 7:46 AM on March 4, 2022 [69 favorites]
NASA spends lots and lots of money, to be sure. And NASA could do a much, much better job of getting value for taxpayers. But Artemis, relative to developing weapons or allowing the richest to have a pointlessly higher score, is not a bad deal.
"Compared to other horrible deals this horrible deal is not as horrible" is not the convincing argument you think it is.
posted by srboisvert at 7:59 AM on March 4, 2022 [7 favorites]
"Compared to other horrible deals this horrible deal is not as horrible" is not the convincing argument you think it is.
posted by srboisvert at 7:59 AM on March 4, 2022 [7 favorites]
Nothing like pork-barrel politics to slow NASA projects to a crawl.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:01 AM on March 4, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:01 AM on March 4, 2022 [6 favorites]
There's also the somewhat intangible factor that young kids watching adults go into space birthed an entire generation of engineers and technicians and mathematicians and pilots and and and.
More than one generation. My daughter got scholarships in college writing essays about why she was seriously pursuing the goal of being an astronaut. She loved math and science, but the dream of working for NASA someday was what motivated her. Becoming an astronaut is no longer her goal, but she is now in a PhD program in Astronomy.
posted by straight at 8:10 AM on March 4, 2022 [15 favorites]
More than one generation. My daughter got scholarships in college writing essays about why she was seriously pursuing the goal of being an astronaut. She loved math and science, but the dream of working for NASA someday was what motivated her. Becoming an astronaut is no longer her goal, but she is now in a PhD program in Astronomy.
posted by straight at 8:10 AM on March 4, 2022 [15 favorites]
"young kids watching adults go into space birthed an entire generation of engineers and technicians and mathematicians and pilots and and and."
I'm not sure that teaching kids to venerate technology for technology's sake is a good thing. And I'm a 1970s-born STEM techie myself.
The difference between science and technology can be blurry, but it still exists. We should be encouraging our kids to understand the world around us, not to dominate it. So yes, uncrewed space travel is a noble endeavor. Space colonialism is not.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:15 AM on March 4, 2022 [12 favorites]
I'm not sure that teaching kids to venerate technology for technology's sake is a good thing. And I'm a 1970s-born STEM techie myself.
The difference between science and technology can be blurry, but it still exists. We should be encouraging our kids to understand the world around us, not to dominate it. So yes, uncrewed space travel is a noble endeavor. Space colonialism is not.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:15 AM on March 4, 2022 [12 favorites]
Someone just needs to discover oil on the Moon or Mars and it'll sort itself out.
posted by loquacious at 8:18 AM on March 4, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by loquacious at 8:18 AM on March 4, 2022 [6 favorites]
As someone (professionally) concerned with pollution issues on earth, one of the major attractions of space to me has been moving damaging industries off-planet away from sensitive ecosystems. I'm in favour of putting say chip fabs on the moon, and iron smelteries in orbit.
That to me is one of the potential big wins of a space-based future, a cleaner earth. I know that there's much between here and there, but even so.
posted by bonehead at 9:00 AM on March 4, 2022 [12 favorites]
That to me is one of the potential big wins of a space-based future, a cleaner earth. I know that there's much between here and there, but even so.
posted by bonehead at 9:00 AM on March 4, 2022 [12 favorites]
We know for sure there's oil on Titan. Hydrocarbons, anyway.
posted by bonehead at 9:01 AM on March 4, 2022
posted by bonehead at 9:01 AM on March 4, 2022
Jesus fuck, what's that in food?
posted by pompomtom at 9:35 AM on March 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by pompomtom at 9:35 AM on March 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
Someone just needs to discover oil on the Moon or Mars and it'll sort itself out.
Hell, a few rare earth element heavy asteroids would do as well. Wasn't that a plot point in Don't Look Up?
posted by Badgermann at 9:39 AM on March 4, 2022
Hell, a few rare earth element heavy asteroids would do as well. Wasn't that a plot point in Don't Look Up?
posted by Badgermann at 9:39 AM on March 4, 2022
If we stop sending people into space, how will we get rid of all the account executives and telephone sanitizers?
