NASA SLS Rocket Upper Atmosphere Hole: Artemis II GPS Study

Last updated: November 5, 2026 (IST). No, NASA's SLS rocket did not tear a physical hole in the atmosphere. A new preprint shows Artemis II caused three temporary ionosphere disturbances, and the strongest came from a smaller burn about 108 minutes after liftoff, not the launch. The internet has been buzzing with claims about a nasa sls rocket upper atmosphere hole following the historic lunar flyby mission. A new preprint shows Artemis II disturbed the ionosphere three times. Here is what happened, what it means for GPS, and what is still unproven. As humanity sends more massive spacecraft into orbit, understanding the interaction between rocket exhaust and the Earth's delicate upper atmosphere is becoming increasingly important for maintaining reliable navigation systems.

1. NASA SLS Rocket Upper Atmosphere Hole: Key Facts at a Glance

Key findings include:

• Study Status – The research is currently a preprint on the ESS Open Archive titled "Rare reoccurring ionosphere disturbances observed during the Artemis-II Lunar flyby voyage," led by Jong-Min Choi and Charles C. H. Lin from National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan. It has not been peer reviewed.
• Measurement Network – Scientists analyzed data from about 3,500 ground stations across America, utilizing GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo signals sampled every 30 seconds to measure changes in total electron content (TEC).
• Three Distinct Events – The paper marks the first time one mission caused three separate ionospheric disturbances over the same region.
• Altitude Matters – The apogee raise maneuver (ARM) and trans-lunar injection (TLI) released 1 to 2 orders of magnitude less energy than the launch, but caused disturbances up to 9 times larger because they occurred directly within the ionosphere.

2. Did the SLS Rocket Really Punch a Hole in the Atmosphere?

3. Three Artemis II Disturbances: Timeline in UT, EDT & IST (table)

The study maps out three distinct events triggered by the spacecraft as it journeyed outward. 1) The Launch: The mission began with a spectacular liftoff at 22:35 UT on April 1 (6:35 PM EDT April 1 / 4:05 AM IST April 2). The SLS rocket's massive core stage generated an immense 8,896 kN of thrust over roughly 8 minutes of burning as it pushed the vehicle toward orbit. Although it released a staggering 7.9 x 10^12 joules of energy into the lower and middle atmosphere, this was surprisingly the weakest event of the three. It produced a peak change of only about 0.16 TECU. The immense power did, however, create noticeable shock-acoustic waves near the Florida launch site, along with gravity waves that rippled outward and traveled more than 1,000 km.

2) Apogee Raise Maneuver (ARM): At 00:23 UT on April 2 (8:23 PM EDT April 1 / 5:53 AM IST April 2), about 108 minutes after liftoff, the ICPS upper stage fired with 110 kN of thrust. Starting at 28.5°N, 107.7°W, this 18-minute burn released about 2.7 x 10^11 joules. It was the strongest event, peaking at 2.5 to 3.7 TECU. The resulting disturbance reached from 110°W to 60°W—more than 5,000 km—traveling at 8.2 km/s, matching Orion's speed of about 8.3 km/s.

3) Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI): At 23:49 UT on April 2 (7:49 PM EDT April 2 / 5:19 AM IST April 3), Orion's OMS-E engine fired with 26.7 kN of thrust. Starting at 27.4°N, 118.9°W, this 5-minute 50-second burn released about 1.5 x 10^10 joules. It caused a peak disturbance of 1.0 to 2.4 TECU spanning about 20 degrees of longitude (from 100°W to 80°W) at 10.3 km/s, matching Orion's speed of about 10.5 km/s.

4. Why Smaller Burns Beat the Giant SLS Launch (table)

It may seem highly counterintuitive that the massive SLS core stage—the most powerful rocket ever successfully flown by NASA—caused the weakest disturbance, while the smaller upper-stage engines caused massive ripples. The ARM and TLI burns released one to two orders of magnitude less energy than the main launch. Yet, the paper's more cautious comparison gives up to 9 times the launch amplitude for the ARM burn and up to 8 times for the TLI burn. The primary reason for this massive disparity is the precise location of the exhaust plume. The ARM and TLI burns released their energy directly at ionosphere heights. During these crucial orbital burns, the spacecraft stayed at an altitude of about 190 to 400 km, right in the thick of the ionosphere's densest layers.

