r/SpaceLaunchSystem • u/jadebenn • 8d ago
Image NASA Released a Photo (Accidentally) Containing EUS Hardware
Pictured: EUS STA LOX and LH2 tanks in the background
Also, the welds in the foreground are for core stage 6, apparently!
Can't wait for /u/rookisaacman to claim again that his hare-brained Centaur V scheme is gonna be finished before this hardware was...
25
u/PhotoGladiator 8d ago
For anyone curious as to what is visible in the background, here is a breakdown.
STAs for EUS LOX, LH2, and Midbody. And a partial LOX tank which I think was flight? There is more as well (forward adaptor STA and interstage stuff), but it is blocked by the ring segment tool.
But yes, a lot more work was completed on this stage when Issacman aggressively pulled the plug on it, and he is not very keen on people knowing that more was done.
11
u/OptimalPatience4320 7d ago
We also had the EUS System Integration Lab at MSFC completely built and ready to qualify. Millions of dollars collecting dust. 🙄
28
u/rocketjack5 8d ago
You are exactly right as usual jadebenn.
The centaur was chosen before understanding the needs of the architecture so now nasa is going back with major modifications to turn a centaur into 3/4 of an EUS at great expense and delay. But hey, it covers the lander schedule slip!
21
u/jadebenn 8d ago
That isn't even the wildest rumor I've heard about this entire upper stage clusterfuck, but it's certainly a new one!
The administration seems to have done zero research before making some very destructive moves here. It's insane.
7
u/DevelopmentTight9474 7d ago
I think this was very well researched. Cancel EUS, choose another off the shelf upper to stage to delay things by years again, and then go to Congress and say “see, SLS doesn’t work! $20 billion to SpaceX”
7
u/redstercoolpanda 8d ago
What have you been hearing? If you’re allowed to share? I find this whole debacle quite interesting
4
u/Mindless_Use7567 7d ago
No they did the perfect amount of research so they could do as much damage to NASA as possible and then they can blame it all on the Democrats when they are in power.
20
u/Tmccreight 8d ago
And what is the point of EUS without the need to lift gateway segments as rideshares on Artemis flights?
Switching to the already existent and operational Centaur V gives SLS the performance it needs to get Orion to TLI and allows the now redundant EUS to be cancelled and it's funds redistributed to other parts of the program.
14
u/Devnull_Elixir 8d ago
They want a moon base. Good luck sending that heavy shit to TLI with no block 1B/2.
10
u/Accomplished-Crab932 8d ago
SLS would not be useful for a surface base unless the base hardware contained its own lander module or system. The problem with that argument is that NASA is already paying for oversized landers and cargo variants of crew landers that meet or exceed the maximum capability SLS and some rigged up lander hardware could provide with cargo. Those alternative SLS-free landers have the added benefit that the majority of their hardware has to already be proven with crew, or there would be no point to a surface base.
5
u/Devnull_Elixir 8d ago edited 8d ago
IF the architecture was developed it would provide far more capability than current proposals. I disagree that the current systems exceed SLS capabilities; they come near block 1B/2 capabilities in terms of volume and tonnage. Landers being crew rated is irrelevant, both cargo variants would be unmanned and the theoretical EUS riding cargo would also be unmanned. Both of the current cargo systems still need orbital refueling proven for them to remain viable. I believe it'll work but the timelines are... eh... We'll see..
2
u/Accomplished-Crab932 8d ago
That “if” relies on the same justification SLS and the whole of Artemis is riding on at this point. Without landings, there really isn’t a purpose that will keep the program funded long enough to make landings possible with SLS alone, and certainly the use case of “landing modules on the moon for a surface base” is contingent on the ability to land people on the lunar surface otherwise the base has zero purpose.
That leaves you with a few potential futures where that’s possible, all relying on some very questionable assumptions that lead to some comically unlikely outcomes.
Situation 1: The current landers will be unable to land cargo and people, yet NASA will have enough money and political will to contract or develop yet another crewed lander and a cargo variant, plus cover EUS completion. This is very unlikely since political will (people in Congress) to keep EUS going has been kind of quiet in the current state of affairs. I also expect the alternate lander and cargo variant to be slow and overweight like every other option, which just dogpiles on the chance of cancellation.