Account executives, sure, but I have a feeling getting rid of telephone sanitizers might be a bit short-sighted.
posted by TedW at 9:41 AM on March 4, 2022 [11 favorites]
Account executives, sure, but I have a feeling getting rid of telephone sanitizers might be a bit short-sighted.
posted by TedW at 9:41 AM on March 4, 2022 [11 favorites]
I hate agreeing with Elon Musk on things.
Then don't. Because most likely you are actually agreeing with Gwynne Shotwell.
Not really. El*n has been on record for a long time that Cost Plus is no longer necessary for space flight contracting. It took Shotwell to prove it, of course.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 9:46 AM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
Then don't. Because most likely you are actually agreeing with Gwynne Shotwell.
Not really. El*n has been on record for a long time that Cost Plus is no longer necessary for space flight contracting. It took Shotwell to prove it, of course.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 9:46 AM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
So $80B to get 10 rocket rides, some to the moon (maybe some to mars?) and lay the foundation for anything more extensive. That's a lot of money (astronomical!) but what are the comparative points of reference? The F-35 is expected to cost $1.7 Trillion over the course of its lifespan, that's 21.25 Orion/SLS programs.
posted by furtive at 10:13 AM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by furtive at 10:13 AM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
It took Shotwell to prove it, of course.
What's in the pudding, again ? I forget.
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 10:15 AM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
What's in the pudding, again ? I forget.
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 10:15 AM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
The FOOF? Something like that anyway.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 10:22 AM on March 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 10:22 AM on March 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
Pareto Principle in action again. I am guessing the 20 percent or so NASA spends on Small Science produces almost all 100 percent of the good science; while the 80 percent or so spent on putting people in space is mostly for show as it generates the most publicity.
posted by indianbadger1 at 10:43 AM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by indianbadger1 at 10:43 AM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
@furtive: That's a lot of money (astronomical!) but what are the comparative points of reference?
For me it is comparing it to other, more useful things within the purview of NASA; like the JWST. I would rather NASA spend more money on those and Mars missions than stuff like this. I know money is fungible; but it is more fungible within a Organization; than between Organizations within Government.
posted by indianbadger1 at 10:45 AM on March 4, 2022 [1 favorite]
For me it is comparing it to other, more useful things within the purview of NASA; like the JWST. I would rather NASA spend more money on those and Mars missions than stuff like this. I know money is fungible; but it is more fungible within a Organization; than between Organizations within Government.
posted by indianbadger1 at 10:45 AM on March 4, 2022 [1 favorite]
As a point of comparison, here is the cost of the Apollo program. $28 billion at the time, which works out to about $280 billion in today's dollars. Seems that this is expensive stuff.
posted by clawsoon at 11:21 AM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 11:21 AM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
/
I'm one of those people who agrees that crewed space missions are largely pointless but we should do them anyway. It should be treated more as art than science. Nothing is more beautiful than seeing a smiling face looking out the window of the ISS, astronauts hopping around on the Lunar surface, or a space suited figure floating around outside their spacecraft.
How much do we really want to spend on beauty?
in a way it pains me to say this but imo manned space flight should be abandoned both privately and publicly. it's so expensive and futile. all the exploration and science comes from unmanned vehicles and the prospect of actual space habitation is complete nonsense.
I've long been very critical of sending people into space, but is this really something that needs to be banned?
I got a little piece of this action. I personally worked on a few dozen igniters for the SLS in the last couple years. They seem to be fancy spark plugs made from Inconel, copper, and ceramic. I think the story is a bit interesting. Apparently, one or more contractors had tried to make this part, and failed before the company I work for got the contract. It was about a year in development before we got a winning process. As I understand, we actually came in under budget and on time, at least the time allotted to us. The crazy thing is that the design goes back decades to the space shuttle program. Nobody who originally designed or manufactured them is still around or involved, so we had to reverse engineer them. The first blueprint I used was like a fifth generation Xerox of some draftspersons work, could hardly read.
