Isaacman: SLS stands on very thin ice
Though NASA administration Jared Isaacman continues to support unequivocally NASA’s planned Artemis-2 ten-day manned mission around the Moon — presently targeting a March launch date — in a statement today on X he revealed that he also recognizes the serious limitations of the SLS rocket.

And it also takes two-plus years between launches
The Artemis vision began with President Trump, but the SLS architecture and its components long predate his administration, with much of the heritage clearly traced back to the Shuttle era. As I stated during my hearings, and will say again, this is the fastest path to return humans to the Moon and achieve our near-term objectives through at least Artemis V, but it is not the most economic path and certainly not the forever path.
The flight rate is the lowest of any NASA-designed vehicle, and that should be a topic of discussion. It is why we undertake wet dress rehearsals, Pre-FRR, and FRR, and why we will not press to launch until we are absolutely ready.
These comments were also in connection with the first wet dress rehearsal countdown that NASA performed with SLS/Orion in the past few days, a rehearsal that had to be terminated early because of fuel leaks. NASA now plans to do another wet dress rehearsal, requiring it to push back the Artemis-2 launch until March.
I think there is more going on here than meets the eye.
First of all, I think Isaacman is very aware that in the first launch of SLS in 2022, there were numerous delays due to similar problems. It took three wet dress rehearsals in April through June to finally allow the agency to commit to an August launch. In every case the problem was related to hydrogen fuel leaks or improper temperatures during fueling. Then the August launch was scrubbed twice because of more fuel leaks, forcing the agency to delay the launch again until November, when it was finally able to complete the countdown and launch.
I think Isaacman is telling us indirectly that he is going to demand a perfect dress rehearsal countdown before he will be willing to sign off on the actual launch. Based on SLS’s track record, it is therefore very likely that a launch this spring will not take place. Right now the launch has been delayed until March. If one or two dress rehearsals push it back into April and later, NASA will simply run out of time in this launch window.
Nor is this unlikely. There were five countdowns for Artemis-1 before it was finally able to launch, causing several months of delays. If this happens now, SLS won’t launch until later this year.
In other words, Isaacman is telling us by his statement today that he wants to make very clear to the public — and to the politicians in DC — the problems presented by SLS/Orion’s expensive and cumbersome design. During his nomination hearings he was forced by those politicians to commit to SLS/Orion and this Moon mission. He is now I think laying the groundwork to convince these Congress critters that a major change is essential, especially if they want to get their wish of creating a lunar base ahead of the Chinese. By forcing a perfect launch countdown and thus multiple delays — for entirely right reasons — he is going to force the politicians to reconsider SLS at last.

Superheavy after the October 2024 flight,
safely captured during the very first attempt
I am of course speculating, as I really have no idea what Isaacman is really thinking. I do know however that if SLS experiences multiple dress rehearsals with problems and gets delayed by months, this is exactly what is going to happen, even if Isaacman isn’t planning it.
The public is now paying close attention, and we have a NASA administrator who is not willing to sugarcoat these delays. That combination is going to make SLS look increasingly bad as it undergoes more likely “glitches” and delays, doing so in plain sight instead of limited to space geeks who pay attention.
And these delays will look even worse in comparison to Starship/Superheavy, which should launch itself at least twice or three times in the next six months, doing spectacular things and doing them regularly and almost routinely.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News


I am still not totally sure if this is what Jared is trying to do, but if he *is*….well, he faces an uphill climb, but this could not *hurt* as a strategy for trying to force both ends of Pennsylvania into a reconsideration of this entire architecture, if it really gets delayed that badly.
It would sure help, though, if in the meantime SpaceX manages one or two clean test flights of Starship, and Blue Origin’s coming launch of New Glenn is likewise hitch-free. You can’t beat something with nothing, and Congress needs fresh reassurances that there are some viable “somethings” out there as alternatives. But that seems to be what you are trying to say in that last paragraph (and the, uh, striking photo), Bob,
Richard M: Um, I actually say that directly, in the final sentences of the essay. :)
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fy.yarn.co%2F189b666f-20d9-4505-a8c8-598535ebdc42_text.gif&f=1&ipt=e765dc4cd97f595a7fac1ee4d4e79ad1eca5a91595e4dfe8ab58aef36b594f17
In the presser today, Amit Kshatriya agreed—firmly—that each SLS launch is an experimental, not an operational, affair. Things are changing at NASA.
Hi Bob,
I admit that I kind of skimmed past the last section of the essay as I was typing . . . then looked back up at that photo of the booster catch, went back and read the last paragraph, and decided that you really were making the point I was writing up already, but I wanted to finish off the post without rewriting the whole thing. But yes, you beat me to the punch. SpaceX and Blue Origin can really help their case for replacing SLS and Orion if they can deliver some successes over the next several months, if indeed Artemis II is delayed that long.
In the end, of course, they *are* going to win. But I think that, yes, they can plausibly accelerate the process if they have a good year in 2026.
Hello Patrick,
Yeah, I just got to that part. He did indeed!
Not sure he was entirely happy making the admission. But he did, it seems.
All: So NASA admits SLS is experimental, just like Starship/Superheavy!
Let’s compare these experimental programs:
Testing:
SLS: One launch followed by a manned flight.
Starship/Superheavy: So far eleven test flights plus a half dozen early flip maneuver tests with just Starship. No humans on board, and not present plans to put humans on board for quite a number of additional test flights.
Cost:
SLS: ranging above $60 billion.
Starshp/Superheavy: Estimated in the range of $12 billion.
Development time:
SLS: Now going on 22 years.
Starship/Superheavy: Now about a decade.
Which would you buy? As a taxpayer I continue to be outraged that our Congress and President keep wasting MY money on SLS.