NASA's most expensive project since the Apollo Moon Program was the Space Shuttle program, which cost an estimated 1.55 billion dollars per launch. Two years ago, the OMB estimated that taxpayers would ante up $2 billion each time NASA launches its new Space Launch System.
OMB was being optimistic.
The image is from the same source.
$2 billion and then some.
NASA awarded a $3.2 billion contract to build booster rockets for five SLS rockets that will participate in the Project Artemis moon program last week. Each of the Artemis IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII will have a pair of rocket boosters built by the company. The test booster for the Artemis IX "Booster Obsolescence and Life Extension" program will be built by the company.
NASA says that the boosters are essential to the Artemis program, but they do come at a cost. Each rocket booster will cost taxpayers more than $290 million.
The total cost of the Falcon Heavy rocket that will be used to launch the GOES U satellite for NASA was just the core stage and two side boosters. Yes, you read that correctly. NASA could buy two entire SpaceX rocketships for the price of just one Northrop Grumman booster rocket. NASA could launch four Falcon Heavy missions for what Northrop is charging.
The apples were compared to the rockets.
Is this apples-to-apples comparison fair? It's not fair to them.
Each of the SLS booster rockets can produce more than fourteen 4-engine Boeing 747s at full take-off power. It sounds like a lot, but Falcon Heavy is even more powerful. The world's most powerful rocket produces five million pounds of thrust at liftoff. This is equal to approximately eighteen Boeing aircraft, according to the statement added by the company.
The Falcon Heavy beat the SLS's booster by a margin of four whole airplanes.
What does it mean to investors?
Isn't this a good thing for the company since the rocket boosters cost so much? Doesn't more money mean more profits for investors in the stock?
Not necessarily, but it creates a risk to the stock.
NASA could build a 40% more powerful SLS, and spend half as much on its boosters, if it dumped the contribution of Northrop Grumman and put a pair of SpaceX Falcon Heavies to the SLS core stage.
That's not going to happen. For the first few Artemis launches, I think you can assume that the rocket will be built by NASA's contributors to the SLS program. The boosters will be provided by Northrop. The core and second stage will be built by Boeing. Aerojet Rocketdyne will make main engines. The spaceship will be put up top by Lockheed Martin.
I have serious doubts about the program's longevity once taxpayers and Congress know how much each launch costs. I see a real risk that Project Artemis will be canceled because of the risk that the Starship will be cheaper and better than the Apollo project.
If that happens, it won't matter how many booster rockets the company has been hired to produce, for a rocket that will no longer be flying. It won't matter whether or not a new company replaces Boeing, or if the old one is still a NASA key moon partner. Billions of dollars of revenue will be taken away from them by the end of those contracts.
This is what investors should be worried about going forward.