So, at least I got a few hours of hourly work from those billions.
posted by 2N2222 at 11:27 AM on March 4, 2022 [12 favorites]
I'm one of those people who agrees that crewed space missions are largely pointless but we should do them anyway. It should be treated more as art than science. Nothing is more beautiful than seeing a smiling face looking out the window of the ISS, astronauts hopping around on the Lunar surface, or a space suited figure floating around outside their spacecraft.
How much do we really want to spend on beauty?
in a way it pains me to say this but imo manned space flight should be abandoned both privately and publicly. it's so expensive and futile. all the exploration and science comes from unmanned vehicles and the prospect of actual space habitation is complete nonsense.
I've long been very critical of sending people into space, but is this really something that needs to be banned?
I got a little piece of this action. I personally worked on a few dozen igniters for the SLS in the last couple years. They seem to be fancy spark plugs made from Inconel, copper, and ceramic. I think the story is a bit interesting. Apparently, one or more contractors had tried to make this part, and failed before the company I work for got the contract. It was about a year in development before we got a winning process. As I understand, we actually came in under budget and on time, at least the time allotted to us. The crazy thing is that the design goes back decades to the space shuttle program. Nobody who originally designed or manufactured them is still around or involved, so we had to reverse engineer them. The first blueprint I used was like a fifth generation Xerox of some draftspersons work, could hardly read.
So, at least I got a few hours of hourly work from those billions.
posted by 2N2222 at 11:27 AM on March 4, 2022 [12 favorites]
How much do we really want to spend on beauty?
How much do we really want to spend on killing people?
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:48 AM on March 4, 2022 [5 favorites]
How much do we really want to spend on killing people?
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:48 AM on March 4, 2022 [5 favorites]
Cost-plus contracts strike me as a way to offset losses taken on other contracts.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:53 AM on March 4, 2022
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:53 AM on March 4, 2022
The USA is a rich country. The money is not evenly distributed or allocated very well, but the money is there.
If we as a society said "we're going to make sure our roads are in decent repair, and everyone has roof over their heads and three meals a day, and with some of the money that's left over, we're going to put people on Mars and in space" — abandoned the pretense that it's For Science, and just decided that it was a worthwhile end in itself—I could get behind that.
posted by adamrice at 1:11 PM on March 4, 2022 [10 favorites]
If we as a society said "we're going to make sure our roads are in decent repair, and everyone has roof over their heads and three meals a day, and with some of the money that's left over, we're going to put people on Mars and in space" — abandoned the pretense that it's For Science, and just decided that it was a worthwhile end in itself—I could get behind that.
posted by adamrice at 1:11 PM on March 4, 2022 [10 favorites]
I'll wait for a deal on a room in the LaGrange Hilton. I want to hang glide off one of the walls of Valles Marineris.
Not likely, but it would be a neat thing to do.
posted by mule98J at 2:32 PM on March 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
Not likely, but it would be a neat thing to do.
posted by mule98J at 2:32 PM on March 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
I'm someone who grew up with the NASA space program and owns a set of Apollo 11 photos that I bought from Scholastic. Everyone my age wanted to be an astronaut, me included. So it pains me to say it's time to give up on sending humans into space. There's nothing to be gained and so, so much to be lost. Robots are cheaper, don't require life support, and are expendable.
posted by tommasz at 2:46 PM on March 4, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by tommasz at 2:46 PM on March 4, 2022 [1 favorite]
If we stop sending people into space, how will we get rid of all the account executives and telephone sanitizers?
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:44 AM on March 4 [+] [!]
Pay them UBI so people don't *have* to do Bullshit Jobs
posted by toodleydoodley at 2:51 PM on March 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:44 AM on March 4 [+] [!]
