GAO: Next SLS Artemis launches will almost certainly be delayed
NASA’s bloated SLS mobile launchers
According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released yesterday, NASA’S continuing delays and technical problems building the various ground systems required for the next few Artemis launches will almost certainly cause those launches to be delayed.
The schedule at present is as follows:
- September 2025: Artemis-2 will be the program’s first manned mission, taking four astranauts around the Moon.
- September 2026: Artemis-3 will complete the first manned lunar landing.
- September 2028: Artemis-4 will send four astronauts to the Lunar Gateway station in orbit around the Moon, and then complete the second manned lunar landing.
The GAO report notes at length that modifications to the mobile launch platform SLS will use on the first two missions is taking longer than planned. It also notes that the problems completing the second mobile launcher continue, with the budget growing from $383 million to $1.1 billion, and the work years behind schedule with no certainty it will be completed in time for the 2028 mission. These issues are the same ones noted by NASA’s inspector general in August 2024.
Damage to Orion heat shield caused during re-entry,
including “cavities resulting from the loss of large chunks”
This report focused exclusively on the scheduling delays for the ground systems that will be used by SLS for each launch. It did not address the serious questions that remain concerning the serious heat shield damage experienced by the Orion capsule when it returned to Earth on its first unmanned mission in late 2022. NASA has been studying that problem now for two years, and as yet has not revealed a solution.
I continue to predict that the first manned landing, now scheduled for 2026, will not occur before 2030, six years behind the schedule first proposed by President Trump but actually fifteen years behind the schedule initially proposed by President George Bush Jr in 2004. All in all, it will take NASA almost a third of a century to put American astronauts back on the Moon, assuming the landing occurs in 2030 as I now predict. Compare that with the development time of SpaceX’s Starship/Superheavy. Proposed in 2017, it is already flying, and will almost certainly complete its first private manned lunar mission and its first test missions to Mars by 2027. The contrast is striking.
More and more the entire part of Artemis run by NASA is proving to be the failed disaster I predicted it would be in 2011. No wonder former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg wrote an op-ed yesterday calling for its cancellation. Like most politicians, reality is finally percolating into his thick skull, though several decades late.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
NASA’s bloated SLS mobile launchers
According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released yesterday, NASA’S continuing delays and technical problems building the various ground systems required for the next few Artemis launches will almost certainly cause those launches to be delayed.
The schedule at present is as follows:
- September 2025: Artemis-2 will be the program’s first manned mission, taking four astranauts around the Moon.
- September 2026: Artemis-3 will complete the first manned lunar landing.
- September 2028: Artemis-4 will send four astronauts to the Lunar Gateway station in orbit around the Moon, and then complete the second manned lunar landing.
The GAO report notes at length that modifications to the mobile launch platform SLS will use on the first two missions is taking longer than planned. It also notes that the problems completing the second mobile launcher continue, with the budget growing from $383 million to $1.1 billion, and the work years behind schedule with no certainty it will be completed in time for the 2028 mission. These issues are the same ones noted by NASA’s inspector general in August 2024.
Damage to Orion heat shield caused during re-entry,
including “cavities resulting from the loss of large chunks”
This report focused exclusively on the scheduling delays for the ground systems that will be used by SLS for each launch. It did not address the serious questions that remain concerning the serious heat shield damage experienced by the Orion capsule when it returned to Earth on its first unmanned mission in late 2022. NASA has been studying that problem now for two years, and as yet has not revealed a solution.
I continue to predict that the first manned landing, now scheduled for 2026, will not occur before 2030, six years behind the schedule first proposed by President Trump but actually fifteen years behind the schedule initially proposed by President George Bush Jr in 2004. All in all, it will take NASA almost a third of a century to put American astronauts back on the Moon, assuming the landing occurs in 2030 as I now predict. Compare that with the development time of SpaceX’s Starship/Superheavy. Proposed in 2017, it is already flying, and will almost certainly complete its first private manned lunar mission and its first test missions to Mars by 2027. The contrast is striking.
More and more the entire part of Artemis run by NASA is proving to be the failed disaster I predicted it would be in 2011. No wonder former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg wrote an op-ed yesterday calling for its cancellation. Like most politicians, reality is finally percolating into his thick skull, though several decades late.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Well, the most recent Starship had problems with reentry ablatives also. But there’s no inspection of those tiles, is there? The heavier the vehicle the more difficult Earth reentry will be.
