NASA's Headache? Behind the Scenes of the SLS Rocket and Artemis Mission

Just a few days ago, many people on Earth collectively turned their gaze to the moon for an impressive lunar eclipse. For about an hour, the darkened and reddish hue of the moon was quite striking.

Thanks to this event, we were able to witness a moment where everyone looked up at the night sky together. It was also a meaningful time for us all to reflect on our origins from that celestial body. I couldn’t help but feel grateful to the full moon for putting on such an amazing show and drawing people’s attention to the night sky.

And soon, there will be another moment when everyone on Earth turns their eyes toward the moon again. This is because of the ‘Artemis Mission,’ which aims to send humans back to the lunar surface after half a century.

However, this mission was actually supposed to have already begun. Unfortunately, that’s not been the case. It’s truly regrettable to talk about it like this, but if everything had gone according to plan, I would have been able to share with you an exciting report of Artemis 2 successfully orbiting the moon and returning safely after carrying humans for a long time.

But unfortunately, technical issues were discovered just before the launch of Artemis 2, causing another delay. Moreover, NASA announced significant changes to the entire Artemis mission. Due to these consecutive disappointing news, some scientists have expressed concern that the next-generation rocket ‘SLS Rocket’ being pushed by NASA might become a headache.

Can humanity really return to the moon after such a long time? Welcome back to Space Dust’s Wisdom Times, where we delve into the behind-the-scenes story of NASA’s new headache, the SLS Rocket.

Continuous Launch Delays and Rollbacks

In February, Artemis 2 was preparing for launch. However, just before liftoff, there was an issue with a helium tank leak, causing the launch to be halted. The launch was rescheduled for early March but failed again. During the final ‘Wet Dress Rehearsal,’ where all fuel is loaded and the countdown reaches 29 seconds from the end, another problem arose.

This time, there were technical issues with the upper part of the rocket as well. As a result, the launch was postponed indefinitely. While it might be possible to attempt a launch in April if rushed, given that valuable astronauts’ lives are at stake, taking extra precautions seems reasonable.

The most recent launch attempt faced complex problems that required rolling back the rocket from the launchpad and moving it back into the assembly building for repairs.

NASA has been developing the Space Launch System (SLS) over a long period of time, claiming it to be the ’next-generation rocket’ since the Apollo missions in the 1960s and 70s. However, this SLS launch vehicle is now proving to be quite troublesome.

The Difference from Apollo Missions and Lack of Innovation

The most fundamental difference between the Apollo and Artemis missions lies in their reasons for going to the moon. In the case of Apollo, the moon was the final destination, and astronauts stayed there only briefly. Out of three astronauts who left Earth, two landed on the moon and spent just a few hours or one to two days before returning.

However, the Artemis mission looks beyond the moon towards Mars. It aims to establish a base where humans can live for months on the moon. Therefore, the Orion spacecraft used in the Artemis mission can carry one more astronaut than during Apollo times, providing a wider space.

In contrast to the payload, the launch vehicle SLS does not show significant advancements compared to the Apollo era. Most of the noticeable progress seen in the Artemis mission is actually on the Orion spacecraft side rather than the launch vehicle. The Orion has an emergency escape system that operates with millisecond precision and can support four astronauts for up to 20 days, equipped with modern life-support systems and radiation protection.

In comparison, SLS does not show clear advancements over the Saturn V rocket used in Apollo. The Saturn V could carry a maximum of 125 tons into low Earth orbit and 50 tons to lunar orbit. Even after 50 years, the SLS Block 1 can only transport between 38 to 46 tons to the moon. Therefore, when comparing the payload capacity alone, it’s hard to say that SLS outperforms Saturn V.

Astronomical Costs and NASA’s Structural Limitations

The bigger issue is the cost. Each launch of the Artemis mission, including the SLS launch and operation of the Orion spacecraft, costs a staggering $4.2 billion for each of the first four missions planned by NASA.

This figure only includes the launch itself; the development over the past decade has cost ten times more. Additionally, unlike SpaceX’s Falcon rockets, which can be reused, SLS is not reusable, making it difficult to reduce costs.

Despite the significant time and money invested, there are no noticeable advancements, and instead, more money is being spent, highlighting NASA’s structural limitations. Instead of taking risks for bold innovation, they have been constrained by existing technological legacies, making it hard to break free from them.

Initially, NASA believed that inheriting and continuing the technical legacy from previous Saturn V rockets and space shuttles would save time and costs compared to developing new technology. However, this expectation was completely off the mark.

Simply using old parts did not solve problems; instead, all components had to be redesigned for new missions, re-certified, and integrated through complex administrative procedures. As a result, SLS failed to become a safe rocket that combined proven past technologies. Instead, it became more complicated due to the forced integration of outdated and new technologies.

Political Compromises Hindering Innovation

In 2010, NASA was also compelled during the development process of the SLS rocket to maintain existing contracts, investments, and personnel as much as possible. However, some criticize that such constraints actually hindered innovation in the rocket.

NASA’s rocket development is not just a challenge towards space; it’s also about jobs for many technicians across America’s industrial base. Politically, it would be unrealistic for politicians to ignore this existing industrial base by prioritizing technological innovation at the cost of their votes.

Ultimately, combining various political and practical reasons, including job preservation, SLS development was used as a means to maintain and sustain NASA’s existing industrial base. Thus, some argue that such political compromises are one reason why meaningful innovations have not been achieved. This is also one of the biggest contrasts between recent private space companies like SpaceX or Blue Origin and NASA.

Changed Times, Cautious Approaches

It’s also hard to ignore the difference in times from when the Apollo missions took place. Even then, there were many unfortunate accidents and close calls.

For example, during a test for Apollo 1, an unexpected spark led to a tragic fire that killed three astronauts. There was also lightning striking the rocket during launch, causing system failures or even oxygen tank explosions. The first manned flight wasn’t achieved until Apollo 8, and actual moon landing happened with Apollo 11.

However, compared to the current situation of the Artemis mission, the Apollo missions seem quite bold and daring. At that time, there was a political consensus that they couldn’t fall behind in the competition against the Soviet Union’s system.