Pay them UBI so people don't *have* to do Bullshit Jobs
posted by toodleydoodley at 2:51 PM on March 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
>Someone just needs to discover oil on the Moon or Mars and it'll sort itself out.
Some fucking idiot is going to drop it on my head, aren't they?
posted by k3ninho at 2:55 PM on March 4, 2022
Some fucking idiot is going to drop it on my head, aren't they?
posted by k3ninho at 2:55 PM on March 4, 2022
Might be too late to just give up sending people to space when Commercial Crew has dropped launch prices to the point that a single-digit billionaire can fund his own Gemini program, and run a charity PR campaign to keep enough people on side. SLS, and STS before it, were special cases. I'm not particularly agin pork spending, and think that the Eurozone could probably do with more of it, but NASA does amazing things when they're not handcuffed to obsolete hardware or ridiculous requirements by congress, whether they're launching people or robots.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 3:32 PM on March 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 3:32 PM on March 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
space flight should be abandoned both privately and publicly. it's so expensive
Well thank goodness for a certain jerk. When the next version of SpaceX rockets get going the cost is estimated to be orders of magnitude lower than anything currently flying. Still expensive but adjusting the cost from $100,000/1 lb down to the actual range of $800/1 lb. will be a mind boggling game changer. SpaceX's StarShip will be stirring up not just the aerospace industry but the entire world.
But the kneejerk reactions about space due to cost or danger or seeming impracticalities make some sense, like criticizing any impractical pure science experiment that really only a few specialists even understand. And a lot of science comes up with data that may never have a direct practical use. Would that one tiny discovery that ends up saving many lives be worth all the abstract experiments? What about the science that isn't done, well at least we wouldn't know that a small crazy idea would have saved or improved millions of lives.
Cost of a berth on a SpaceX rocket may soon be less than a ride on a corporate jet.
SLS may launch one a year, so far in 2022 SpaceX is at one a week. StarShip has realistic plans to launch a rocket (the same booster) THREE TIMES a DAY. So in the near future, as in next month possibly for first orbit, space is not expensive anymore.
posted by sammyo at 6:10 PM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
Well thank goodness for a certain jerk. When the next version of SpaceX rockets get going the cost is estimated to be orders of magnitude lower than anything currently flying. Still expensive but adjusting the cost from $100,000/1 lb down to the actual range of $800/1 lb. will be a mind boggling game changer. SpaceX's StarShip will be stirring up not just the aerospace industry but the entire world.
But the kneejerk reactions about space due to cost or danger or seeming impracticalities make some sense, like criticizing any impractical pure science experiment that really only a few specialists even understand. And a lot of science comes up with data that may never have a direct practical use. Would that one tiny discovery that ends up saving many lives be worth all the abstract experiments? What about the science that isn't done, well at least we wouldn't know that a small crazy idea would have saved or improved millions of lives.
Cost of a berth on a SpaceX rocket may soon be less than a ride on a corporate jet.
SLS may launch one a year, so far in 2022 SpaceX is at one a week. StarShip has realistic plans to launch a rocket (the same booster) THREE TIMES a DAY. So in the near future, as in next month possibly for first orbit, space is not expensive anymore.
posted by sammyo at 6:10 PM on March 4, 2022 [3 favorites]
It feels like the Manned Missions: Y/N? debate is unavoidable on MeFi and I don't want to rehash it in its entirety, but this is a little reductive. There's also the somewhat intangible factor that young kids watching adults go into space birthed an entire generation of engineers and technicians and mathematicians and pilots and and and. It's a complex question.We already have too many people trying to get into STEM fields outside of computer science. A lot of engineering graduates really struggle to find entry level jobs these days, and if you study science or mathematics it is unlikely that you're going to find work in what you studied because academia effectively isn't hiring anyone except adjuncts making minimum wage.