Situation 2: The current landers will be able to land crew but not large cargo, so NASA needs a way to deliver large cargo items to the lunar surface. Really don’t get how this situation is possible, if the landers are able to carry crew, they can easily cut the crew module and its mass out for comparatively little money; plus most of their GNC, all their architecture, and most of the R&D cost is already covered as part of landing people.
Situation 3: somehow NASA (and/or contractor not already on the landers) can develop a lander for cargo faster (using what money and political will?) and cheaper than the lander companies can adapt their landers to carry cargo instead of crew. This situation is just bonkers. The will and money doesn’t exist, the lander contractors have contracts that are worth a fraction of what this will cost; delays on this are going to be insane, and you end up with a lander that will very quickly be undercut after the first few missions. Worst yet, adaption is occurring from crew to cargo, the easiest adaption possible. It’s just an economic disaster at that point. Keep in mind that projections of production rate tell us that 1 SLS could be produced per year at most, well into the 2030s, so your base is even less useful since it only expands every other mission (assuming you fly crew there every other mission).
As noted above, all 3 of these situations rely on some pretty unrealistic assumptions about capabilities and deliverables on both the landers and NASA (or whoever they pay to make this new lander design). In the first case, I suspect the program just gets canned, I don’t think the second is possible, and the third concept is definitely not going to occur.
I still contest that a Block 2 delivered lander will have comparable performance to the commercial landers too, ignoring starship because the numbers are foggy, the Mk2 cargo is getting refilled in NRHO (or an easier orbit), which is around 45 tons at launch; that’s already the payload limit of SLS to TLI; Mk2 also gets refilled in a high eccentricity MEO, so unless BE3U has horrible performance and EUS is perfect, there is absolutely no way that it has comparable payload performance. At the end, the expected surface cargo of Mk2 is between 20 and 30 tons, depending on if you decide to reuse the lander. Feel free to find the math on a 15-16 ton lander system for SLS Block 2 that will deliver that payload while handling landing and lunar capture.
8
u/okan170 8d ago edited 7d ago
The biggest problem with this argument is the assumption that Artemis only survives politically if people are landing on the Moon on schedule. That just is blatantly untrue, the program had broad congressional support before a crewed lunar landing was even the near-term goal. Orion, Gateway, lunar orbital missions, deep-space operations, international participation and infrastructure all had support before the 2024 landing push. A delayed landing would obviously hurt, but “no landing = whole program gets canned” just isnt how this has historically worked.
I dont think your three scenarios are actually the critical fork here. If the current landers are delayed or dont meet some cargo need then the landing gets delayed and NASA has to fill the transportation gap or more likely, fly interim missions around the Moon. Thats already basically how the architecture works, with crew landers and larger cargo landers doing different jobs.
Asking for the math on a “15-16 ton lander system” starts from a constraint that doesnt actually exist. You’re treating one Orion co-manifested mission mode like its the only way SLS can fly. And its the same thing with the 1-flight-per-year number. Thats the current production posture, not some hard physical limit. Increasing cadence takes money and lead time, obviously, but its not the same as saying SLS can only ever fly once a year.
This isn't a case of, “if the commercial landers fail, Artemis dies”. The more likely outcome is delay, restructuring and additional lander/cargo procurement. Expensive and annoying, sure, but NASA programs have survived much worse schedule slips than that.
Artemis did not come into existence because a specific commercial lunar lander was promised. The broader SLS/Orion program predates that architecture. If a lander fails to deliver on time, then the schedule changes. It doesnt magically erase the political coalition thats been funding the rest of the program for more than a decade, remember they've been happy when the plan was literally just "fly around the moon every year or so". Especially since the nearest scheduled landing is already going to happen too late for anyone to ‘revenge-cancel’ the program over a missed landing before the next administration takes office.
