Wait ... A possible way to get away from SLS?

For the years I've devoted my blogging to following the space programs everyone who has looked into the Space Launch System or SLS has written on the terrible performance of the SLS program.  Since the program started, every major goal (milestone) was delivered late and cost more than bid.  It has led to widespread desire to get rid of the SLS and go over to more cost-effective vehicles.  As I've pointed out many times, the most commonly cited launch price for the SLS/Orion missions is $4 Billion per launch. 

Several times I've pointed out that while the SLS can deliver heavier payloads to orbit than the Falcon Heavy mission, it's not many times the payload, it's only like 130% of a FH launch. Two FH launches will launch more payload than one SLS and cost about 8% of one SLS launch. A complication that occurred to me in the last month or so is that Falcon Heavy isn't man-rated, while the Falcon 9 is - and an FH is pretty much just three Falcon 9s with some modified hardware. It seems to be addressed in the way the FH would have to be modified to carry the Orion capsule. People are always such expensive cargo to carry into space.

Probably the most shocking thing I've seen in space stories is that NASA and Lockheed-Martin are now considering launching Orion on rockets other than SLS. 

... Lockheed Martin has begun to pivot toward a future in which the Orion spacecraft—thanks to increasing reusability, a focus on cost, and openness to flying on different rockets—fits into commercial space applications. In interviews, company officials said that if NASA wanted to buy Orion missions as a "service," rather than owning and operating the spacecraft, they were ready to work with the space agency.

"Our message is we absolutely support it, and we're starting that discussion now," said Anthony Byers, director of Strategy and Business Development for Lockheed Martin, the principal contractor for Orion.

A key point in that quote is in the first paragraph - operating Orion as a "service." SLS and Orion were always bought on Cost-plus contracts, which incentivize the contractors not being efficient or even good at what they do. As has been covered repeatedly, Boeing was criticized for the amount of rework required for the welding required for putting together parts of the SLS.  Since fixing that welding is a cost that they get reimbursed for, why not go find some winos that have never been within 10 feet of a welding setup? They can be paid less than experienced welders and assembling the ship takes more time. They get paid to repair the bad welding. Plus, if the stage needs to be scrapped and rebuilt - they make money on building a new replacement instead of paying for it out of the company's pocket. 

"Given the President's Budget Request guidance, and what we think NASA's ultimate direction will be, they're going to need to move to a commercial transportation option similar to commercial crew and cargo," Byers said. "So when we talk about Orion services, we're talking about taking Orion and flying that service-based mission, which means we provide a service, from boots on the ground on Earth, to wherever we're going to go and dock to, and then bringing the crew home."  

What does "as a service" mean? As they say, ISS has taught us with commercial crew and commercial cargo programs. The biggest surprise to me was this paragraph.

In 2022, Boeing, the contractor for the SLS core stage, and Northrop Grumman, which manufactures the side boosters, created "Deep Space Transport LLC" to build the rockets and sell them to NASA on a more services-based approach. However, despite NASA's stated intent to award a launch services contract to Deep Space Transport by the end of 2023, no such contract has been given out. It appears that the joint venture to commercialize the SLS rocket is defunct. Moreover, there are no plans to modify the rocket for reuse.

This talk of the Orion capsule and service module "as a service" is still talking about years out, and not something ready for contracts and switching over in the next couple of years when Artemis II and III are supposed to get us back to the moon. The system still depends on a heavy lift rocket that isn't well defined but more like SLS - or possibly Falcon Heavy - than a smaller launch vehicle. 

Don't forget that not redesigning Orion itself is a goal, not something guaranteed to be achieved.  The guy being quoted in virtually every quote above, Anthony Byers, also talks about being contacted by NASA about reuse of Orion and they literally thought the approach would be nothing like reuse of a rocket turned out in the intervening 20 years. 

"Whenever the vehicle would come back, NASA's assumption was that we would disassemble the vehicle and harvest the components, and they would go into inventory," Byers said. "Then they would go into a new structure for a future flight. Well, as the program progressed and we saw what others were doing, we really started to introduce the idea of reusing the crew module."
...
“There’s a path forward," said Howard Hu, NASA's Orion program manager, in an interview. "We're trying to crawl, then walk, then run into our reuse strategy. We want to make sure that we’re increasing our reusability, which we know is the path to sustainability and lower cost."

Lockheed plans to build a fleet of three largely reusable spacecraft, which will make their debuts on the Artemis III, IV, and V missions, respectively. Those three vehicles would then fly future missions, and if Lockheed needs to expand the fleet to meet demand, it could.

The Orion spacecraft for the Artemis II mission, seen here with its solar arrays installed for flight, just prior to their enclosure inside aerodynamic fairings to protect them during launch. Credit: NASA/Rad Sinyak