If you want to increase the number of working engineers/technicians/mathematicians it would make far more sense for the government to spend money actually hiring engineers/technicians/mathematicians, instead of creating space propaganda that will send more kids into a broken pipeline without enough jobs at the end of it.
posted by zymil at 10:35 PM on March 4, 2022 [4 favorites]
I wasn't aware of this "too many" line of thinking Zymil, what are the numbers?
Why also isn't private business better at using its people to build new businesses that use this STEM expertise -- is there too little onshore investment for building new things? If so you would champion the explosion in the sector for space engineering that's informed by SpaceX showing it's viable and profitable for non-government enterprises.
posted by k3ninho at 3:37 AM on March 5, 2022
Why also isn't private business better at using its people to build new businesses that use this STEM expertise -- is there too little onshore investment for building new things? If so you would champion the explosion in the sector for space engineering that's informed by SpaceX showing it's viable and profitable for non-government enterprises.
posted by k3ninho at 3:37 AM on March 5, 2022
sammyo: When the next version of SpaceX rockets get going the cost is estimated to be orders of magnitude lower than anything currently flying. Still expensive but adjusting the cost from $100,000/1 lb down to the actual range of $800/1 lb. will be a mind boggling game changer.
Estimated by who, exactly? If it's an estimate from Musk himself I'd take it with a grain of salt, since he has a history (Hyperloop, anyone? Boring Company cost projections?) of making outlandish claims about greatly reduced future costs that don't come true.
posted by clawsoon at 4:42 AM on March 5, 2022
Estimated by who, exactly? If it's an estimate from Musk himself I'd take it with a grain of salt, since he has a history (Hyperloop, anyone? Boring Company cost projections?) of making outlandish claims about greatly reduced future costs that don't come true.
posted by clawsoon at 4:42 AM on March 5, 2022
k3ninho: I wasn't aware of this "too many" line of thinking Zymil, what are the numbers?
I wonder if the problem is "too many recent graduates, not enough people with 10+ years of experience willing to work for cheap."
Or maybe the problem is too many smart people scooped up by FAAMG companies to do bullshit work in order to prevent them from being hired by (or creating) competitors?
posted by clawsoon at 4:48 AM on March 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
I wonder if the problem is "too many recent graduates, not enough people with 10+ years of experience willing to work for cheap."
Or maybe the problem is too many smart people scooped up by FAAMG companies to do bullshit work in order to prevent them from being hired by (or creating) competitors?
posted by clawsoon at 4:48 AM on March 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
We already have too many people trying to get into STEM fields outside of computer science. A lot of engineering graduates really struggle to find entry level jobs these days, and if you study science or mathematics it is unlikely that you're going to find work in what you studied because academia effectively isn't hiring anyone except adjuncts making minimum wage.
I teach biology and environmental science at a 4-year regional commuter college in suburban Atlanta. My students are getting jobs in their fields when they graduate just fine, including federal, state, and local governments, academic research, non-profits, and private industry. If my students are doing well, I'm assuming students graduating from universities people have actually heard of are doing very well. (And yes, several of them would love to be astronauts)
posted by hydropsyche at 4:54 AM on March 5, 2022 [6 favorites]
I teach biology and environmental science at a 4-year regional commuter college in suburban Atlanta. My students are getting jobs in their fields when they graduate just fine, including federal, state, and local governments, academic research, non-profits, and private industry. If my students are doing well, I'm assuming students graduating from universities people have actually heard of are doing very well. (And yes, several of them would love to be astronauts)
posted by hydropsyche at 4:54 AM on March 5, 2022 [6 favorites]
Someone just needs to discover oil on the Moon or Mars and it'll sort itself out.
I hate agreeing with Elon Musk on things.
How about agreeing with Jerry Pournelle? Who, before he went off the deep end, did have some good ideas. The numbers are 20 years out-of-date, but you get the idea.
posted by mikelieman at 6:11 AM on March 5, 2022 [2 favorites]
I hate agreeing with Elon Musk on things.
