Uploaded March 2022 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
WASHINGTON — NASA’s Most Powerful Ever Rocket (SLS) May Be Its Last - here's why.
As NASA successfully moved its massive new Space Launch System rocket to Pad 39B at the Kennedy Space Center on Friday, March 18, ready for tests that pump more than 3.2 million liters of cryogenic propellants into its tanks, Space site Ars Technica explains its role in carrying the Orion crew capsule could be the last time NASA attempts to build its own rocket in-house, for financial and logistical reasons.
The background is this. After committing in 2005 to return humans to the Moon and then push on to Mars through its Artemis program, the cost of NASA flying one Orion and SLS mission per year has spiraled up to $4.1 billion, while numerous delays have pushed back launch dates repeatedly.
The SLS’s first uncrewed mission, Artemis 1, could be ready to launch in June, but this schedule has already seen its first crewed mission, Artemis 2, pushed from April 2022 to May 2023 and its first crewed mission to land on the Moon pushed from 2024 to 2025, according to Gizmodo.
Now, Ars Technica suggests that such problems and the expense behind them can largely be attributed to a funding structure built by Congress, which has prioritized hiring contractors across 50 states, rather than allowing private-sector-funded rockets like SpaceX's Falcon Heavy, or its forthcoming Starship vehicle, to power the project at lower costs.
The site summarizes: “NASA could have just bought launch services from the private sector at a significant discount” and focused its own efforts on developing technologies such as in-space fuel depots, propellant transfer in orbit, and space-based propulsion.
This situation leads the site to the following conclusion, seemingly dramatic conclusion: the combination of cost, time and the existence of companies with currently better setups makes it unlikely that NASA will take on another equivalent project in future.
SOURCES: New Atlas, BBC, Ars Technica
newatlas.com/space/nasas-sls-moon-rocket-launch-pad
bbc.com/news/science-environment-60788761
arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/its-huge-expensive-and-years-late-but-the-sls-rocket-is-finally-here
Space.com, StemRad, European Space Agency
space.com/phantom-dummy-stemrad-radiation-vest-artemis-mission.html
space.com/40590-anti-radiation-life-vest-deep-space.html
space.com/22252-women-astronauts-radiation-risk.html
stemrad.com/astrorad-4
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Orion/Radiation_for_dummies
Phys.org, NASA, The New York Times
phys.org/news/2019-05-nasa-unveils-artemis-moon-mission.html
nasa.gov/artemis
nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/artemis-orbit.html
nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/20170724-ppe-rfi-industry-forum-v5.pdf
nasa.gov/themis-and-artemis
nasa.gov/specials/moon2mars
nytimes.com/2019/05/13/science/trump-nasa-moon-mars.html
BBC, NY Times, The Guardian, Business Insider
bbc.com/news/science-environment-54583588
nytimes.com/2021/01/16/science/nasa-rocket-sls-test.html
theguardian.com/science/2021/jan/16/nasa-boeing-deep-space-rocket-once-in-a-generation-test
businessinsider.com/nasa-moon-rockets-engine-issue-could-doom-2021-launch-2021-1
WASHINGTON — NASA’s Most Powerful Ever Rocket (SLS) May Be Its Last - here's why.
As NASA successfully moved its massive new Space Launch System rocket to Pad 39B at the Kennedy Space Center on Friday, March 18, ready for tests that pump more than 3.2 million liters of cryogenic propellants into its tanks, Space site Ars Technica explains its role in carrying the Orion crew capsule could be the last time NASA attempts to build its own rocket in-house, for financial and logistical reasons.
The background is this. After committing in 2005 to return humans to the Moon and then push on to Mars through its Artemis program, the cost of NASA flying one Orion and SLS mission per year has spiraled up to $4.1 billion, while numerous delays have pushed back launch dates repeatedly.
The SLS’s first uncrewed mission, Artemis 1, could be ready to launch in June, but this schedule has already seen its first crewed mission, Artemis 2, pushed from April 2022 to May 2023 and its first crewed mission to land on the Moon pushed from 2024 to 2025, according to Gizmodo.
Now, Ars Technica suggests that such problems and the expense behind them can largely be attributed to a funding structure built by Congress, which has prioritized hiring contractors across 50 states, rather than allowing private-sector-funded rockets like SpaceX's Falcon Heavy, or its forthcoming Starship vehicle, to power the project at lower costs.
