How is NASA's Space Launch System both ambitious and controversial?

NASA's key contribution to the Artemis Program is set to be more ambitious than Saturn 5, yet is already 6+ years delayed, over budget, and utilized out-of-date technology. What happened?

The Engineer's Perspective is a reader-supported publication. Sign and up and subscribe to see more in-depth Aerospace/Aeronautical Analysis!

---

Table of Contents

1. Overview

2. Major Challenges

3. Technical Specifications

4. Concept of Operations

5. Systems Engineering Requirements

6. Implications and Future Considerations

7. Conclusion

---

Overview

Infographic of SLS system (Space.com)

NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) is a super heavy-lift launch vehicle designed to provide the foundation for human exploration beyond Earth's orbit. As the most powerful rocket NASA has ever built, the SLS is intended to send the Orion spacecraft, astronauts, and large cargo directly to the Moon on a single mission. The SLS is also a critical component of NASA's Artemis program, which aims to establish a sustainable human presence on the Moon as a stepping stone for future missions to Mars and beyond. The rocket's unprecedented capabilities make it the only launch system capable of sending both crewed spacecraft and heavy payloads to deep space in a single launch.

However, despite its ambitious goals and technical potential, the SLS program has faced significant challenges and scrutiny. Critics argue that the program is outdated and inefficient, raising questions about its viability in an era of rapid advancements in spaceflight technology. These concerns stem from several key factors:

1. Outdated Technology: The SLS relies heavily on technology repurposed from the Space Shuttle era, including solid rocket boosters and RS-25 engines. While this approach was intended to save time and reduce costs, it has not achieved those objectives. Instead, adapting these older technologies has led to technical challenges and inefficiencies.

2. Cost Overruns and Delays: Since its inception, the SLS program has experienced substantial budget overruns and delays. Contracts related to its development have incurred approximately $6 billion in additional costs, with its first launch delayed by nearly six years from the originally mandated 2016 target date. These setbacks have raised concerns about the program's cost-effectiveness.

3. Lack of Reusability: Unlike modern rockets developed by private companies like SpaceX, which can land and be reused multiple times, the SLS is an expendable system. Its solid rocket boosters and core stage are not recoverable or reusable, making it less efficient compared to reusable launch systems that dominate today's space industry.

4. Political Influence: The SLS has been criticized as more of a political tool than a practical space exploration solution. Its development has been influenced by efforts to sustain jobs in certain districts rather than optimizing for cost or performance. This has led to reliance on outdated components and cost-plus contracts, which further inflate expenses.

5. Competition from Private Companies: The emergence of private companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin has introduced more cost-effective and advanced alternatives to the SLS. For example, SpaceX's Starship system offers full reusability at a fraction of the cost per launch, making it a strong competitor for both government and commercial missions.

6. Impact on NASA's Budget: The high costs associated with developing and launching the SLS have consumed significant resources within NASA's budget. This has forced the agency to scale back or delay other important exploration, scientific, and development programs.

7. Lack of Demand: Beyond NASA's Artemis program, there is reportedly no demand for the SLS from other entities—governmental or private—raising concerns about its long-term sustainability as a viable launch system.

---

Challenges:

Outdated Technology

The Space Launch System (SLS) heavily relies on technologies developed during the Space Shuttle era, particularly solid rocket boosters and RS-25 engines. This reliance on legacy systems was intended to expedite development and reduce costs by utilizing existing hardware, which theoretically would streamline the design process. However, the reality has proven to be more complex and challenging. The integration of these older technologies has led to significant technical difficulties and inefficiencies that have plagued the SLS program since its inception. For example, while the RS-25 engines have undergone upgrades over the years, they still face substantial integration issues that complicate their use in the SLS context. These challenges have resulted in delays and increased costs, undermining the initial intent of leveraging established technologies.

The RS-25 engines, originally designed for the Space Shuttle, were refurbished for use in the SLS program. This refurbishment process has not been as straightforward as anticipated. NASA's decision to repurpose these engines has led to complications in adapting them for new operational requirements, including changes in thrust levels and fuel configurations. The complexity of these adaptations has resulted in a slower-than-expected production timeline, with only five out of sixteen engines completed under the adaptation contract as of recent reports. This slow progress highlights the difficulties inherent in modifying legacy technology for contemporary applications, which can lead to cascading delays throughout the entire SLS project.

Moreover, the use of solid rocket boosters from the Shuttle program presents its own set of challenges. While these boosters are powerful and have been proven effective in past missions, their integration into the SLS design has revealed limitations that were not fully anticipated during the planning stages. For instance, issues related to booster recovery and performance under different flight conditions have necessitated additional testing and modifications. The reliance on these older components not only complicates engineering efforts but also increases the risk of failure during critical launch phases, which can further delay missions and escalate costs.

The broader implications of relying on outdated technology extend beyond immediate technical challenges; they also affect NASA's strategic goals for future exploration missions. As commercial spaceflight evolves rapidly with private companies developing innovative solutions that emphasize reusability and cost-effectiveness, NASA's commitment to older technologies may hinder its ability to compete effectively in this new landscape. The continued investment in outdated systems raises questions about whether NASA can maintain its leadership role in space exploration while navigating a rapidly changing environment that increasingly favors agility and innovation.

Old vs. Modern Engineering Methodologies

The reliance on outdated technology within the SLS framework is emblematic of broader challenges facing government-led aerospace initiatives in an era characterized by rapid technological advancement. While using established components may appear practical from a budgeting perspective, it often leads to stagnation when compared with private sector innovations that prioritize agility and modernization. For instance, companies like SpaceX have developed entirely new rocket systems designed specifically for contemporary needs rather than repurposing old technology. This forward-thinking approach allows them not only to achieve greater efficiency but also to respond quickly to changing market demands—a capability that traditional programs like SLS struggle to match.

Furthermore, there is an inherent risk associated with depending on aging technologies that may not perform reliably under modern operational conditions. The RS-25 engines were designed decades ago for a different mission profile; thus their performance characteristics may not align perfectly with current requirements or expectations for missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). Issues such as engine reliability during prolonged missions or performance degradation over time can pose significant risks during critical launch phases or when executing complex maneuvers required for deep-space missions.

In addition, adapting older systems often results in increased maintenance costs over time due to their complexity and age-related wear-and-tear issues that newer designs might avoid altogether through modern materials or streamlined engineering practices. As maintenance demands grow alongside operational needs—especially if multiple launches are planned within a short timeframe—the financial burden associated with keeping aging systems operational could outweigh any initial savings realized through their reuse.

Ultimately, if NASA aims to remain competitive within an evolving landscape where private companies are rapidly advancing their capabilities through innovative designs tailored specifically for today's challenges, transitioning away from outdated technologies toward more modern solutions that leverage cutting-edge engineering practices and materials science advancements available today becomes all the more necessary.

Challenge: Cost Overruns and Delays