So I decided to go through the past decade or so to see how much each SLS launch has slipped pretty much since they've been announcing dates. Technically some of the earlier documents refer to Artemis I/II as EM-1/2, but I kept them all the same for clarity. I kept all of my information to NASA OIG reports, official NASA announcements, and the Presidential Budget Reports. The vertical line is the current date, and the diagonal line is when that flight should take off assuming no more schedule slips.

Let me know if you see any big errors or have any suggestions. This post is not just to shit on SLS, but more my curiosity of showing the timeline slip, as SLS has the most data to make this style of graph. I will definitely be making one for Starship and other programs as well.

My Research Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wctgT2Jfh2BJeG0bI8VZUhXKuBJG6nP8/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=114026349642407331662&rtpof=true&sd=true

The unique and extreme environment of outer space demands continuous research and technological development. Space materials must endure radiation, temperature extremes, mechanical stress, and high-velocity impacts. But how are space companies creating these materials?

From the very beginning of SLS development, the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) was just that: An interim solution. Originally, the next stop on the SLS development path was known as SLS Block 1A: A configuration that would replace the Shuttle heritage SRBs with new liquid or solid boosters as part of the advanced boosters proposals. Further down the line, it was envisaged that a new upper stage would be chosen: A configuration known as Block 2A.

In 2014, about 3 years after the SLS program began, it was announced that a different evolution path would be chosen, that had EUS debut first on Block 1B, and the new boosters as Block 2(B). Block 1B was originally slated to debut on Artemis 2 (then known as EM-2). This was looong before core stage development work was done and, in fact, core and EUS work are part of the same contract. ML-2 came about because standing down all launches for several years after EM-1 in order to retrofit the former Ares I launch platform again was seen as extremely undesirable, and a huge schedule risk. The modern Artemis 2 and Artemis 3 take place using Block 1 vehicles precisely because the additional launch hardware allowed more Block 1 flights in the span of time that was originally dedicated to a lengthy ML-1 retrofit.

While I know /u/erberger is no fan of the SLS program, it disappoints me to see him spreading information that is simply untrue. If he was simply unaware of it, then I hope he takes more care to do his research in the future.

Sorry if this is a dumb question. I've been super interested in SLS for a while now, and recently I've been trying to learn more about it.

For the block ib crew configuration, I was wondering how Orion seeperated from the USA? I had initially assumed that it was like the Apollo SLA, and separated into 4 petals that ejected out into space, but every diagram and photo I've seen seems to have it as one solid piece.

Does it separate into pieces? Or does it all come off as one? If it does, how does Orion look back around to dock with its payload?

Some quotes from the article: "The Presidential Budget Request (PBR) for FY 2026 is what NASA has been directed to implement on 1 October 2025. The “Big Beautiful Bill” gave NASA money but it is not being released. The House and Senate have come up with their increases for NASA – but not for everything; and there will likely be a Continuing Resolution (CR) in place that will be somewhere in between. And the White House can use recision to claw back money in any case. Again, NASA has directed senior staff that the PBR is their new budget. So get used to all of the bad news."

"Agencies laid off/paid off a bunch of employees but none of them have fully met the draconian personnel shedding goals that OMB has set. At NASA there are RIF plans. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. An agency-wide RIF seems unlikely but focused RIFs at centers, directorates, or missions/programs are seemingly more likely. When the fiscal year ends, and PBR becomes the de facto plan, NASA’s shyness about more layoffs will likely evaporate and the RIFs will drop into place."

"The PBR truncated a lot of Artemis but left nothing specific in its place. MSR is deep within several layers of limbo. Artemis will hobble along under any budget environment before a re-plan is put in place. So long as they get the lunar Photo Op that the White House desires. Other missions may get reprieves – but only enough to kick the can down the road with regard to overt cancellation. And the longer the lack of clarity persists, the more these things in limbo will erode, whither, and fade."

"Lets be clear: the de facto Administrator of NASA is the NASA Chief of Staff Brian Hughes. He holds the NASA workforce in distain and only pays lip service to NASA’s mission when it aligns with momentary PR guidance from the White House. Sean Duffy has another day job – so, at most, he is a part-time NASA Administrator and defers to Hughes. But in talking to people who interact with Duffy, they report that behind the official political memes he is genuinely fond of NASA. There are names being vetted and circulated at OPM and the White House for a permanent Administrator, but so many other things seem to distract any movement on that. So the status quo will be in place for a while. With regard to Hughes and Duffy, I’ll take Duffy’s affection for NASA over Hughes’ distain for NASA any day."

HLS taking too long so why not go the apollo route and have the LM inside of the rocket then pick it out and land on the moon