Since the recent presidential election, there’s been a flurry of speculation about the future of NASA’s Moon to Mars plans during the second Trump administration. Will we accelerate plans to return to the moon and Mars? Will NASA be restructured? And, how will these plans align with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)?
The speculation has been particularly intense regarding the future of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion crew vehicle. Some pundits have called for the outright cancellation of SLS and Orion, citing the cost of these vehicles and delays in their development. However, the immediate cancellation of these vehicles may be premature.
These calls are largely based on the impressive success of SpaceX and the significant influence of SpaceX CEO Elon Musk within the incoming administration. While SpaceX has unquestionably become an indispensable company, and Starship has already achieved some remarkable milestones, there remain many obstacles to overcome before it can be counted on to be able to venture into deep space and land safety on another planetary body. If it fulfills the capabilities that SpaceX has promised, the Starship launch system would undoubtedly help to radically transform access to space and the future of human permanence beyond Earth.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that we no longer need SLS and Orion, at least in the short term. We can certainly debate whether SLS and Orion will or should be a long-term element of our deep space exploration fleet. As Starship, New Glenn, and other systems come online, they may well prove to be better suited for our ambitious goals. But we have not yet crossed that threshold, and we don’t know when or if it will be crossed.
The SLS/Orion launch system currently works, as proven by the Artemis 1 mission which launched in late 2022 with an uncrewed Orion spacecraft flying around the moon and returning safely to the Earth. In addition, we have already built most of the hardware required for the Artemis 2 and 3 missions, which will be crewed missions. Let’s use that hardware to achieve some near-term victories in space. Even with NASA’s recently modified Artemis schedule, Artemis 2 will launch a crew around the moon during the first half of 2026. If Starship is also ready, we can conduct the Artemis 3 mission, landing a crew on the Moon in 2027.
Otherwise, we will scrap functional hardware that the U.S. taxpayers have already paid for — hardware that would then likely set a new record for the most expensive museum displays in history. This is what happened at the end of the Apollo era, with Saturn V rockets that never flew now residing in several museums around the country. At the completion of the Apollo Program (and Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab missions), the U.S. still had three complete Saturn V rockets, and one partially completed rocket, in its fleet. Although Congress had directed NASA to maintain them for other potential missions, this never happened. Rather than being used to advance our capabilities and understanding of space, they became impressive museum displays. Do we want this to be the future of SLS if we can instead get some value for the enormous investment made to date?
If we’re serious about beating China back to the Moon and on to Mars, let’s use every tool in our belt — and elevate the national priority of these objectives. Regardless of which launch and crew systems will ultimately reign supreme, the incoming administration and Congress should move quickly forward to execute the upcoming Artemis missions. At the same time, they must also mandate NASA and industry to construct a path forward that will ensure that the U.S. and our partners establish permanence on the moon in this decade and on Mars no later than the mid-2030s.
Chris Carberry is CEO of Explore Mars, Inc. and the author of “The Music of Space” and “Alcohol in Space,” which has been adapted into a documentary film now available on Amazon Prime.
SpaceNews is committed to publishing our community’s diverse perspectives. Whether you’re an academic, executive, engineer or even just a concerned citizen of the cosmos, send your arguments and viewpoints to opinion@spacenews.com to be considered for publication online or in our next magazine. The perspectives shared in these op-eds are solely those of the authors.