The site summarizes: “NASA could have just bought launch services from the private sector at a significant discount” and focused its own efforts on developing technologies such as in-space fuel depots, propellant transfer in orbit, and space-based propulsion.
This situation leads the site to the following conclusion, seemingly dramatic conclusion: the combination of cost, time and the existence of companies with currently better setups makes it unlikely that NASA will take on another equivalent project in future.
SOURCES: New Atlas, BBC, Ars Technica
newatlas.com/space/nasas-sls-moon-rocket-launch-pad
bbc.com/news/science-environment-60788761
arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/its-huge-expensive-and-years-late-but-the-sls-rocket-is-finally-here
Space.com, StemRad, European Space Agency
space.com/phantom-dummy-stemrad-radiation-vest-artemis-mission.html
space.com/40590-anti-radiation-life-vest-deep-space.html
space.com/22252-women-astronauts-radiation-risk.html
stemrad.com/astrorad-4
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Orion/Radiation_for_dummies
Phys.org, NASA, The New York Times
phys.org/news/2019-05-nasa-unveils-artemis-moon-mission.html
nasa.gov/artemis
nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/artemis-orbit.html
nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/20170724-ppe-rfi-industry-forum-v5.pdf
nasa.gov/themis-and-artemis
nasa.gov/specials/moon2mars
nytimes.com/2019/05/13/science/trump-nasa-moon-mars.html
BBC, NY Times, The Guardian, Business Insider
bbc.com/news/science-environment-54583588
nytimes.com/2021/01/16/science/nasa-rocket-sls-test.html
theguardian.com/science/2021/jan/16/nasa-boeing-deep-space-rocket-once-in-a-generation-test
businessinsider.com/nasa-moon-rockets-engine-issue-could-doom-2021-launch-2021-1
![Russia Takes Chernobyl Nuclear Plant in ‘Fierce Battle’
CHERNOBYL, UKRAINE — The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency says it is ‘closely monitoring’ developments at nuclear-related facilities in Ukraine after Russian forces captured the Chernobyl nuclear plant after a fierce battle with Ukrainian national guards protecting the decommissioned site on Thursday, according to Al Jazeera.
Infamously, Reactor No. 4 at Chernobyl exploded on April 26, 1986. The subsequent fire that demolished the reactor building released large amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. Citing the official website of the site’s operator, Reuters explains that nuclear waste management and storage remain ongoing at the site, while New Scientist reported a surge in fission reactions around the destroyed nuclear reactor in May last year.
The situation now according to nuclear scientists who spoke to New Scientist both directly before the attack and after is that the risk of nuclear material being released from the decaying reactor as a result of the conflict is low, with one researcher who monitors the ongoing emission of neutrons from the reactor explaining that staff at Chernobyl were safe. “The entrance of [Chernobyl is] controlled by Russians. They do not enter inside,” he said.
Bruno Merk at the University of Liverpool meanwhile concluded: “I think as long as there is not a deliberate attack the risk is comparably low,” though he added: “If it’s a deliberate act, you could possibly do it.”
Closest to the situation itself, Chernobyl scientist who worked on confinement plans at the site told New Scientist on February 22 that monitoring work would continue and that all safety systems at the plant are working well, but that scientific data processing has been partially suspended.
In terms of the wider Russian invasion of Ukraine, NBC News reports that the Chernobyl is most likely valuable because of its location, sitting on one of the most direct routes to the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, as Russian troops look to push through the country. “They want it because they want to take control of the whole effing country,” according to Evelyn Farkas, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia for the Obama administration. “They want to surround the capital.”
SOURCES: IAEA, Reuters, Yahoo News, Al Jazeera, New Scientist, NBC
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-director-general-statement-on-the-situation-in-ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/chernobyl-power-plant-captured-by-russian-forces-ukrainian-official-2022-02-24/
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/iaea-says-ukraine-power-plants-running-safely-no-destruction-chernobyl-2022-02-24/
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/war-comes-to-chernobyl-raising-nuclear-fears-in-russia-invasion-of-ukraine-170528013.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/24/chernobyl-nuclear-plant-targeted-as-russia-invades-ukraine
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2309599-risk-of-nuclear-disaster-is-minimal-as-russian-forces-reach-chernobyl/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2277195-nuclear-reactions-at-chernobyl-are-spiking-in-an-inaccessible-chamber/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/russia-want-take-chernobyl-rcna17615 Russia Takes Chernobyl Nuclear Plant in ‘Fierce Battle’](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yHBjsy84yV4/mqdefault.jpg)



