In the coming weeks, NASA is scheduled to launch a mission that they have been trying to launch for years. It's known as Artemis 1 and it's the first major mission in NASA's Artemis Program. The goal of the Artemis program is to return humans to the Moon, to stay. Artemis 1 will be an unmanned test of the Space Launch System, one of the most powerful rockets ever built, and the Orion spacecraft. There is currently no scheduled date for the launch, as Hurricane Ian has necessitated the rollback of SLS to the Vehicle Assembly Building, though it might launch as soon as mid-October.
But the Space Launch System and Orion have become quite controversial in the last few years. Online forums, scathing Ars Technica articles, and Inspector General reports have all criticized the cost overruns and many delays that have plagued the programs. But maybe this large amount of criticism of these programs is a sign of us finally making progress in space exploration? Maybe we are finally going somewhere.
I'm going to try to briefly summarize this complicated issue, the history of SLS, the Artemis Program, and NASA's goal to return humans to the Moon. If you want to learn more about NASA's Artemis program, the Space Launch System, cost-plus contracting, and Orion, then watch the videos that are embedded in this article and read the articles listed in my sources.
A Historic Mission
Ever since Apollo 17 in 1972, NASA has been trying to return humans to the Moon. Initially, they focused on trying to lower launch costs. By inventing the reusable Space Shuttle they hoped they could lower launch costs enough to allow for a return to the Moon to be more easily funded. After decades of using this vehicle, it proved to not lower launch costs at all and was more expensive than traditional rockets.
In 2003 NASA began working on the Constellation program to return humans to the lunar surface. They planned to reuse Space Shuttle components to build the Ares I and Ares IV rockets. But, this program was canceled by President Obama in 2010 because it was too expensive and behind schedule. Congress then told NASA to build a rocket similar to the Ares IV that would reuse the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) and the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs). This rocket would be named the Space Launch System, or SLS. Congress didn't give this rocket a clear objective, but they had their own purpose for it: to make sure that the thousands of people who worked on the Space Shuttle still had jobs. As you will see, this ulterior motive has led to billions of dollars of overspending and extreme inefficiency.
Over the last decade, as the Space Launch System has been designed, a program has emerged known as Artemis. The goal of this program is to return humans to the Moon and create a sustained presence there. The plan for this program is to use the super powerful SLS rocket to send the manned Orion spacecraft to the Moon. Beginning with Artemis 3, Orion will dock with the Lunar Gateway or a lunar lander. The Lunar Gateway is a small space station that will orbit the Moon. It is under development by NASA in collaboration with multiple other countries.
But before we can land humans on the Moon and build a space station we need to test Orion and SLS. That is the purpose of Artemis 1. A complete end-to-end test of the most powerful rocket NASA has ever built and one of the most complex spacecraft ever built. If this mission is successful, then Artemis 2 will fly humans around the Moon in 2024, and Artemis 3 will land them on the Moon in 2025.
During Artemis 1 NASA will test the ground infrastructure, SLS operations, and Orion's communication equipment, solar panels, and engines. The mission will conclude with the testing of Orion's heat shield by entering Earth's atmosphere from deep space at 40,000 km/h (25,00 mph). NASA's recovery teams will then practice locating and retrieving the spacecraft after it splashes down in the Pacific Ocean.
While Orion flies around the vicinity of the Moon, it will collect data about likely the biggest danger of deep space travel: radiation. In deep space, there is no atmosphere to filter out radiation. So the radiation is very intense.
A vest that can shield against some of this radiation, known as AstroRad, will be tested using two torso manikins. One of these will be fitted with the vest while the other won't, and both will have multiple radiation sensors. In addition, a different manikin will have accelerometers to test the stresses that humans will experience during future Artemis missions.
Controversy and Cost
The SLS mega rocket and Orion spacecraft are marvels of engineering. But they have been designed and built at a price far higher than initially planned and are way behind schedule. Though this is typical of space missions, SLS and Orion have racked up more than just typical delays and cost overruns.
Originally the plan was for SLS to fly for the first time in 2017 and for the program to have spent only $10 billion by then. By 2020, $16 billion had been spent. The launch date has been pushed back over 20 times and the price tag has continued to rise as Artemis 1 has crept closer to launch. Even after the insane amount of money and effort that has gone into building this powerful rocket, the outlook for the usage of this rocket is bleak.
It is estimated that SLS and Orion will launch at most once a year and will cost 4.1 billion each time. That price is equivalent to about 8 Discovery missions, which last for years and perform very useful planetary science.
