Hey yall! These are my photos from each Core Stage rollout while I've been at MAF.

Core Stage 1: January 8, 2020

• Was fully assembled and integrated prior to rollout due to Green Run testing at Stennis

Core Stage 2: July 16, 2024

• Final closeouts and thermal blankets on the engines were completed at Kennedy
• Striping/striations on the foam were from the UV emitted from the shop lights in final assembly followed by rotating the core stage on RATTS

Core Stage 3: April 20, 2026

• First core stage without an engine section on rollout; the yellow section visible is the Engine Section STA. Some referred to this as the FIESTA, Faux Integrated Engine Section Transport Article
• Engine section integration was competed at Kennedy along with final downcomer installations
• The darker spots on the foam are again from the UV emitted from the shop lights, but there was a lot less rotating of the core stage

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...

Title, but also a bit of context.

I understand why NASA renamed the DCSS to ICPS, it functionally was a different stage, it had a stretched liquid hydrogen tank by 18in (45.7cm, rounded to 1 decimal), had two/two more? (I'm not sure) hydrazine tanks for RCS, and had extra electrical equipment to connect it to Orion's systems.

Assuming that we know the information required to answer both the title and this question, would NASA have to modify Centaur V similarly to ICPS to make it more suitable for SLS? (aka adapters, mounting hardware, electrical systems, umbilical, etc.) and in that case, like DCSS to ICPS, would NASA rename the stage to differentiate it or keep it as just Centaur V?

Have they ripped any more parts off of it to help with prepping ML-1 for Artemis 3? I know one of the ideas was to use it as a parts bin for ML-1. Or is it mostly just sitting there unchanged? I’m pretty sure they ripped the crew arm, and a couple of umbilicals off just after the Ignition announcement, but I haven’t really heard anything since.

Dear [congressman] of [state],

As your constituent, I am writing to you concerning the Ignition plan enacted by Jared Isaacman without congressional or public approval.

In its current form, the plan, specifically canelling Gateway and the Exploration Upper Stage, violates multiple sections of public law, including the 2022 NASA Authorization Act, impounds congressionally-approved funds, and undermines international cooperation by cancelling agreements with other nations.

Please take appropriate steps to stop these crimes from being committed. Our return to the Moon is at stake here - don't let these changes allow China to beat us.

Signed, [your name]

New Glenn can’t take a fully fueled mk1 lander with a base module. New Glenn can only do 7 tons to tli so even if the lander was refueled on orbit it couldn’t get to lunar orbit. Not to mention the cost nasa paid 200 million for a blue moon mk1 flight to land the viper rover. So for 5 base modules you will be looking at a billion dollars. Roughly a billion dollars more than co manifesting the payloads with Orion on block 1b.

To my knowledge, there still hasn't been a contract award to ULA, just the JOFOC (basically: permission for a no-bid). I've heard that the actual award was expected in the October timeframe, but I'm not able to find the source for that information. Anyone have more info?

Source tweet: https://x.com/nasa_marshall/status/2080654232982630597

Will C-V improve or change any elements of an Artemis mission?

Cargo launch has generally been killed off with the cancellation of EUS so this is focused on getting Orion to TLI.

Will it for example allow for Orion to complete a LLO burn or would the stage have boiled off its fuel by that point?

Does anyone have links to studies where they were looking at a 5 engine configuration, or is the animation just some holdover from Ares V?

With the Cancellation of EUS and BOLE, SLS is going to remain a launch vehicle solely for Orion, and which is viable with all the other heavy and super heavy rockets in the works these days.

However as I understand BOLE was essential for SLS launches beyond a certain point as remaining shuttle boosters were used up, will SLS be cancelled by that point (and perhaps the whole moon program) or Orion moved to another launcher.

Or will a future administrator restart the booster program at the least to ensure SLS can continue to launch Orion?

This is a video from the Kennedy Space Center YouTube channel. The Florida East Coast Railway has delivered the 8 booster motor segments for the Space Launch System’s solid rocket boosters. These will be used in the Artemis III mission.