Eric Berger is the Ars Technica, senior space editor and author of Reentry, a book about the behind the scenes SpaceX development of Falcon 9. Berger’s primary focus is on NASA and private aerospace companies. He authored Liftoff, which was published by William Morrow and Company and released in March 2021. The book chronicles the early history of SpaceX and the protracted development program of the Falcon 1 launch vehicle.
Eric has deep sources in the Space industry. He hears that SLS (Space Launch System) could be cancelled. Boeing and United Launch Alliance (ULA) are both involved in the development of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS). Boeing builds the Core Stage of the SLS, which powers the rocket. Boeing is also a prime contractor for the SLS, along with Aerojet Rocketdyne and Northrop Grumman. ULA builds some components of the SLS, including the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS).
The NASA Artemis (return to the moon) campaign has the Space Launch System (SLS) for launching the Orion crew capsule to the Moon. From fiscal years 2012 through 2025, NASA’s overall Artemis investment is projected to reach $93 billion, of which the SLS Program costs represent $23.8 billion spent through 2022. For SLS launches, NASA entered into two booster contracts with Northrop Grumman and two RS-25 engine contracts with Aerojet Rocketdyne. The four contracts, performance periods, and values are: Boosters—April 2006 to December 2023, $4.4 billion; Booster Production and Operations Contract (BPOC)—June 2020 to December 2031, $3.2 billion; Adaptation (RS-25 engines)—June 2006 to September 2020, $2.1 billion; and RS-25 Restart and Production—November 2015 to September 2029, $3.6 billion. Boeing’s core stage contract had made up 40% of the $11.9 billion spent on the SLS from 2012 to 2018.
NASA has spent $26.4 billion on SLS development since 2011, through 2023, in nominal dollars. This is equivalent to $32 billion with inflation adjustment. The $2.6 billion per year of spending on direct SLS development costs.
Those are not the only SLS costs. There are costs to assemble, integrate, prepare and launch the SLS and its payloads, funded separately in the NASA Exploration Ground Systems, currently at about $600 million per year.
An October 2023 report found that recurring production costs for SLS, excluding development and integration costs, are estimated to be at least $2.5 billion per launch.
There was one test launch of SLS in 2022 over the entire 14 year life of the program.
During the first Trump administration, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine suggested to a Senate committee that the agency was considering using the Falcon Heavy or Delta IV Heavy rocket to launch Orion instead of SLS.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
There has to be something in those contracts for SLS and for starliner that NASA can cancel and make billing repay some of that money. We’re talking in the neighborhood of 30 plus billion dollars of wasted funds that yield nothing in nearly two decades.
Let us be brutally honest, NASA rented the NAZI rocket team, who delivered all of the American Manned Moon Landings via their Saturn-5 “Moon Rocket”. Werner Von Braun trained a very talented group of Apprentices to take America into the 1980’s, yet their mission lays abandoned…..
NASA was misdirected by easy, politically motivated funding, to engage the Russians with the Earth orbiting International Space Station, abandoning NASA’s key metrics, the manned exploration of Outer Space and manned landings/exploration of Mars.
NASA must move on from this antiquated and intrinsically dangerous SLS design. There is no NAZI rocket team available for rental now, the three remaining Saturn-5’s lay on their side in museums as historical artifacts from a previous century. It is time for new management at a slimmed down NASA, immediately tasked with hiring some new rocket teams with modern, safer, designs and bold ambitions!
It only runs on political vapors anyway. Old tech, plagued with problems, too expensive and inefficient. They should put it out of its misery already.
Is SpaceX developing a man qualified upper stage for its super heavy rocket?
Human Landing System is NASA funding of about $3.5 billion for a human rated lunar Starship. Also, Orion is able to used on the SpaceX Falcon Heavy.
Yes, the cancelation of SLS makes 1000% (here it comes…) BUT politicians HATE the cancelation of major high profile projects like this, that end in massive layoffs. This is how politicians end up no longer being politicians.
Congress will find some new project to employ those workers. SX/Starship is going to need many payloads to put into space. A moon base seems to make the most sense. Start building for it now. Cancel SLS and Orion then redirect the money to building the Moon base infrastructure.
I agree, SLS continues to be enormously expensive and fails to deliver. It seems that it was kept going for political reasons as well as funnelling money to Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
Should have been cancelled years ago.
However I don’t think NASA wants to be in a position where Space X are their only provider, that would not ensure value for money as Space X would have the monopoly, great for investors but not great for tax payers.
Because the current waste of Billions is good for Tax Payers?
no, but monopolies are always bad news waiting to happen. there are so many good new and startup companies that could get involved. so long as they don’t monopoly the whole program (or make old space the option), the future looks bright.
We need to turn SLS over to ULA and Orion to L-Mart. Both of these were clustered by Senator Shelby and he kept them going.
The interesting item is that SX can do the entire mission for cheaper than SLS without Orion costs. And they can send up an easy 6-10+ ppl to lunar surface for a month or more.
I’ve never understood how NASA got away with proposing to send a disposable rocket that costs $2B+ to launch, into space with a capsule holding astronauts who would then transfer into a much cheaper to launch, reusable rocket just for a moon landing. That reusable rocket is going to make the same journey to the moon and by the time that mission goes ahead it will surely be more than capable of taking a crew along for the ride, and bring them back again, for a fraction of the cost.
Good. huge waste of tax payer money.
If it was all we had, I’d stick with it, but we will very soon have great options like Starship, New Glenn, Dream Chaser. We’ll also likely see some great things from Rocket labs & Relativity Space, among others.
The SLS has always been a,boondoggle designed to both keep Boeing afloat, and provide theoretical competition for space x rockets. NASA likes choices. I suspect, though, that Congress and the military have a lot more to do with keeping the SLS alive than NASA. When complete, the starship and New Glenn will both be able to handle the cargos of the SLS. There goes the competition reason for NASA. Not at 2.5 billion a launch. It’s just not sustainable for a long term program.
Sad that it’s taking so long and enriching so many rotten aholes.
Maybe Orion will get the Ax too and instead of trying to expensively adapt it to another rocket then canceling it after one mission, they will fast forward to just Starship doing the whole thing where it will obviously end up anyway.
In space news, heed the Berger. He’s rather often right.
Now they have Blue Origin and SpaceX onboard, they can go forth and cancel the boondoggle.
There will be resistance from the usual suspects, but a new congress aligned with the new president can change that.
Shelby was the main character behind it, and he kept it alive.
Shelby is now gone.
I don’t think they can axe it until BO proves they can make orbit, but with any luck that will happen next year. That’s really BO’s lifeline, aside from Bezos’ bottomless pockets: The feds want to have an alternate vendor besides SpaceX for large launches.