The only recent space mission that is comparable in the amount of time and money that was required is the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). But JWST had to pioneer difficult technologies, from shutters on the scale of human hairs, to how to make massive, sturdy, flexible, and precisely reflective beryllium mirrors.
Though the SLS was not an easy thing to build, it didn't require the massive leaps in engineering that JWST required. The most complex part of any rocket is the rocket engine. The Space Launch System uses RS-25 engines, which were designed in the 1970s and flew on the Space Shuttle for 30 years. The second stage of the Space Launch System is a variant of the upper stage of the Delta IV, a rocket that ULA has flown 41 times. The SRBs on the side of the rocket are simply larger versions of the ones used on the Space Shuttle.
So how could the Space Launch System become so expensive? Most of its technology has been used for decades, and the companies building SLS are the most experienced in the nation.
Politics.
Politics
The Congress members that told NASA to build the Space Launch System didn't do it because they thought it would be the best way to explore space. They did it because they wanted the people that worked on the Space Shuttle to stay employed. Because if those people kept their jobs, the Congress members were more likely to be reelected. So they told NASA to choose the companies that built the space shuttle, Boeing and Northrop Grumman, to build SLS. These companies are some of the most experienced in the nation, but that doesn't mean that they were the best ones for the job.
NASA signed contracts with these companies in the way that they have for decades, using cost-plus contracts. Cost-plus contracts are agreements to pay companies for their work, regardless of how much they spend, and additional money for profit. They have historically been used by NASA and the U.S. military to hire companies to build equipment for them. This allows for the most experienced company to be chosen but gives little motivation to the company to stay within budget and on schedule. Because the longer these companies wait, the more money they get. That is why Boeing and Northrop Grumman took so long to build the SLS components.
And when you compare SLS and Orion with previous NASA projects, the delays and cost overruns are on par. In 1969 it was estimated that Space Shuttle development could be completed by 1977. The first flight of the Space Shuttle wasn't until 1981. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan directed NASA to complete the space station that would eventually become the ISS by 1994. The ISS wouldn't be completed until 2011 and would cost a total of $150 billion, a massive sum compared to the original estimate of $17 billion (adjusted to inflation from $8 billion). Compared to these programs SLS is typical of what cost-plus contracting results in.
But things have been changing, the commercial space industry has exploded in growth and NASA has been changing the way that they hire companies. They are now giving out fixed-price contracts. With these contracts, a company is paid a certain amount of money, and if they spend more than that amount, then the company has to pay it. And it has worked. Companies have been spending far less money and have taken less time compared to the SLS and Orion programs.
For the $580 million that the four RS-25 engines that SLS uses cost $580 million in total, the equivalent of 8 of SpaceX's reusable Falcon 9 rocket launches. And these rocket engines won't even be reused. The Orion spacecraft costs $1 billion to build, the price of purchasing about 15 seats on a SpaceX Crew Dragon.
In the time it took Lockheed Martin to build Orion, SpaceX designed, built, and has flown their manned Dragon 2 spacecraft multiple times. In the time it took Boeing to build the SLS core stage, the startups Firefly, Astra, and Virgin Orbit have taken their ideas from the drawing board to the launch pad. And most impressively, SpaceX has constructed a factory and launch site for their Starship vehicle, a fully reusable rocket more powerful and capable than the SLS. In addition, SpaceX has designed probably the most advanced rocket engine ever built, the Raptor engine, and manufactured it on an unprecedented scale.
This is why people have been so critical of the SLS program because there is finally a good comparison.
The Silver Lining
In any other previous era of spaceflight, the SLS and Artemis program would be heralded as the dawn of a new age. It would be seen as cutting-edge technology. Because in any other era these huge delays and over-expenditures would be normal. Because cost-plus contracting has been the norm. It is abnormal that there would be multiple heavy lift launch vehicles in development at the same time. But because of the skillful planning and spending of commercial enterprises, NASA's pattern of development seems irrelevant.
The reason why SLS seems so bad is that we are finally making progress in space exploration. The era of Apolloism is over. We are finally breaking free from a pattern of big rockets, big budgets, and big delays. Now companies are stepping up and competing with each other. NASA can rely on these new companies to stay on budget and schedule.
If lawmakers and NASA officials realize this, then they can change things. We can truly move forward by relying on companies. SLS is the end of an era.
Now it's time for the era of companies, with NASA guiding and funding them.
Sources:
The sources that I primarily used in each section. Some of the numbers on price and performance in this article come from Wikipedia.
A Historic Mission:
Controversy and Cost:
Politics:
The Silver Lining:
Additional Opinion Pieces