Your preferences on SLS/Orion

[Alvian@IDN]

This poll assume all but last option to trigger a contract for replacement rockets straight away after cancellation occur

[geza]

The prohibitive cost of SLS and MSR testifies that the reusability revolution is long overdue. Why don't refly Orion uncrewed to test a new heat shiled? Because the costs. I wish to see a revitalized science driven space program afterward. Flocks of large space telescopes. Samples from different locations of Moon, Mars and other celestial bodies. Research bases on Mars, maybe elsewhere. Most importantly, renewed interest in our home planet, in its climate. Which is one of the main determinants of the future of humanity.

[DanClemmensen]

I voted to cancel both SLS and Orion right now.

However, if the termination charges are so high that it's cheaper to fly Artemis II, then fly it uncrewed. Same for the Artemis III SLS/Orion.

Fly the first crewed landing as soon as possible, replacing SLS/Orion with Starship (Depot/Tanker/HLS) plus Crewed Dragon for Earth to LEO and back.

[Ariane7]

-Even if I'm not American, I really don't like what Trump / Musk are doing to the US administration so far. Way too brutal, oriented; and barely legal. Whatever.

-This point duly made, I'd say that, if they manage to nuke SLS / Orion into oblivion, it will be a good thing. Best case, they nuke both, arm-twisting Congress 15 year old pork barrell obscene dollar fest into submission. 

- Worst case, if they nuke SLS but not Orion, that's good enough for me. I have no problem with "Orion on Vulcan" or "Orion on New Glenn". One can never have too many manned spaceships (2011-2020, Soyuz, cough).

- albeit that scheme usefulness seems doubtful: do we need "Orion to ISS", knowing that the space station will be gone in five years ?

- Or, if Orion sticks to Gateway, it will need a big and powerful hydrolox space tug to move it to Earth escape and cislunar space, with EOR: Earth Orbit Rendezvous, in Apollo parlance. Meh.

-Typing this, I wonder about an opportunity related to Boeing botched CTS-100. How about nuking CTS-100 and adopting Orion as backup to Dragon 2 ? Could Lockheed - or NASA, or someone else - bid Orion for some kind of CCDEV contract (or whatever its present name and status) ?

It really boils down to DOGE vs Congress, and eventual "sweeteners" to make the pill pass ("Hey look, we killed SLS, but we kept Orion alive, as a face saving for you Congress.").

[Cheapchips]

I went for cancel right now.  Neither have any place in a sensible space program. 

I don't necessarily think we'd get something sensible in their place.  It would be nice though!

Also, feel for the majority of people working on them that'd be out of a job. 

[redliox]

The prohibitive cost of SLS and MSR testifies that the reusability revolution is long overdue. Why don't refly Orion uncrewed to test a new heat shiled? Because the costs. I wish to see a revitalized science driven space program afterward. Flocks of large space telescopes. Samples from different locations of Moon, Mars and other celestial bodies. Research bases on Mars, maybe elsewhere. Most importantly, renewed interest in our home planet, in its climate. Which is one of the main determinants of the future of humanity.

I agree SLS needs to go.  It's like the space shuttle all over again, specifically in how it hordes the budget.  And while it was a good idea 20 years ago, the giant reusables have finally emerged and outpaced it.

While I wouldn't want SpaceX to hold a monopoly, they already have the flight proven Dragon and the upcoming Starship.  If you don't mind doing rendezvouses in LEO, the Orion isn't really needed.  All that's needed is finalizing Starship, both tanker and lunar, and a SpaceX or SpaceX/Hybrid (such as New Glenn or whatever) architecture could easily emerge.

The Gateway might still have a use, but something bigger or a fuel depot would be better ideas; of course this is about SLS/Orion, although a point I'll add to finish is SLS isn't even going to help assemble Gateway; the launches are reserved for Orion.

At least the difference now is we HAVE something to replace the SLS whereas with the shuttle we never did.  THAT at least gives the situation a hopeful twist!