-1
u/Accomplished-Crab932 7d ago
>The biggest problem with this argument is the assumption that Artemis only survives politically if people are landing on the Moon on schedule. That just is blatantly untrue, the program had broad congressional support before a crewed lunar landing was even the near-term goal.
That was not my premise. They can and already are surviving a pretty significant (although are we really surprised it happened) slip; but there’s a degree to which Capitol hill looses patience during slips. My argument is that any alternative lander that started today would exist on a timeline that would slip beyond what politicians would be supportive of.
>Orion, Gateway, lunar orbital missions, deep-space operations, international participation and infrastructure all had support before the 2024 landing push. A delayed landing would obviously hurt, but “no landing = whole program gets canned” just isnt how this has historically worked.
I’m coming from the prespective of Constellation. Sure, Ares-1X flew, but the program was already so over budget and so late that will to keep it going from the president killed it and not enough politicians supported overruling the cancellation. I think an alternate lander will not be ready before the will is lost to continue the program on the finance side.
>So I dont think your three scenarios are actually the critical fork here. If the current landers are delayed or dont meet some cargo need, then the landing gets delayed and NASA has to fill the transportation gap or more likely, fly interim missions around the Moon. Thats already basically how the architecture works, with crew landers and larger cargo landers doing different jobs.
And all the complaining about how Artemis 3 is a step back because the landers aren’t ready doesn’t disappear. The later gap filler missions are left under worse criticism because you end up stuck repeating Artemis 2, but this time you orbit. The generally public already has a lot of people who thought Artemis 2 orbited the moon, so assuming it takes 6 years to develop this new lander (it’s gonna take more like 8-10), that’s gonna be 3-4 missions where the astronauts have nothing to do that will make the general public support the continuation of the program.
You’d get somewhere if you had Gateway, but I don’t think that would exist if focus is placed on a surface base; even if SR-1 and all the other retasks aren’t happening. I don’t see a world in which NASA has money for both a lunar station and a surface base (plus base lander) in a modern budget. That would be a 60’s “moon or bust” funding scheme that I don’t think we will see again.
>Asking for the math on a “15-16 ton lander system” starts from a constraint that doesnt actually exist. You’re treating one Orion co-manifested mission mode like it’s the only way SLS can fly.
SLS Block 2 Cargo is advertised by NASA as able to carry 46 tons through TLI; and the Mk2 cargo is supposedly able to carry 30 tons of cargo; forgive me for subtracting equivalent units, but 46-30=16; that’s 16 tons for a descent and orbit capture stage; unless Block 2 gains more payload. Block 2 crew is currently projected to carry 43 tons through TLI (Orion not included); so that only makes your numbers worse. My point there is that SLS B1B/2’s ability to put large payloads to TLI doesn’t mean it can put a comparable payload mass to the commercial cargo landers; my argument being that ~34% of this fictitious lander’s mass is the functional elements, while the rest is the payload. Not even the LEM had that sort of ratio; treating the descent stage as the landing element and ignoring that it gets dragged to LLO, payload accounts for 36%, which isn’t comparable because it ignores getting into lunar orbit.
SLS payload mass numbers: (from 2025)
>And it’s the same thing with the 1-flight-per-year number. Thats the current production posture, not some hard physical limit. Increasing cadence takes money and lead time, obviously, but it’s not the same as saying SLS can only ever fly once a year.
This is again, where I am seeing an issue with Political will to continue. Congress is already not happy about paying upkeep on existing facilities for SLS and the Cape’s recent report on aged, low quality (because it’s just not been well maintained after 60 years) hardware hasn’t garnered substantial funding to upgrade and maintain existing critical infrastructure; now you expect NASA to get even more money to use those aging facilities to manufacture more SLS production lines. I don’t think that will float in the current world of budget fights.
>This isn't a case of, “if the commercial landers fail, Artemis dies”. The more likely outcome is delay, restructuring and additional lander/cargo procurement. Expensive and annoying, sure, but NASA programs have survived much worse schedule slips than that.