How about agreeing with Jerry Pournelle? Who, before he went off the deep end, did have some good ideas. The numbers are 20 years out-of-date, but you get the idea.
Mail 242 January 27 - February 2, 2003
I can solve the space access problem with a few sentences.
Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:
The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company (if corporate at least 60% of the shares must be held by American citizens) the following sums for the following accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science:
1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.
2. The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least 5 Americans aboard for a period of not less than three years and one day. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied.
3. The sum of $12 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a Lunar base in which no fewer than 31 Americans have continuously resided for a period of not less than four years and one day.
4. The sum of $10 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a solar power satellite system which delivers at least 800 megaWatts of electric power to a receiving station or stations in the United States for a period of at least two years and one day.
5. The payments made shall be exempt from all US taxes.
That would do it. Not one cent to be paid until the goals are accomplished. Not a bit of risk, and if it can't be done for those sums, well, no harm done to the treasury.
posted by mikelieman at 6:11 AM on March 5, 2022 [2 favorites]
Estimated by who, exactly?
Those are just the kinds of numbers being thrown around about fully reusable launchers since von Braun's day. They mostly come from assuming that the cost of the spacecraft and booster gets fully amortized over a lot of flights, and the main incremental cost becomes fuel. There are hidden assumptions that maintenance doesn't dominate, and that you don't need too many more staff as the flight rate climbs.
F9 got its costs down by reusing the booster, and remaining focused on basic operations, unlike Shuttle which got larded down with requirements it never used. Which of those two SS/SH is more like is an open question. Musk's Mars obsession has already made the design much bigger than should be required for an optimally cheap reusable LEO launcher eg.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 6:13 AM on March 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
Those are just the kinds of numbers being thrown around about fully reusable launchers since von Braun's day. They mostly come from assuming that the cost of the spacecraft and booster gets fully amortized over a lot of flights, and the main incremental cost becomes fuel. There are hidden assumptions that maintenance doesn't dominate, and that you don't need too many more staff as the flight rate climbs.
F9 got its costs down by reusing the booster, and remaining focused on basic operations, unlike Shuttle which got larded down with requirements it never used. Which of those two SS/SH is more like is an open question. Musk's Mars obsession has already made the design much bigger than should be required for an optimally cheap reusable LEO launcher eg.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 6:13 AM on March 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
We already have too many people trying to get into STEM fields outside of computer science. A lot of engineering graduates really struggle to find entry level jobs these days, and if you study science or mathematics it is unlikely that you're going to find work in what you studied because academia effectively isn't hiring anyone except adjuncts making minimum wage.
Yeah...I'm gonna need some serious citation backup for this claim. Academia is fucked as far as job markets go, this is known, but it's not the only career path. Engineering is one of the strongest and safest educational paths a student can go down.
posted by lazaruslong at 6:36 AM on March 5, 2022 [3 favorites]
Yeah...I'm gonna need some serious citation backup for this claim. Academia is fucked as far as job markets go, this is known, but it's not the only career path. Engineering is one of the strongest and safest educational paths a student can go down.
posted by lazaruslong at 6:36 AM on March 5, 2022 [3 favorites]
It's not true in my experience. There's a fair appetite for many fields of science grads, and a nearly inexhaustible one for health care grads. Industrial chem and biochem demand has fluctuated over the decades, but demand has always been reasonably strong.
IT grads are a lot chattier on the internet than other STEM people for the most part (and there's nothing like a great digester optimization story to be unpopular at parties with) and so get lots more attention. But people have been making money making drugs and pesticides and extracting metals for decades pretty steadily.
If I cared to I could pull out the employment numbers from C&E news, but I let my subscription lapse a couple of years ago.
posted by bonehead at 8:57 AM on March 5, 2022 [2 favorites]
IT grads are a lot chattier on the internet than other STEM people for the most part (and there's nothing like a great digester optimization story to be unpopular at parties with) and so get lots more attention. But people have been making money making drugs and pesticides and extracting metals for decades pretty steadily.