M. Murcek: Yes, there was some minor burn-through on Starship, but nothing that seriously impeded its ability to land a bullseye in the Indian Ocean. Furthermore, SpaceX engineers got plenty of data on that event from Starship’s video recorders. They don’t need to do an inspection, though they’ll certainly get a chance when the FAA eventually clears them to make a landing over, well, land.
I am beginning to despair on the chance to live to see our return to the moon much less human landings on Mars.
In another thread, Dick Eagleson said:
“……one looks forward to Donald and Elon sticking a Roto-Rooter up the backside of the entire Executive branch bureaucracy….”
I share that hope but think that even that is not enough to get a return of humans to the moon before 2030 (which maybe too late, for me at least.).
Elon is laser focused on complete rapid turnaround reliability which is needed for making life interplanetary. I keep hoping for an architecture that is willing to throw some Starship systems away to enable a low total mass 2- or 3-person lunar landing, 3 to 5 day lunar stay and return. Don’t worry about earth reentry on Starship or booster/ship recovery and reuse.
Just get Old Glory and an American (don’t care about the color of their skin, their genitalia or their pronouns) back to the Lunar surface ASAP!! Silly I guess, but I think it would make a major POSITIVE statement to our nation about our capability to actually DO THINGS that matter and would give me some hope for the future of my grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Probably a combination of Falcon 9 / Dragon to LEO and a stripped down Starship from LEO to LLO/landing and return to LEO. The entire SLS/ Orion / Gateway architecture seems to be designed simply to burn enormous sums of money and time with no actual trip occurring.
Sadly, I do not have the funds of Delos D. Harriman to make that happen myself.
I suggest that the first HLS Starship both embark and disembark crew from a Dragon capsule in low Earth orbit (and optionally remain in orbit it for another crew) eliminating the need for fins or a heat-shield.
I believe I read that Starship fully fueled could do a LEO-Lunar Surface-LEO mission. If not, the use of orbital refilling would mean a tanker positioned in Lunar orbit could be used to top up before landing or after launch.
In fact, it might even be possible to conduct a multiple-landing survey mission!
our capability to actually DO THINGS that matte
Lots of dimrartz don’t feel it matters or only matters toFascists like Musk and Trump. The money should be taxed out of their hides and used on reparations instead
This ain’t the Sixties. We should feel nothing but disgust and hatred for the totally evil US and all its works
Ray – I agree that a lunar Starship would need to be flown without fins or heat shield.
I don’t know if a “fueled on the ground” Starship could do a LEO – Lunar Surface – LEO mission (although I sure wish it could and can’t do the math to confirm even approximately). I think that a fully fueled in LEO, Starship could do such a mission but that takes the ability to launch 10 to 15 refueling missions and tank the lunar lander Starship 10 to 15 times. That capability seems to be 4 or 5 years away.
Bloomberg knows nothing about rocketry–SLS is, like Saturns before it, worthy of support.
The Saturns were killed due to another promise of reusability that also had tile problems–a mistake not to be repeated.
Go to American Samoa, Bloomy–they love you there –and take horse-faced Lori Garver with you.
Doubting Thomas: “I think that a fully fueled in LEO, Starship could do such a mission but that takes the ability to launch 10 to 15 refueling missions and tank the lunar lander Starship 10 to 15 times. That capability seems to be 4 or 5 years away.”
You are correct, of course. Initial refilling in LEO and all the tanker missions that implies is fundamental to ANY Starship mission, so I did not state it.
Some view that reality as a flaw, but to me it is the conceptual difference between huge throwaway rockets with relatively tiny capsules (Saturn 5, SLS), and a vehicle with the potential to explore the inner solar system, assuming continued development leading to advanced versions of it.
I see those as the basic architectural choices (until we go nuclear) and the “tiny capsule” really is a dead end.
Robert, Ray Van Dune, and others —
As this post suggests, it seems more and more likely that a return of Americans to the moon will rest on the shoulders of SpaceX and whatever other firms it chooses to partner with. That said, what kind of “mission architecture” makes the most sense? It seems to me —
I have a long memory — that all of this was worked out in the 1950 and 60s, but given the technology that is available today, what kind of approach to going back to the moon (this time to stay) makes the most sense?
I certainly lack the background to make such a judgement*, but what do those who are closer to the space industry think? Minus the SLS-Artemis boondoggle, what kind of actual missions are we looking at, and what kind of hardware will be used? (Is there a site that is devoted to such issues?) At any rate — and given a Trump victory in November — it appears that we are looking at a whole new ball game.
*I do recall that back in the day it was thought that having some kind of refuelable “lunar shuttle” that went from earth orbit to lunar orbit (with or without something like the Lunar Gateway) was the hot ticket, but has new technology, including Starship, obviated this approach? And, why couldn’t lunar crews be lifted into earth orbit — and returned — using the Dragon capsule?
