A week ago, we had the story of Senator Ted Cruz hosting a "save the SLS" meeting in the US Senate chambers last Wednesday, arguing that acting NASA director Sean Duffy and President Trump himself have both argued we need to make Artemis III's mission the last SLS launch because we simply can't afford to use the SLS. Cruz argues that if we want to return to the moon in time to beat China nothing we can launch without massive and risky new development has as good a chance of getting us to the moon as SLS. Ergo, if we want to go back to the moon we simply must pay for the SLS. The counter argument is that with each SLS launch costing $4 Billion or more, we simply can't afford to go back to the moon.
From the beginning, the second Trump administration has sought to cancel the costly, expendable rocket. Some officials wanted to end the rocket immediately, but eventually the White House decided to push for cancellation after Artemis III. This seemed prudent because it allowed the United States the best possible chance to land humans back on the Moon before China got there, and then transition to a more affordable lunar program as quickly as possible.
In response, Ted Cruz added money to NASA's budget (via the "One Big Beautiful Bill" ) to ensure that Artemis IV and Artemis V flew on the SLS rocket, with the promise of additional missions.
It might be surprising that after the release of their budget proposal back in May, calling for the end of the SLS rocket, the White House and NASA have been quiet.
However, that changed last week, when interim NASA Administrator Sean Duffy addressed the issue on a podcast hosted by one of the agency's public relations officials, Gary Jordan:
Here is my one concern. If Artemis I, Artemis II, and Artemis III are all $4 billion a launch, $4 billion a launch. At $4 billion a launch, you don’t have a Moon program. It just, I don’t think that exists. We have to bring the price down. And so I have to think about and work with members of Congress. What does Artemis IV, V, and VI look like? But to spend that much money in thinking about what we have to do to have a sustained presence, I think becomes very, very challenging.
Duffy went on to say that since the private sector started advancing the launch industry, a company that wants to put a satellite in space can do it for prices that were unimaginable as little as 20 years ago (still the Shuttle era).
Duffy clearly argues that the SLS rocket is unaffordable and that any lunar program built around it cannot be sustained for more than a few flags-and-footprints missions. Instead, he says, the agency should be taking advantage of commercial alternatives (which are being developed by SpaceX and Blue Origin).
I think it's not terribly uncommon for two sides that realize neither of them gets anything they want to sit down and see what they can agree about. In this case, Ted Cruz's bill says NASA must procure and operate the Space Launch System for Artemis IV and V missions, but it doesn't specify the configuration of the vehicle.
I don't know how many times I've mentioned that SLS has always been designed with an upper stage option called the Exploration Upper Stage, and that in keeping with the rest of the SLS, it has never been built, never been tested, and nothing associated with it has ever come in "on schedule and on budget" - let alone ahead of schedule or under budget. So in the budget, instead of saying to buy the SLS, the House Appropriations Bill calls for the space agency to "evaluate alternatives" to the Exploration Upper Stage. "Evaluate alternatives" is a wide open door to modify the SLS plans.
One of these, as Ars reported last year, is the Centaur V upper stage built by United Launch Alliance, which is already flight-proven. Another option is a "short" version of the upper stage Blue Origin currently flies on its New Glenn rocket. Sources indicated that Blue has already begun work on a modified version of the stage that could fit within the shroud of the SLS rocket. This smaller version of the stage, like the Centaur V, would allow NASA to continue launching the SLS rocket using the existing launch tower in Florida.
But wait. It gets a bit funnier.
By canceling the Exploration Upper Stage and second launch tower, NASA could save more than $1 billion annually, which could be applied to other aspects of the Artemis program to ensure its success both in the near and longer term. It would give the Trump administration the talking points it wants on making Artemis more affordable and allow Congress to continue flying its beloved SLS rocket for a few more missions.
Finally, it would buy time to see whether SpaceX and Blue Origin can get their Starship and New Glenn rockets flying regularly and whether NASA can bring down the cost of a partly commercialized SLS rocket. At that point, the future of NASA's deep space program, and the rockets it should use, will be clearer.
A posted NASA graphic of SLS versions. The Block 1B Crewed version features
the Exploration Upper Stage while the version that launched in November of '22
is the one shown on the left here.
This was posted here around 8
months before that Artemis 1 mission flew.
Doesn't matter at all. The SLS could be the cheapest, safest, easiest to build system in the world. Okay, quit laughing, but still, even if the SLS worked it's still not gonna be good enough to fly safely because of one real problem.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem? Orion. The crew capsule. With the heat shield that don't work.
Address the cost and the slow build time of SLS all you want. Can't fly that turd without a safe crew vehicle.
And that's not even touching the issues over the new flight suits and the new Moon suits that were supposed to be ready 10 years ago...
I have thought several times about the Orion capsule failing on the next flight and killing the entire crew. It would end American manned space flight - or at least NASA's manned space flight - for years, if not potentially forever. Crew Dragon is only exposed to a milder environment, so they can't just switch to that, but we don't know if they've got plans somewhere for a version that would survive that higher energy reentry.
DeleteOne thing about using Starship as the Human Landing System is that they're going to have to test it. Which is much easier than flying an Orion out to the moon and back, because it doesn't cost $4 billion to do it.
Crew Dragon reentry capability. SpaceX has the people with experience designing a variety of reentry vehicles. They have been focused on Starship lately. Crew Dragon was designed for the specific requirements of returning from ISS, not beyond. If / when SpaceX has to design a crew vehicle for returns from the Moon / Mars, the SpaceX people have the ability, depth of experience and culture to do it in less than a decade.
DeleteSLS will cost more than they budget, will still be late, and (in my opinion) riskier than Starship.
ReplyDeleteFrom Akins Laws of Spacecraft Design:
#39. Any exploration program which "just happens" to include a new launch vehicle is, de facto, a launch vehicle program.
#39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule:
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles.
I like that formulation! It's going in my stash.
Delete"At that point, the future of NASA's deep space program, and the rockets it should use, will be clearer."
ReplyDeletePersonally, it's perfectly clear to an old Rocketman like me... it's outdated, waaaaay over budget, waaaay to slow to get anything done especially ON TIME, and waaaay too complex.
Therefore:
SLS. Must. Die.
The problem is so deep that I'm concerned it's unfixable without shuttering NASA. Remember the "Senate Launch System?" It's a way to shovel money back to politicians. There's also a saying that "Boeing never comes in at the proposed price." There are reports they hired random people who have ZERO experience as a welder to weld parts of the SLS (fuel tanks? not sure). It's like putting random winos on the line. Guarantees they'll need to keep redoing it over and over - and it's a cost plus job so there's no downside to them, just more income.
DeleteThe politicians will fight it tooth and nail, but as long as those money feedback paths are there, we'll get nothing but SLS clones forever.