[Galactic Penguin SST]

I am one of the 2 who voted for the last option...but that's because there's no option for voting "replace SLS and/or Orion in the medium term after at least 2 independent human missions cis-lunar transportation infrastructures are matured" (read: getting the full-version Starship HLS operational by proving it on Artemis IV as minimum requirement, preferably getting Blue Moon HLS as well via Artemis V, before replacing SLS in the 2030s - with future of Orion decided after then).

Full Twitter thread of my opinion here: https://x.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status/1864875187948392835

[lightleviathan]

Why would we get rid of SLS and Orion? There's no short or medium term vehicle that can take humans to the Moon, let alone out of Earth orbit. (And even if we just kept Orion, Bridenstack isn't coming back, we're stuck with this architecture)

[DanClemmensen]

Why would we get rid of SLS and Orion? There's no short or medium term vehicle that can take humans to the Moon, let alone out of Earth orbit. (And even if we just kept Orion, Bridenstack isn't coming back, we're stuck with this architecture)

A Crew Dragon can take crew to LEO. A Starship HLS acting as a transporter can take crew from LEO to NRHO, to meet the Starship HLS that takes them to the lunar surface and back.

[DeimosDream]

Selected "cancel after A3", but my personal preference would be to cancel after A4 or maybe A5.

Canceling after A3+ would have worked and should have been done back in 2022 or so, but with Nasa now contracted for crewed landings by both SpaceX and Blue Origin I think they now are too strongly committed to A4 with too little time to develop an alternative even with on-paper optimism.

Also prefer that Orion get cancelled along with SLS. I think that load stone is too heavy even for New Glenn, and while a replacement architecture could propose to use Orion replacement crew transport shouldn't be -required- to use Orion.

[thespacecow]

Why would we get rid of SLS and Orion? There's no short or medium term vehicle that can take humans to the Moon, let alone out of Earth orbit. (And even if we just kept Orion, Bridenstack isn't coming back, we're stuck with this architecture)

This post illustrates perfectly the SLS replacement doom cycle: Why isn't there a replacement vehicle for SLS right now? Because NASA didn't ask for it a few years ago. Why NASA didn't ask for it a few years ago? Because a few years ago SLS supporters claim SLS is right around the corner and none of the replacement is ready. Rinse, shine, repeat, ad infinitum.

The only way to break the cycle is to kill SLS right now, whether there's a replacement or not, we'll figure that out later. Otherwise this cycle will repeat forever and we'll be stuck with SLS.

[sdsds]

These attachments are from a 2012 NASA presentation. None of the objectives described were achieved. (Artemis I did not meet the 70 mt before 2021 objective.) Currently the best case scenario is that Artemis IV might fly in 2030 given an additional $25B in funding between now and then.

I believe the best path forward is for NASA fo fund capability demonstration missions with firm fixed-price contracts. Here's a proposal: offer Lockheed Martin $25B if they can demonstrate the ability to deliver crew and cargo to NRHO. Let Lightfoot and company decide if it makes sense to accept that offer. Offer them the use of existing NASA assets if they wish, i.e. LC-39, etc. If they don't accept, offer the same deal to ... someone else.

I'd bet they take the bait rather than see Orion wither away.

[Edit to add note for context: Lockheed-Martin's revenue from the DoD is something like $65B/yr.]

[Yggdrasill]

I think they should cancel SLS after Artemis 5. But do Artemis 4 and 5 with Block 1 (with RS-25E). Cancel Block 1B and Block 2, shut down all new development, and just go through the hardware in the pipeline. (Would require another couple of ICPS, and some payload would need to be shifted over to other launch vehicles.)

This would give some time to shift over to alternative architectures.

[sdsds]

Would require another couple of ICPS

So you're NASA and you're buying upper stages for SLS. There's only one supplier, offering both ICPS and EUS. At quantity 2, the supplier is asking more for ICPS than EUS. Could you really justify paying more for a design that offers markedly less performance?

[Yggdrasill]

If you save a few billion in development costs, yes.

[dglow]

If you don't fully cancel it now then it isn't really cancelled. The same questions (whether and why to cancel) can and will be raised again at a later date. Congress and NASA will have to stop funding, building, and flying SLS missions during this administration's term, not leave it for a future team to wrap up.