Milt, using Dragon is what I also think works best, as I said above:
“I suggest that the first HLS Starship both embark and disembark crew from a Dragon capsule in low Earth orbit (and optionally remain in orbit it for another crew) eliminating the need for fins or a heat-shield.”
Tiny capsules make sense for hauling people to and from LEO because they can be lifted by “smaller” rockets (F9), have simpler and more foolproof launch escape and reentry systems, and don’t need life support systems that last for months or years. We already know how to do that stuff fairly well.
But if you try to extend that approach to (say) the Moon, you get something that can do footprints and flag-planting but not a lot more, once you get over just being there for a couple of days. Trying to go to Mars in a capsule won’t won’t work at all… the crew would drive each other insane, if it wasn’t for the fact that they would run out of air, food, and water, and die first!
With a big spaceship like “Spaceship”, you can take a larger crew and lots of supplies and freight, and build a moon base or eventually a Martian city. But you need to keep it no lower than LEO, and board it and gas it up there.
Ray Van Dune: You have inadventently described the differences between an interplanetary spaceship, and the simple ferry needed to get its crew and passengers to it.
In other words, it is a mistake to build something to do all things. Better to build things with one main focus in mind, for efficiency and speed. In terms of Starship, this I think has not yet occurred to Musk, but will at some point.
You have also summarized the entire premise of my book, Leaving Earth, which argued that space stations are nothing more than experimental interplanetary spaceships.
Bob, thank you for your supportive comment. I have been wondering how SpaceX is going to develop the expertise and tools to do on-orbit refilling, or should I say do it “in time”!
Refilling in space strikes me as harder even than booster-catching, although perhaps not as potentially catastrophic if it fails. As I watch commenters such as those on NASASpaceflight speculate on what aspects of the HLS mission SpaceX should focus on developing, refilling seems to have slipped down the list, behind things like launching Starlinks, etc. Hopefully Elon understands the real priorities, but to be fair, there sure are a lot of them!
As you and others here clearly realize, without on-orbit refilling, Starship isn’t going anywhere! Thus the single orbital launch tower in operation, and the lengthy time required to add more of them, pose a danger to this priority being achieved!
If there is a single most dangerous failure mode to SpaceX’s plans for the future, I think it is the potential loss of the single launch tower we have right now, and the ability to quickly find sites for, and build more of them in the future!
If you haven’t already read this, you should.
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2024/10/02/sls-is-still-a-national-disgrace/
Milt, asked: “I certainly lack the background to make such a judgement*, but what do those who are closer to the space industry think?”
This is a very interesting question. I used to think that, like the airlines, fuel efficiency would be the cost driver in spaceflight. This may eventually become the case, but SpaceX has shown that cost efficiency is not (yet) correlated with fuel efficiency.
Previously, I had assumed that the most efficient and lowest cost method of getting from the Earth to the Moon would be a shuttle taking people and materiel from the surface to a low-orbit space station (both at the Earth and the Moon), so that the mass of the necessary parts for that portion of the journey (landing gear, heat shield at the Earth, etc.) would weigh down the craft. A different, lighter, craft with far fewer parts could make the trip between the two low orbits, but this craft would have to be refuelable (retankable/ refillable) in orbit, as it never lands. I think Robert Z. was describing this in his comment, above.* This may not be the most cost efficient method after all. Finding the cost efficiency is one of the benefits of having a multitude of companies working on solutions to transportation. They have incentive to find these solutions.
It is also why I don’t think that SpaceX is the solution to every space problem. SpaceX has its own priorities, and it should not get distracted solving other problems that would be better solved by a company that is more interested in that niche. The success of SpaceX is due to its development methods, which are similar to the methods used in the 1950s and 1960s, at the beginning of the Space Age, for jet aviation and launch vehicles. If the other companies followed that 1950s example of development, I believe that they, too, would develop their hardware faster and cheaper.
With cubesats and smallsats becoming popular, access to and use of space has become much more affordable than from the mere reduction of launch costs. We have already seen cubesats used for missions to the Moon and to Mars, proving their value in the Space Age.
______________
* SpaceX has built something similar to a space faring pickup-truck, which can change its payload with an adaptation to the cargo area. This is one of the several reasons that I think other companies can find efficiencies that give them advantages over SpaceX’s current Starship designs and future operations. They can make more specialized, thus more efficient, vehicles. SpaceX, with its amazing low costs, is unlikely the last word in space operations, but it is good enough for now. I think even lower costs from other companies are inevitable.
