That's why the NASA administrator made such a bold move on Wednesday

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced on Wednesday that the space agency is planning to launch its first Orion mission on the moon with commercial rockets instead of NASA's space launch system. This has taken almost everyone from the aerospace unprepared and represents a bold shift from the status quo of Orion as an American spacecraft and the SLS as a powerful American rocket that will launch it.

The announcement has raised many questions and we have hypothetical but knowledgeable answers.

What happened?

At a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee to assess America's future in space, the committee chairman, Senator Roger Wicker, began by questioning Bridenstine on the current delays of Exploration Mission-1. The EM-1 test flight involves sending an unarmed Orion spacecraft into lunar orbit during a three-week mission. It is considered NASA's first step towards sending humans back to the moon. This mission was originally scheduled for the end of 2017, but it has failed several times, the most recent being until June 2020. It also became apparent that this date was no longer valid.

"SLS is struggling to keep its schedule," Bridenstine told Wicker's question. "We now understand better the difficulty of this project and it will take a little more time.I want to be very clear.I think we, as an agency, must respect our commitment.If we tell you, at of others, that we are going to launch in June 2020 around the Moon, I think we should do it around the Moon in June 2020. And I think that this can be done.We should consider, as & # 39; 39, agency, all options to achieve this goal. "

At this point, the only other option is to use two large, privately developed, heavy-port rockets instead of a single SLS booster. Although they are not as powerful as the SLS rocket, these commercial launchers could allow the mission to proceed as planned.

How is it going to work?

A heavy-fired rocket would launch a fully powered upper stage – most likely a second cryogenic stage from Delta or the upper Centaur stage currently used on United Launch Alliance rockets. Then, a second high-capacity rocket would launch an Orion capsule and its service module into orbit, and these two vehicles would be docked. The upper powered stage would then inject Orion into a lunar orbit.

Bridenstine did not name any rockets at the hearing, but it seems almost certain that at least one of them would be a Delta IV Heavy, built by United Launch Alliance. NASA used this rocket to launch a version of the Orion spacecraft at an altitude of 3,600 km in 2014. United Launch Alliance and SpaceX – with its rocket Falcon Heavy – would be invited to bid for the second launch.

This gives the impression of a breathtaking spectacle: imagine a SpaceX Falcon Heavy on a launch pad and a Delta IV Heavy United Launch Alliance on a platform just a few kilometers away, launched at a few hours one of the other. This would represent the country's two largest rocket companies meeting for a historic mission – but it remains unclear whether the two manufacturers would be involved.

Is it difficult?

The coordination of two launches and an orbital rendezvous would certainly require new technologies and procedures. "I want to make it clear that we do not have the ability to hang the Orion crew capsule with anything in orbit, "said Bridenstine on Wednesday. We must make it a reality by June 2020.

However, NASA has already done this kind of thing. In 1966, the Gemini 10 mission sees an Agena top floor be launched in space, followed by John Young and Michael Collins 100 minutes later in their Gemini capsule. The spacecraft and Agena moored about 270 km above the Earth, then burned the engine of Agena to reach 760 km, the highest altitude ever reached by a human overhead from the surface of the Earth.

The time is short, however. If NASA is to launch this mission by June 2020, it must identify the rockets and the upper stage that it will use, configure Orion to fly on a new rocket, write and test the anchoring procedures, etc. For an agency used to moving relatively slowly, this would require considerable haste.

What is happening now?

Bridenstine said that NASA engineers are already studying how this can be done. He gave the answer within a few weeks, but in an email to employees at the Johnson Space Center in Houston on Wednesday, center director Mark Geyer said a preliminary response could be given as early as the week next.

A big question is how deep support for this plan works within the agency. It would be relatively easy for middle managers to remove this idea, as was the case before (perhaps most famous with President George Bush's space exploration initiative, in 1989 and 1990, as stated in Martian Wars). However, a source told Ars that a NASA head of state, Bill Gerstenmaier, responsible for manned spaceflight, adheres to the plan. This is important because it means that the study must be conducted fairly.

