Interesting speculation on SLS and potential changes to the Artemis architecture:
Multiple sources have told Ars that the SLS rocket—which has long had staunch backing from Congress—is now on the chopping block. No final decisions have been made, but a tentative deal is in place with lawmakers to end the rocket in exchange for moving US Space Command to Huntsville, Alabama.
So how would NASA astronauts get to the Moon without the SLS rocket? Nothing is final, and the trade space is open. One possible scenario being discussed for future Artemis missions is to launch the Orion spacecraft on a New Glenn rocket into low-Earth orbit. There, it could dock with a Centaur upper stage that would launch on a Vulcan rocket. This Centaur stage would then boost Orion toward lunar orbit.
One possible scenario being discussed for future Artemis missions is to launch the Orion spacecraft on a New Glenn rocket into low-Earth orbit. There, it could dock with a Centaur upper stage that would launch on a Vulcan rocket. This Centaur stage would then boost Orion toward lunar orbit.
We’ll try literally anything NOT to look like Apollo, because god forbid we do something that works.
Except SLS isn’t working. The insane cost, delays, low flight rate, and ballooning ground infrastructure costs are making it untenable. Distributed lift via commercial launchers is conceptually more complicated, but practically a lot cheaper, more available, more flexible, and removes some size and weight constraints.
Also, for Artemis 4+, I think a Starship with an adapter to Orion would be a cleaner single launch than a New Glenn / Centaur distributed lift.
They’re making stupid changes just for the sake of changes. Like launching a separate lander, or the stupid orbit around the moon, or massive over engineering for other missions that everyone already knew wouldn’t happen on this craft. What are the astronauts going to do when they get to the moon that hasn’t been done already and/or can’t be done better by robots?
Artemis is a Multi-billion dick waving mission that only serves to get money into the pockets of huge companies.
I’m divided on Gateway, because I know it’s unnecessary, but space stations are cool. I lean toward cancelling it.
I’m totally on board with distributed lift for the landers. That architecture lets them land more mass, like bigger pressurized landers for longer stays and bigger crews, the surface habitat, and the pressurized rover.
Whether to explore space or not is a different question. I’m a hopeless sci-fi nerd, so I’m already inspired and working in the industry. I think that’s a much better way to spend money than the Pentagon. I would much rather have space exploration and planetary science instead of more ICBMs.
Interesting speculation on SLS and potential changes to the Artemis architecture:
We’ll try literally anything NOT to look like Apollo, because god forbid we do something that works.
Except SLS isn’t working. The insane cost, delays, low flight rate, and ballooning ground infrastructure costs are making it untenable. Distributed lift via commercial launchers is conceptually more complicated, but practically a lot cheaper, more available, more flexible, and removes some size and weight constraints.
Also, for Artemis 4+, I think a Starship with an adapter to Orion would be a cleaner single launch than a New Glenn / Centaur distributed lift.
Artemis is really nothing like Apollo though.
They’re making stupid changes just for the sake of changes. Like launching a separate lander, or the stupid orbit around the moon, or massive over engineering for other missions that everyone already knew wouldn’t happen on this craft. What are the astronauts going to do when they get to the moon that hasn’t been done already and/or can’t be done better by robots?
Artemis is a Multi-billion dick waving mission that only serves to get money into the pockets of huge companies.
I’m divided on Gateway, because I know it’s unnecessary, but space stations are cool. I lean toward cancelling it.
I’m totally on board with distributed lift for the landers. That architecture lets them land more mass, like bigger pressurized landers for longer stays and bigger crews, the surface habitat, and the pressurized rover.
Whether to explore space or not is a different question. I’m a hopeless sci-fi nerd, so I’m already inspired and working in the industry. I think that’s a much better way to spend money than the Pentagon. I would much rather have space exploration and planetary science instead of more ICBMs.
SLS has been criticized for years by many people inside and outside of NASA. This new guy not liking it isn’t anything shocking or inherently bad.