Bloomberg hates pretty much everything space related
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57014.msg2634301#msg2634301
M. Murcek,
Starship’s TPS tiles are not ablative, though there is now an ablative “just-in-case” layer underneath them. As Clark noted, IFT-5’s TPS problems were quite minor compared to those of IFT-4. The remaining issues should not prove inordinately difficult to chase down and kill.
Ray Van Dune,
The HLS Starship design has never had flaps or TPS tiles so deleting them is a moot point.
The notion that it would make sense to send lunar crews up on Dragons and transfer them to Starships in LEO that were launched without crews is completely impractical as a long-term approach. It limits crew complement per mission to whatever a single Dragon can carry, introduces appreciable extra costs and limits the number of lunar missions per year to whatever the Dragon refurb process will allow. It is, in short, a dead end from the get-go and would simply be an expensive and pointless distraction from standing up an all-Starship lunar logistics infrastructure for both crew and cargo.
Doubting Thomas,
In the immediate wake of SpaceX’s considerable success with IFT-5 it seems very odd that you think manned lunar missions are still many years away. The second Starship launch complex at Starbase will be operations-capable either late this year or very early in 2025. SpaceX intends to test large-scale on-orbit propellant transfer early in 2025 with the test depot ship and test tanker ship launching successively over a short interval. A first Starship catch is also on the early 2025 agenda. The cadence of Starship test and operational missions will accelerate throughout 2025. I think there is a decent likelihood that we will see a first lunar landing – and ascent back to lunar orbit – attempt by an uncrewed HLS Starship by the end of 2025. And Jared Isaacman will be quietly pushing SpaceX as hard as he can to have a version of Starship capable of launching at least a Dear Moon-size crew directly from Earth ASAP. Given NASA and legacy contractor dithering with SLS, Orion and related infrastructure, it would not surprise me at all if SpaceX is ready to essay an all-Starship crewed lunar mission even before Artemis 2 flies – if it ever does.
Courage, lad.
Jeff Wright,
You are correct about Bloomberg and rockets. He has also made farcically boneheaded comments about the supposed simplicity of farming.
But even a blind squirrel can find an acorn now and then. SLS is such an unworkable mess even an arrogant twit like Bloomberg can hardly help but notice.
There is no real comparability between the Shuttle’s “tile problems” and those of Starship, the latter of which are rapidly being solved. Shuttle’s worst failings, in any case – including those that doomed two of its crews – were due to aspects of its design other than its tiles. These vulnerabilities were there as a direct result of the Shuttle having been a proverbial horse designed by committee. Starship embodies none of them.
The Saturns were cancelled because they were simply unsustainably and incurably too expensive. SLS-Orion will, not too much further down the road, meet the same fate for the same reason.
Ray Van Dune writes, “If there is a single most dangerous failure mode to SpaceX’s plans for the future, I think it is the potential loss of the single launch tower we have right now, and the ability to quickly find sites for, and build more of them in the future!”
OK, the proverbial dumb question of the day. Actually, two dumb questions.
Isn’t SpaceX planning on eventually (also?) launching Starship from KSC, and aren’t they building a facility there?
Second — a long shot — what are the chances that the other crawler / mobile launcher, as referenced above in this post, could be modified to handle Starship as opposed to the SLS? Or would it be cheaper and more expedient to simply scrap the whole thing? Indeed, with SLS-Artemis out of the picture, what would a “new” KSC look like, and what would NASA “do” there?
(Is someone quietly working on a space-related Project 2025? And, is Robert lending a hand?)
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ml-ml2-comparison-infographic-4-1-2024.pdf?emrc=ae280a&linkId=420840656
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_launcher_platform
Milt, To your first question, yes. SpaceX is building more Starship/Superheavy towers at both Boca Chica and Florida.
To your second question, no, it not only is impossible and inefficient for SpaceX to use either SLS Mobile Launcher, it wouldn’t happen because SpaceX will have its own towers (plural) ready long before NASA’s second launcher (singular) is even finished, for pennies in comparison.
Dick – Thank you for your hopeful and optimistic observations. I hope you are right that the pace towards progress in substantial space operations will quicken now.
Bob,
The sad thing is, the best case scenario for the environmental reviews for the two sites at the Cape SpaceX wants to build Starship launch pads at (LC-39A and SLC-37) is end of 2025; and even if SpaceX can’t start construction until then, they’re STILL the best bet to to reach completion before Bechtel can finish Mobile Launcher 2!
It’s embarrassing.