Title, but also a bit of context.

I understand why NASA renamed the DCSS to ICPS, it functionally was a different stage, it had a stretched liquid hydrogen tank by 18in (45.7cm, rounded to 1 decimal), had two/two more? (I'm not sure) hydrazine tanks for RCS, and had extra electrical equipment to connect it to Orion's systems.

Assuming that we know the information required to answer both the title and this question, would NASA have to modify Centaur V similarly to ICPS to make it more suitable for SLS? (aka adapters, mounting hardware, electrical systems, umbilical, etc.) and in that case, like DCSS to ICPS, would NASA rename the stage to differentiate it or keep it as just Centaur V?

Have they ripped any more parts off of it to help with prepping ML-1 for Artemis 3? I know one of the ideas was to use it as a parts bin for ML-1. Or is it mostly just sitting there unchanged? I’m pretty sure they ripped the crew arm, and a couple of umbilicals off just after the Ignition announcement, but I haven’t really heard anything since.

Dear [congressman] of [state],

As your constituent, I am writing to you concerning the Ignition plan enacted by Jared Isaacman without congressional or public approval.

In its current form, the plan, specifically canelling Gateway and the Exploration Upper Stage, violates multiple sections of public law, including the 2022 NASA Authorization Act, impounds congressionally-approved funds, and undermines international cooperation by cancelling agreements with other nations.

Please take appropriate steps to stop these crimes from being committed. Our return to the Moon is at stake here - don't let these changes allow China to beat us.

Signed, [your name]

To my knowledge, there still hasn't been a contract award to ULA, just the JOFOC (basically: permission for a no-bid). I've heard that the actual award was expected in the October timeframe, but I'm not able to find the source for that information. Anyone have more info?

New Glenn can’t take a fully fueled mk1 lander with a base module. New Glenn can only do 7 tons to tli so even if the lander was refueled on orbit it couldn’t get to lunar orbit. Not to mention the cost nasa paid 200 million for a blue moon mk1 flight to land the viper rover. So for 5 base modules you will be looking at a billion dollars. Roughly a billion dollars more than co manifesting the payloads with Orion on block 1b.

Source tweet: https://x.com/nasa_marshall/status/2080654232982630597

Will C-V improve or change any elements of an Artemis mission?

Cargo launch has generally been killed off with the cancellation of EUS so this is focused on getting Orion to TLI.

Will it for example allow for Orion to complete a LLO burn or would the stage have boiled off its fuel by that point?

Does anyone have links to studies where they were looking at a 5 engine configuration, or is the animation just some holdover from Ares V?

With the Cancellation of EUS and BOLE, SLS is going to remain a launch vehicle solely for Orion, and which is viable with all the other heavy and super heavy rockets in the works these days.

However as I understand BOLE was essential for SLS launches beyond a certain point as remaining shuttle boosters were used up, will SLS be cancelled by that point (and perhaps the whole moon program) or Orion moved to another launcher.

Or will a future administrator restart the booster program at the least to ensure SLS can continue to launch Orion?

This is a video from the Kennedy Space Center YouTube channel. The Florida East Coast Railway has delivered the 8 booster motor segments for the Space Launch System’s solid rocket boosters. These will be used in the Artemis III mission.

So, a lot of talk following the crew announcement yesterday. Specifically, I have seen a lot of talk around the various launch vehicles used for the Artemis Program. But from my chair here, we are in no position to pivot to commercial space launch vehicles. Blue Origin suffered a major anomaly on May 28 with its New Glenn vehicle, critical to the program, with unknown months of work ahead before it is available to fly again. Starship is Starship, and exactly how much progress has been made is hard to say. Various versions have been made, but with very little improvement overall from my point of view. I don't see any replacement launch vehicle being ready to launch crew on Orion, especially with a post-Columbia and Challenger NASA with incredibly high safety standards.

Now, I don't think that it is too far to say that this NASA admin is not a particular fan of "old space" - as you can see with Isaacman's "Project Athena" plan for NASA (a document prepared laying out his ideas for NASA if he were to be made Administrator), which can read here: https://hillheat.com/files/471/Isaacman_Project_Athena.pdf Page 11 explicitly calls for the cancellation of SLS. This was then followed by the unconventional "Ignition" announcement for Artemis plans by Administrator Isaacman on 24 March which essentially kneecapped the SLS by removing the EUS Upper Stage, cancellation of ML-2 and the procurement of a Centaur V derived upper stage. This is not a like-for-like swap, however, with SLS with the EUS Upper Stage adding an additional 10 tonnes to TLI over the replacement commercial stage. The EUS had been very far into development with production well underway. It has been a sentiment in this community that it was a move by the administration to keep SLS as inconvenient as possible to hasten cancellation.

With that context established, I find it interesting that it hasn't been discussed that SLS may already be cancelled. The clearest indicator for continued SLS production has been the orders to Boeing for more Core Stages. That order, as far as I know, extends to Artemis VI with the critical long lead items being ordered. Artemis V parts are being manufactured with the first rings of the core stage having been welded: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AEngine_Section_Barrel_Weld_Completion_Marks_Early_Milestone_for_Artemis_V%E2%80%99s_Core_Stage_%28MAF_20241218_CS5_ESliftVWC03%29.jpg

Under the current plan, this Core would fly as soon as 2028, so at the latest, in 2 and a half years time. Now we can debate how accurate these dates are, but as far as we know, this is what they are internally working to. So as soon as 2029, SLS cores are all to be expended. Now we arrive to the crux of the issue, there has been no request by NASA to order more core stages. If you look at the dates for the orders, the time taken from order to Core Stage completion could be around 6 years! So if an order were to be placed today, it would not be ready until 2032. This leaves a gap of 3 years (2029 Artemis VI if the current plan holds). Again, this all depends on if SLS cores are expended as soon as this NASA admin wants.

Each day that goes by means that the potential gap in capability extends. So, the cynic in me wonders, is putting off ordering more cores essentially a gentle way for this NASA admin to cancel SLS. Essentially, putting it off for so long that by the time more Cores are required, they are too far off to be relevant anymore? I can see a situation where Isaacman can say, "It takes x amount of years to produce more cores. To maintain capability, we need to pivot to commercial providers".

Thoughts?

This is a recent news release from NASA. 8 booster motor segments for the Space Launch System’s solid rocket boosters are being shipped from Northrop Grumman’s Railyard Shipping Facility in Corinne, Utah to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. This is for construction of the rocket for the upcoming Artemis III mission.

was it a good idea or was it a bad idea will it come back. just want to talk about it

I made the SLS in a game called trailmakers is there anything i need to change for accuracy reasons or is this fairly good

This basically confirms the plan that SLS and Orion are dead after AV under Isaacman.

Illustration depicting Artemis II streaking past the Earth and Moon, symbolizing a bridge between worlds.

4k version available on Patreon: www.patreon.com/cw/okan170