What a surprise. We've only been talking like this for years including reaching the uncomfortable conclusion that we're trapped with SLS and no way out. The latest tweak to the idea is centered on the Exploration Upper Stage - which has still never been built and tested - and replacing it with something cheaper but "close enough" instead of the original Artemis mission plans.
Not surprisingly, Congress is pushing back against the Trump administration's proposal to cancel the Space Launch System, the behemoth rocket NASA has developed to propel astronauts back to the Moon.
Spending bills making their way through both houses of Congress reject the White House's plan to wind down the SLS rocket after two more launches, but the text of a draft budget recently released by the House Appropriations Committee suggests an openness to making some major changes to the program.
The current situation is that Artemis II is in pre-launch preparations, with the booster stacked and work proceeding. Artemis II will be the first Americans to fly around the moon since the Apollo days. Long talked about as flying late this year with some talk about September of '25, it's now looking more like '26. Artemis III, the first Americans to land on the moon since Apollo, is looking to be '27 - and if you believe that, nothing in SLS or Artemis has stayed on its schedule given this far out.
After Artemis III, the official policy of the Trump administration is to terminate the SLS program, along with the Orion crew capsule designed to launch on top of the rocket. The White House also proposed canceling NASA's Gateway, a mini-space station to be placed in orbit around the Moon. NASA would instead procure commercial launches and commercial spacecraft to ferry astronauts between the Earth and the Moon, while focusing the agency's long-term gaze toward Mars.
At the moment, both House and Senate budget proposals keep SLS, Orion, and the (IMO: totally worthless) Gateway. Note that the House version has an interesting paragraph directing NASA to explore cheaper, faster options for a new SLS upper stage, currently intended to be the Exploration Upper Stage by Artemis IV, the second moon landing in '28. As usual, the EUS is behind schedule
The House version of NASA's fiscal year 2026 budget raises questions about the long-term future of the Exploration Upper Stage. In one section of the bill, House lawmakers would direct NASA to "evaluate alternatives to the current Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) design for SLS." The committee members wrote the evaluation should focus on reducing development and production costs, shortening the schedule, and maintaining the SLS rocket's lift capability.
"NASA should also evaluate how alternative designs could support the long-term evolution of SLS and broader exploration goals beyond low-Earth orbit," the lawmakers wrote. "NASA is directed to assess various propulsion systems, stage configurations, infrastructure compatibility, commercial and international collaboration opportunities, and the cost and schedule impacts of each alternative."
Ars Technica's Eric Berger wrote last year about the possibility of flying the Centaur V upper stage on SLS missions. The first problem is that using the Centaur V wouldn't maintain the SLS rocket's lift capability: the EUS is more powerful. The second stage of Blue Origin's New Glenn could conceivably fly on the SLS, but Blue's stage would be a more challenging match for SLS for several reasons, but primarily its 7-meter (23-foot) diameter, which is too wide to be a drop-in replacement for the planned EUS. ULA's Centaur V is much closer in size to the existing upper stage. Interstage adapters to bigger or smaller stages are pretty common features across the industry, so it doesn't seem like an impossible dream to call one out here.
In the big picture sense, there's too much going on here to assume a design change will be decided and added to schedule for a while. It's my understanding the house and Senate are closing for August - or parts of it, if not the whole month. It seems safe to say this isn't going to be resolved any time soon.
Artist's illustration of the Boeing-developed Exploration Upper Stage, with
four hydrogen-fueled RL10 engines. Credit: NASA
You know, between all the studies to replace pieces parts of the SLS and everything, I wonder how much has been spent on vapor studies and undead studies, you know, studies that won't go anywhere or produce anything?
ReplyDeleteWould be interesting to see what states that get tax dollars for their part of SLS and how much those businesses are donors to the current political hack in office.
ReplyDeleteIts political suicide to break too many donors rice bowls.
Business has to produce results, gov.com rice bowls must just exist as Beans said vaporware and undead projects.
There's a rumor that an AI version of DOGE recommended eliminating NASA, but when they whipped the vote out theoretically, they came up 58 votes short, the exact number of congressweasels from TX and FL.
ReplyDeleteEarth-orbit stations are a staple of sci-fi, but I wonder at the actual utility. It seems to me that in order to be of practical use, they'd need to be substantial. A "mini" station makes no sense to me. As a waypoint or pit stop, any resupply has to get boosted from Earth anyway, so where's the cost savings? Maybe much later, if raw materials are sourced from the moon and/or asteroids, there's a benefit from avoiding Earth gravity? But then the station has to be large enough for manufacturing. Doesn't the moon make more sense for any such scenarios?
ReplyDelete- jed