Why has SLS been controversial?

The short answer is that the rocket was designed largely by the US Senate, so much so that it is nicknamed the "Senate Launch System". The rocket has a huge budget (more than $ 12 billion) and yet it suffers recurring delays. And it uses ancient technology, an approach similar to that used by Apollo to reach the moon, with a large expendable rocket that is neither profitable nor sustainable. In fact, the rocket uses surplus space shuttle main engines, designed to be reusable, but which will be thrown with SLS after each launch.

In addition, by funding NASA for the development of the SLS rocket, Congress has prevented it from working on advanced technologies, such as refueling in orbit, propellant depots, space tugs and airborne missiles. other elements likely to create a more economical space transportation system. and allow the use of smaller and reusable rockets such as those developed by SpaceX. (The longest story about who can be read here.)

Why did Bridenstine do that?

It was a bold to pass for a NASA administrator. If this mission comes to fruition and if it succeeds, commercial rockets will now be able to send humans safely to the moon. In his formal remarks, Bridenstine stated that the agency's preference remained to use the space launch system for Orion crew missions, but it is difficult to see the much more expensive SLS used in the future if existing commercial launchers can perform the same tasks. This means that NASA could complete its lunar program over the next two to three years with existing or future commercial rockets, such as the Blue Origin New Glenn vehicle. Finally, this also opens the door to SLS-cost-saving technologies, such as low Earth orbit refueling and multiple-launch missions with smaller rockets.

For this reason, it is really quite remarkable to propose such a concept in the Senate, while the institutional support provided to the SLS rocket is also important for almost 10 years. It was the moment of Bridenstine. He made his statement at the witness table on Wednesday, without notes, and speaking clearly. He always said that he wanted to run NASA and help the agency get back to the moon faster. On Wednesday, he seized the opportunity to act.

Many sources told Ars that Vice President Mike Pence, who oversees US space flight policy, supports this approach. Pence, tired of the delays of the SLS, wishes to see NASA launch a lunar program. A launch in 2020 would occur before the end of President Trump's first term and would mean that the government's speech on a lunar human return is not just rhetoric. This would show that the White House is serious about it.

How will the Congress react?

President Obama was also not a great champion of the SLS rocket: his administration agreed to fund it in exchange for financial support for the Boeing and SpaceX commercial crew capsules that will soon be transporting astronauts to the International Space Station. Since its creation in 2011, the SLS program has found its most important support in the US Senate, especially from Richard Shelby, Alabama, who now chairs the powerful credit committee. The Marshall Space Flight Center, which runs the SLS program for NASA, is located in Alabama.

Until now, Shelby does not agree with the plan proposed by Bridenstine. "Although I agree that the delay in the launch schedule of SLS is unacceptable, I firmly believe that SLS should launch the Orion," he said in a statement released to Ars.

However, given Pence's support and promises of continued funding from SLS, it seems possible that Shelby may be convinced not to oppose the plan altogether, or to block it by its financial power. The price may be that for this mission at least, the two rockets must be built by United Launch Alliance, which assembles its propellers in Alabama. In any case, it will be a key dynamic to see if NASA engineers judge the plan feasible.

What do rocket companies say?

SpaceX has not responded to a request for comment regarding its potential participation in this mission. United Launch Alliance sent this statement to Ars:

ULA recognizes the unparalleled capabilities of NASA's space launch system to enable the efficient architecture of Cislunar and Mars exploration. We are proud to have collaborated with the Boeing Company in the development of the Provisional Cryogenic Propulsion Phase (ICPS) for the first flight of the SLS. Upon request, we can provide a description of the capabilities of our launch vehicles to meet the needs of NASA, but recognize that they do not match the performance of the super heavy transport gear and mission capabilities provided by SLS for the exploration missions proposed by NASA.

It is important to remember that United Launch Alliance is a common property of Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Boeing is the main contractor for the SLS rocket. The statement reflects this nuance.