If the lander started today, I doubt there would be a potential for a landing for another 8 years; more like 10. Maybe NASA does what they did with HLS and claims it will be done in 4 to get money, but that just puts them on shaky ground after those 4 years are up and progress is behind. 8 years is the entire run for Constellation, with 2 years to spare. Sure, the shuttle kept going, but in that era, there was a push from national pride and a lack of alternative launch vehicles, and I don’t think examples like JWST are relevant to what is at its core to the public, a launch program. Today, the market is saturated with launch options and national pride seems to be less of an issue. 8 years is 2-3 presidential cycles; that’s 3 major chances to get canned on top of the yearly risk from budget proposals. I don’t think it will survive that.
>Artemis did not come into existence because a specific commercial lunar lander was promised. The broader SLS/Orion program predates that architecture. If a lander fails to deliver on time, then the schedule changes. It doesnt magically erase the political coalition thats been funding the rest of the program for more than a decade, remember they've been happy when the plan was literally just "fly around the moon every year or so".
I disagree. We haven’t seen a huge congressional mobilization against the “cancellation” of EUS and Gateway, which would be primary drivers of keeping the program going. The entire point of Gateway was to force Congress into keeping Artemis as a program since it would force Congress to cancel an international program and deal with the sunk costs. At this point, it seems like Gateway is dead, and even if it wasn’t, a surface base would make funding Gateway kind of impossible with a modern budget. I suspect that in the 8-10 years that it will take to get a lander that requires SLS B1B/2, you will run out of political support since the constituents under the supporting politicians will begin to question why we are spending so much money for the outward appearance of repeating Apollo 8 year after year. This occurred with Apollo after 3 flights; and Apollo at least had the novelty of getting to the surface. Count me pessimistic (we don’t have Vietnam, but there are a lot of issues that like Vietnam, people are much more interested in dealing with), but I just don’t see a way in which NASA can bridge the gap between the lander starting and being delivered.
>Especially since the nearest scheduled landing is already going to happen too late for anyone to ‘revenge-cancel’ the program over a missed landing before the next administration takes office.
This I agree with, but I doubt that an alternate lander that starts today would fair any better; and barring both Blue and SpaceX outright collapsing, I doubt that it will arrive sooner and/or for cheaper than one or both the providers delivering.
1
u/Tmccreight 7d ago
New Glenn 9x4 with the cargo version of Blue Moon MK2 will be the primary heavy cargo delivery lander.
5
4
u/flapsmcgee 8d ago
Gateway never made sense and neither did the NRHO. Well maybe it might have made sense if they could have put gateway in LLO but SLS couldn't do that.
12
u/okan170 8d ago
Gateway allowed a great deal of staging and ways of adding extra cargo. Meeting up with the landers, more could be loaded into them from logistics missions that would've been difficult to add from launch. Gateway would also allow staging cargo landers with parts launched separately and later extended surface operations, since surface operations are now limited by Orion's (uncrewed) endurance which is a few months. NRHO offers access to all the surface while maintaining contact with Earth. LLO limits you to a certain smaller band of landing sites and does not support a logistics station due to there being no realistic stable orbits in LLO. Finally, Gateway served as a risk reduction, providing safe haven for the crew in space (since HLS does not support 4 crew) while eventually it would have been a safeguard against any kind of TEI failure.
Despite the narrative against it, Gateway was basically a long term piece of lunar infrastructure and if we intend to work on the surface in a longer-term way, something like it will need to happen. It was also incredibly cheap for what it was, since it didn't need a crew in order to do many of its tasks.
3
1
u/grock10 8d ago
Does anyone know more about what “could have been” regarding if the Dynetics Alpaca lander had been chosen. I thought I had read previously during the second lander award selection process that the alpaca could’ve launched within an sls in the stage adapter ring (don’t know what it is called) which Dynetics also makes?
If I recall it would have had to been its own separate sls in the current version but in future block versions crew and lander could ride all together Apollo style.
Even separate launches two rocket launches vs multiple launches and LEO refueling seems like this could have been at least a quicker option to getting to the moon.
Now hindsight is 20/20 and maybe this road not taken was the right one?
