SLS NASA 18 Billion for first two launches

[edpell]

Is 18 billion dollars for the first two launches of the SLS a good buy? It seems NASA could buy the same weight to orbit today from Space-X for about 0.6 billion dollars. Why not just use the existing provider?

 

[russ_watters]

First, do you have a source for your claims?

Second, you are aware that this is a project still in development, right? It isn't going to be just two launches at $9 billion apiece. It is projected at $500 million per launch, long term.

Third, even if your math is right Space-X (nor any other system) can't take cargo as large as SLS. That's the point of developing it.

 

[edpell]

I agree on the third point. But I am sure NASA is clever and can screw together two sub structures on orbit.

 

[edpell]

On the cost see the NASA report http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/510449main_SLS_MPCV_90-day_Report.pdf
from page 7 "The FY 2011 Senate Appropriations Report would fund the SLS at $1.9B in FY 2011, and with a
proposed cost cap of $11.5B through FY 2017. Within 60 days of enactment of the appropriations bill,
NASA is directed to submit a report that includes, among other things, an evaluation of this proposed cost cap."

 

[edpell]

More budget analysis from http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1979/1 by John K. Strickland, Jr. retired from his job as a senior analyst for the Texas Department of Transportation in Austin, Texas "Based on current development cost estimates for the SLS (including Orion) of $29–38 billion, even the (expendable) Falcon Heavy could launch between 300 and 400 payloads of 53 tons each for the same amount of money, starting in about two years."

 

[edpell]

http://nasawatch.com/archives/cev-calv-lsam-eds/
Is NASA Building A Rocket They Can't Afford to Fly?
By Keith Cowing on May 24, 2013 12:47 PM
"The first SLS launch is expected in 2017, the second in 2021, and then once every two years thereafter."

 

[D H]

FYI, SLS means Senate Launch System. It is yet another pork project foisted on NASA by Congress.