NASA’s space launch system faces uncertain future Amid costly tests, political doubts

NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), once hailed as the backbone of America’s next generation deep space exploration, now stands at a crossroads—its future uncertain amid political headwinds, high costs, and technical challenges.

The Trump administration’s push to cancel the program after only three flights clashes with Congressional proposals to extend it modestly to five. As an aricle by Ars Technica suggests, the likelihood of the SLS rocket reaching nine launches, let alone becoming a staple of lunar missions before 2040, seems increasingly slim.

Originally envisioned as a way to recycle the Space Shuttle’s legacy hardware for cost savings and rapid deployment, the SLS has proven expensive and slow to mature. Each Artemis mission, reliant on this launch system to ferry astronauts to the Moon, is estimated at a staggering $4.2 billion per flight. This is despite the use of leftover Shuttle-era RS-25 engines and solid rocket boosters from NASA’s inventory. However, those legacy parts are finite. NASA’s remaining stockpile of Shuttle main engines will only cover four flights, and booster parts suffice for eight pairs—fueling urgency to develop new hardware.

NASA has made strides by partnering with Aerojet Rocketdyne (now under L3Harris) to restart production of RS-25 engines, with recent successful tests signaling progress. The engine test at Stennis Space Center, quietly conducted without public fanfare, was a milestone, marking the first RS-25 flight engine manufactured in over a decade and intended for the Artemis V mission.

This engine demonstrated enhanced performance and modern manufacturing upgrades, promising reliability for future flights—if they happen.

In parallel, NASA and Northrop Grumman tested a new solid rocket booster under the Booster Obsolescence and Life Extension (BOLE) program, designed for Artemis IX and beyond. This booster replaces the heavy steel cases with lightweight carbon-fiber composites, adds an electronic thrust vector control system, and uses a more advanced propellant mix.

At first glance, these innovations suggest a more powerful and efficient booster. However, the test firing was marred by a catastrophic nozzle failure less than two minutes into the burn, showering the test site with debris and causing a brush fire. Although the motor burned to completion, this failure raises serious concerns about the booster’s readiness and reliability.

Northrop Grumman’s recent nozzle issues on other rockets, such as the canceled Omega program and the United Launch Alliance Vulcan, compound worries about the company’s ability to deliver dependable solid rocket motors for crewed spaceflight. Given that the boosters generate over 75% of SLS’s liftoff thrust, any design instability threatens mission success.

The SLS program’s fate is further complicated by political and budgetary factors. The White House’s preference for cheaper commercial launch alternatives—such as SpaceX’s Starship or Blue Origin’s BE-4 engines—underscores an evolving paradigm in NASA’s approach to human spaceflight. The massive costs, slow timelines, and recent hardware setbacks spotlight the challenge NASA faces in balancing legacy technology with innovation and fiscal responsibility.

In summary, NASA’s SLS program, once a symbol of American lunar ambition, grapples with aging hardware, astronomical costs, and technical hurdles. While progress on new engines signals hope, booster failures and political headwinds cloud its long-term viability. The coming years will likely decide whether SLS remains a centerpiece of Artemis missions or becomes a costly chapter in space exploration history.

By Sabina Mammadli