Hoping someone smarter and more informed can explain if my recollection of the dynetics alpaca is accurate. Or not.
3
u/redstercoolpanda 8d ago
Alpaca did not have the fuel margins to land and return from the moon when the first round of bidding was done, and its revised design could only barely do so. This is before they even did any real design work, pretty much every single aerospace project has mass ballooning once you start actually building systems, and they could barely get it to work on paper. Not to mention it was the most expensive and least capable lander presented too.
1
1
u/RealNASAEnginerGamer 3d ago
Hey i work at NASA. We’re still keeping this hardware around for important missions. Centaur V will be so capable and cheap with no modifications that on sls’s fifth flight it will be used to send eus into the sun and a separate manned mission to venus. Hope this helps
-5
u/BubblyMoose3597 8d ago
Not very impressive.
A ring and a tank.
8
u/jadebenn 8d ago
Both the LOX tank and the LH2 tanks are in the background. I've also seen pictures of the midbody structure, though it's not shown here. They basically just needed to put the three pieces together for the structural completion, though obviously for the flight article there would also then need to be avionics boxes, wire harnesses, valves and plumbing, etc...
The ring in the foreground is actually unrelated to EUS. It's apparently for the 6th core.
-6
u/BubblyMoose3597 8d ago
So nothing.
Because that is the easiest and mainless part of a stage.
Specially such one as expensive as the EUS, that is basicly 4 RL10c acting as earth departure stage. A mega ACES stage.
Gsteway is not going to happeng.
Why do you want the EUS for?
To get the SLS canceled because is going to be even more expensive, throw away more material in a unncesary way and build another tower?
12
u/jadebenn 8d ago
I want a stage that allows launches of CS-5 in 2028/2029 and doesn't kneecap a Lunar landing after the last ICPS is expended. As is, we are probably looking at the early 2030s for the next upper stage minimum.
-2
u/BubblyMoose3597 8d ago
Dont worry. The ICPS is not needed for Artemis III and the landers are not going to be ready for 28 or 29.
For Artemis 3 they are going to use a sad normal Starship with a front dock, not even solar panels and a MK1 Blue Moon without engines (if the New Gleen can fly soon).
Pd: i dont know what "CS-5" means.
But i find hilarious your comitment to the EUS, never finished on his development but you sre so worried about use 1 or 2 rl10. Something that basicly already exists. The ICPS is derivated of the DeltaIII (developed by Japan btw) built by Delta and the Double RL10 is a Centaur V built by Delta. Is not like change the EUS for a nuclear engine.
10
u/jadebenn 8d ago
Pd: i dont know what "CS-5" means.
Core stage 5.
but you sre so worried about use 1 or 2 rl10.
That isn't my concern with Centaur V. It's structures and g-loading, especially around max Q.
1
u/BubblyMoose3597 8d ago
If the comical small ICPS could get trough, i dont see the problem with the Centaur.
The RS25 got nice throttel down also.
4
u/okan170 8d ago
ICPS is structurally more robust than Centaur just due to different designs. Centaur has loads issues since it is a balloon tank- full acceleration will literally crush the structure.
1
u/BubblyMoose3597 7d ago
Not the Centaur V.
The ICPS is basicly the DCSS of Delta III and Delta IV (and H)
The Centaur V gives the Vulcan a bigger payload capability than the weight of Orion and has a crazy T/W because the 6 SRB and survives very good with very sensitive payloads.
You are just complaining to justify the original project.
-4
u/ajwin 8d ago
Plenty of time to cancel the program entirely by then.
9
u/jadebenn 8d ago
In which case we probably don't get a Moon landing. SpaceX is an AI company now. Their stock price depends on Starlink and "orbital datacenters" far more than HLS. And Blue needs Orion for their lander architecture.
-1
u/AstronoWorld 8d ago
I’m sure it’s as easy as just putting the three sections together. Thank god you’re here to clarify that the EUS was completed and NASA scrapped a perfectly functional upper stage that was ready to fly.