Operationally that would mean, at most, flying Artemis II. But only if there was reason to do so – e.g. Orion is kept and no alternative means to launch can be made available in a similar timeframe. And even then, the more certain path would be making Artemis I the first and final SLS mission.

I voted option #1.

[Coastal Ron]

These attachments are from a 2012 NASA presentation. None of the objectives described were achieved. (Artemis I did not meet the 70 mt before 2021 objective.)

Yeah, not a surprise given how "success oriented" the SLS and Orion programs have been from the beginning.

Currently the best case scenario is that Artemis IV might fly in 2030 given an additional $25B in funding between now and then.

I believe the best path forward is for NASA fo fund capability demonstration missions with firm fixed-price contracts.

Boeing has refused to build the SLS using Firm Fixed Price contracts.

Here's a proposal: offer Lockheed Martin $25B if they can demonstrate the ability to deliver crew and cargo to NRHO.

Oh this would be a HORRIBLE idea. The Orion MPCV is the WORST design for NASA to use for expanding human exploration out into space, so why would we want to dump anymore money into keeping it going? 

Besides, with $25B instead of getting four humans to NRHO, we could build an entire reusable transportation system to the surface of the Moon. I know which one I would pick...

[Narnianknight]

Why would we get rid of SLS and Orion? There's no short or medium term vehicle that can take humans to the Moon, let alone out of Earth orbit. (And even if we just kept Orion, Bridenstack isn't coming back, we're stuck with this architecture)

It doesn't have to be that way. We're stuck with the architecture because no one has changed it yet.

As far as short term, fly Artemis II & III on SLS. I agree that delaying the landing to 2030+ is not a good idea. SLS isn't as much of a problem in the short term as the long term anyway; Orion is the long pole on Artemis II, and HLS, Orion, or AxEMU could be the long pole for Artemis III. The key is to make sure Block 1B is good and canceled immediately, before Block 1 stops flying.

For the medium term, there are all sorts of Franken-architectures people have come up with, my favorite (subject to change) being NG/Orion with Centaur V as a TLI stage. Nearly all the necessary hardware exists, so I doubt it would take past 2029 to get it flying for Artemis IV.

Long term, of course, the best option is to create a capsule that is purpose built for lunar landing missions. Of course, the development must start at the same time as Block 1B's cancellation to be ready for Artemis VII or VIII or whatever. I reckon BO would be a good option; they already have plans to crew-rate NG and seem interested in the moon. New Collins, anyone?

[TheKutKu]

Cancel After A3, start commercial cislunar procurement now, whether Orion stays or not is up to commercial procurement process (can Lockheed and partners find a cost effective way that stands up to competition). Also start work for a backup possibility of A3 using the commercial cislunar solution once it's downselected, you never have too many backup if things go wrong.


I personally do not understand the logic of cancelling AII, except from an ideological one (either from a purely small government one or from a Sinophile/Anti-American perspective).

[DanClemmensen]

Cancel After A3, start commercial cislunar procurement now, whether Orion stays or not is up to commercial procurement process (can Lockheed and partners find a cost effective way that stands up to competition). Also start work for a backup possibility of A3 using the commercial cislunar solution once it's downselected, you never have too many backup if things go wrong.


I personally do not understand the logic of cancelling AII, except from an ideological one (either from a purely small government one or from a Sinophile/Anti-American perspective).

Speaking personally, the main reason to cancel Artemis II and Artemis III is to reduce risk to crew. If SLS/Orion will never be flown after Artemis III, then there is no reason for these, Artemis II is solely a crew qualification test, and Artemis III is still testing elements (like the docking port) that are crew-critical.

If it is contractually cheaper to fly these missions than it is to terminate them, then fly them uncrewed.

NOTE: I'm referring to SLS/Orion here. I feel that we still need a landing mission on alternative hardware called "Artemis III" and it may require and earlier uncrewed mission called "Artemis II", but neither of these should have any connection to SLS or Orion.