If I cared to I could pull out the employment numbers from C&E news, but I let my subscription lapse a couple of years ago.
posted by bonehead at 8:57 AM on March 5, 2022 [2 favorites]
It's not true in my experience. There's a fair appetite for many fields of science grads, and a nearly inexhaustible one for health care grads. Industrial chem and biochem demand has fluctuated over the decades, but demand has always been reasonably strong.It is definitely not like this in electrical engineering. A large chunk of the work of electrical engineers is tied to new construction, and the demand for the electrical engineering workforce oscillates significantly in parallel with the business cycle and the price of commodities as these control the level of investment in new construction.
The way the industry handles this demand cycle is through hiring a lot of people via project based consulting/construction/mining companies that fire their graduates every time there is a widespread downturn in demand. It isn't profitable to carry dead weight and graduates are seen as dead weight. If things are bad enough they also then start letting go of mid career employees. This seems to happens at least once a decade.
When demand starts to pick up again they start rehiring unemployed mid career engineers and hiring fresh graduates again. It is very rare for a demand surge to last long enough that they run out of fresh graduates to hire. The only time I've heard of this happening from talking to old timers who've been in the industry for decades was during the unhinged boom immediately before the GFC. This is when a program to get more students studying electrical engineering might make sense.
From talking to civil and mining/petrochemical engineers I believe their industries are set up in a similar fashion as workforce demand is also heavily cyclic. I'm sure other engineering fields aren't as boom/bust, but these fields don't usually hire as many people although this is obviously area dependent.
There are always going to be bright spots in greater engineering, e.g. I heard if you have a pulse you can walk into a pharma job right now, and there are always going to be good times to graduate as an engineer, but in general from what I've seen the constraint on the number of mid-career working engineers isn't the amount of people graduating from university.
posted by zymil at 8:14 PM on March 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
From Grasping Large Numbers:
posted by cenoxo at 12:15 AM on March 6, 2022
- The length of 1,000,000,000 (one billion) one dollar bills laid end-to-end measures 96,900 miles. This would extend around the earth almost 4 times.
- The length of 100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion) one dollar bills laid end-to-end measures 9,690,656 miles. This would extend around the earth 387 times.
- The length of 1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) one dollar bills laid end-to-end measures 96,906,656 miles. This would exceed the distance from the earth to the sun.
posted by cenoxo at 12:15 AM on March 6, 2022
It is definitely not like this in electrical engineering. A large chunk of the work of electrical engineers is tied to new construction
I'm not in that line of work, but from the outside aerospace engineering seems similarly tied to defense spending. I graduated from college in 1992 and got to watch my friends who were studying aero pivot away in the hopes of not being unemployed because of the big drawdown.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:58 AM on March 6, 2022
I'm not in that line of work, but from the outside aerospace engineering seems similarly tied to defense spending. I graduated from college in 1992 and got to watch my friends who were studying aero pivot away in the hopes of not being unemployed because of the big drawdown.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:58 AM on March 6, 2022
« Older He asked how it felt to get hit by lightning. | A soundscape for the fictional nightclub Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Under cost-plus deals, a contractor receives reimbursement plus a fee regardless of whether it delivers the vehicles on time or late, and on budget or over budget.
Working in a very different industry that lives and dies by contracts, I'll admit this was new to me. But damn, what a deal! So NASA is going to pay this money and we may get rockets, we may not, and it may be on time, or it may not. Schrödinger's Contract! And Boeing and Lockheed get giant truckloads of money from our government.
Later during the hearing, US Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), asked whether the incremental costs of flying more than one Artemis mission a year would bring the cost down. Martin said he did not know for sure. Moreover, NASA is not planning to fly more than one Artemis mission a year, so the question is somewhat moot.
Wild. If the program is set up for a one-time shot, that is an amazing money grab and a very effective method to help decimate NASA completely from the inside.
posted by hijinx at 5:36 AM on March 4, 2022 [23 favorites]