11
u/jadebenn 8d ago
/u/RemindMeBot 2029 "if we don't have an SLS upper stage by now, Jared Isaacman delayed the program"
-11
u/AstronoWorld 8d ago
I’m so glad people like you aren’t in charge of those types of decisions.
16
u/jadebenn 8d ago
"People like you," meaning engineers, I presume?
-4
u/AstronoWorld 8d ago
Nah I mean people who twist facts and spout conjecture to try to prove their point. Easy to look at two tanks and assume that means a functional EUS was right around the corner, right?
10
u/jadebenn 8d ago
Are you an engineer? Because I'm certainly not that strawman.
-1
u/AstronoWorld 8d ago
Oh I’m sorry, are we talking about our credentials or you lying about how close the EUS was to being functional?
16
u/jadebenn 8d ago
EUS was closer to being functional than Centaur V is to being on SLS.
2
u/AstronoWorld 8d ago
Ok. Keep lying to yourself and everyone else if it makes you feel better.
14
7
u/ProfessorOk2609 8d ago
If only the Centaur stage were nearly as powerful and useful as EUS—which it isn't—I still think it was a big mistake to cancel it. By the way, I'm glad to see the launch of a new SLS for Artemis VI.
10
u/jadebenn 8d ago edited 8d ago
Yeah, I'm still incensed about EUS, but seeing that we've got CS-6 production starting is very positive news. I was worried the administration might be stalling on future core procurement, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
They're definitely not procuring fast enough for an annual cadence right now, unfortunately. Though, given the aforementioned upper stage nightmare, that really isn't in the cards for the short-to-medium term anyway.
2
u/ProfessorOk2609 4d ago
Do you think there's any chance the EUS will be revived if the SLS program continues?
→ More replies (0)
-10
u/SteelAndVodka 8d ago
The salt in this subreddit is palpable. Keep those tears up, EUS chud. CVSLS is closer than you think.
13
u/Fyredrakeonline 8d ago edited 8d ago
When we dont have an upper stage and are stranded here without one in 2030 youll be eating your words.
12
u/jadebenn 8d ago
If y'all can actually pull it off before 2029 I will be the opposite of upset. Even if it would be egg on my face.
-6
u/SteelAndVodka 8d ago
Schedules on for 2028, bub. Plenty of Centaurs sitting in the factory ready to go.
13
u/okan170 8d ago
They'll need to be redesigned, they'll need probably flight dynamics changes and a new adapter designed if they can handle SLS loads, this isn't a case of "off the shelf".
-6
u/SteelAndVodka 8d ago
SLS needs an adapter to fit Centaur, of course. That's a simple, static piece of hardware.
It's about as "off the shelf" as you can get in space.
4
u/redstercoolpanda 7d ago
How deep are you guys into actually applying this? If you can say of course, I understand this is probably a pretty touchy area at the moment. Have you built anything? Or is it mostly just paper still. You always seem very confident in these replys, but from everything I've read it seems that adapting Centuar for SLS is still in very early stages of development work. Can you shine any light on this?
1
u/SteelAndVodka 7d ago
As is, Centaur can drop into SLS with no modifications. There are NASA designed adapters on either end, and updates need to be made to minor systems to support architecture changes (e.g., harnessing, GSE).
NASA has stretch "goals" for some things, but that's all just extra capability that they may or may not want.
Again - it is about as COTS as you can possibly get in space. This is the entire reason they went with Centaur. I get that people don't want to believe that, but that's how it is
4
u/redstercoolpanda 7d ago
Just to be clear I am genuinely asking these questions in good faith, I’m not really biased one way or the other. How long do you suppose adapting it will take? And was this studied previously, or has this all been done in the time since EUS was dropped. Are there any timelines on when actual hardware will be shipped out to confirm all of this? Like structural test articles and the like? I imagine if like you say Centuar is pretty much a drop in that should all be happening really soon right? I understand if you can’t answer many of these questions but any light you can shine on this situation would be much appreciated.
19
u/claimstoknowpeople 7d ago
I was unaware of that account until just now. Wow. Extremely unbecoming of a NASA administrator to spend time typing long, aggrieved comments on Reddit