I assume you're probably familiar with this old saying, BOHICA. If not, it's an acronym for Bend Over, Here It Comes Again. You're about to get something shoved up your ass.
In this case, it's the Space Launch System, or SLS, the extremely overpriced
rocket system that is the launch vehicle for NASA's Artemis program to return
to the moon. I've basically been a one note song on getting rid of SLS since I
first started studying it. A
recent example here
has leapt up my list of most read posts in the last year.
They're talking about launches that cost $4.1 billion each, and a system that couldn't launch more than (maybe) twice a year even if we could afford it. It turns out that practically every date associated with Artemis and returning to the moon slides farther into the future every time they update the schedules, and in step with that, every cost estimate goes up every time the question gets asked.
Why talk about this again? Where is this going? Eric Berger, the senior space correspondent at Ars Technica has put up a post today about rescuing the Artemis program, "The politically incorrect guide to saving NASA’s floundering Artemis Program." In it, he modifies SLS somewhat, but mostly attacks the needless complication of the moon landing program. In doing so, he concedes we're stuck with the SLS. His main target is getting rid of the needless complication of the Lunar Gateway (some background info) but his overall plan is:
- Cancel the Lunar Gateway
- Cancel the Block 1B upgrade of the SLS rocket
- Designate Centaur V as the new upper stage for the SLS rocket.
The Block 1B SLS is the largest version, which is dependent on getting the Exploration Upper Stage running. My first link (2nd paragraph) concentrates on what a hideous mess the EUS has been and continues to be. Eric envisions using the Centaur upper stage in place of the EUS.
Essentially, Block 1B of the rocket exists solely to build out the Gateway. There is no need for this new SLS stage for human landing missions. Nor is it needed to deliver material to the Moon. NASA’s two largest lunar landers under contract, SpaceX’s Starship and Blue Origin's Blue Moon, plan to use their own large rockets. Far from needing the expendable SLS rocket, NASA will have two reusable means to deliver large cargo to the Moon.
By canceling Block 1B, NASA would not only save billions of dollars in yet-to-be-expended development costs but also significantly reduce the per-launch cost of the SLS rocket. That’s because the cost of a single Exploration Upper Stage is likely to be around $1 billion, which is ludicrous for just a rocket’s second stage.
Time for some tough truths. We're currently in 1960s-style "moon race" and
we're headed for a loss. Everything has been sliding farther out; nothing is
ahead of schedule.
-
The first crewed flight on the Orion spacecraft, a vehicle that has been in
development for two decades, remains in doubt due to concerns with the heat
shield.
- The first lunar landing mission has no reliable date. Officially, NASA plans to send this Artemis III mission to the Moon in September 2026. Unofficially? Get real. Not only must Orion’s heat shield issue be resolved, but it's unlikely that both a lunar lander (SpaceX’s Starship vehicle) and spacesuits (built by Axiom Space) will be ready by this time. The year 2028 is probably a realistic no-earlier-than date.
- The space agency’s plans after Artemis III are even more complex. The Artemis IV mission will nominally involve the debut of a larger version of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, a new launch tower, and a stopover at a new space station near the Moon, the Lunar Gateway.
- There is increasing evidence that China is pouring resources into a credible lunar program to land two astronauts on the Moon by 2030, seeking a geopolitical “win” by beating America in its return to the Moon.
The way to get back to the moon isn't with the sort of needless complication
shown in this GAO illustration. It's more like we did it in the 1960s:
concentrate on getting there and landing, not all this other stuff.
The big problem here is that there are no immediately ready replacements
for SLS, the Orion capsule or Starship HLS (Human Landing System). There's no
existing way to put an Orion capsule on anything besides the SLS. Could SpaceX
design an improved Crew Dragon with a heat shield designed for the higher
temperatures of lunar re-entry? Has anyone asked?
Closing words to Eric (and go RTWT)
Proponents of the Lunar Gateway argue that it adds sustainability to the Artemis Program by providing a way station. The problem is that this way station, in an orbit far from the lunar surface, really isn’t on the way to anywhere.
To get somewhere, Artemis must avoid going nowhere.