The main lesson drawn by the researchers is that the altitude of the energy release matters immensely, not only the total amount of energy. Earlier rocket launches typically caused disturbances of 0.5 to 0.75 TECU, traveling at 600 to 1,500 m/s, and lasting 15 to 20 minutes. The ARM and TLI disturbances were vastly different, reaching speeds of 8 to 10 km/s and lasting more than 1 hour. This phenomenon is not entirely new to spaceflight history. A 1975 study linked the Skylab launch to a large rocket launch ionosphere hole, and a 2017 SpaceX Falcon 9 launch also left a temporary depletion about 900 km wide. However, the scale and speed of the Artemis II orbital burns are unique.

5. Did Artemis II Disrupt GPS? What Is Proven and What Is Not

Many are asking, did artemis ii affect gps? When the ionosphere is disturbed by rocket exhaust, the density of electrons drops, which alters how radio waves propagate. The signals from navigation satellites can be delayed as they pass through this altered medium, which changes the calculated position on the ground. According to Space.com, study co-author Charles Lin said the changes were equivalent to positioning errors of several meters, and he warned that this could potentially affect precision-reliant systems like self-driving cars and drones. However, it is vital to make clear this is a possible risk based on calculations rather than a measured disaster. No vehicle lane change, accident, or widespread GPS outage across the USA has been documented in relation to this event. Furthermore, the manuscript we reviewed does not explicitly state a positioning error in meters.

To provide context, here is a Zendar Universe estimate: about 0.16 m of GPS L1 delay occurs per 1 TECU. This means a 3.7 TECU change equals about 0.6 m of error on a vertical signal path, and more on low-angle paths. Dual-frequency receivers remove most of this delay by comparing two different frequencies to correct the signal. While the reported figure of several meters and our 0.6 m estimate are presented side by side, both underscore that artemis ii gps errors are a valid theoretical concern during large-scale orbital maneuvers. Neither estimate should be considered definitively wrong, as local conditions and satellite angles vary widely.

6. Artemis II vs Starship: The "10 Times" Claim

7. India Angle: NavIC, ISRO & Gaganyaan

Because the Artemis II mission trajectory took it over the Americas during these critical burns, the disturbances were localized over North America. The study reports no effect on India and analyzed no Indian GNSS stations. However, the fundamental physics of an ionospheric disturbance explained in this research apply to space programs worldwide, including those managed by ISRO.

• NavIC Signals – India's NavIC satellite navigation signals also pass through the ionosphere, meaning the same basic physics and potential for space weather delays apply.
• NVS-03 Launch – To maintain a robust network, the NVS-03 satellite launched on October 30, 2026 aboard GSLV-F18 at 11:51 PM IST, which restored NavIC's minimum operational configuration of four satellites. See our NVS-03 launch guide.
• Gaganyaan Future Research – How ISRO's upcoming Gaganyaan orbital maneuvers might interact with the ionosphere remains a fascinating future research question, though no measured effects from ISRO missions are claimed here.

8. How Scientists Measured the Disturbances

To capture these fleeting events, researchers relied on an extensive network of about 3,500 ground stations spread across America. By tracking signals from GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo satellites, and sampling the data every 30 seconds, they could measure minute changes in the total electron content (TEC), recorded in TEC units (TECU). This high-resolution data allowed them to map the artemis ii ionosphere hole and the fast-moving shock-acoustic waves. The current paper strictly studies traveling ionospheric disturbances; it explicitly states that the ionospheric depletions from the orbital burns will be examined in a separate study. For more on the scientific findings from the lunar flyby, check out our Artemis II science report.

9. What Comes Next for Artemis and Space Weather

As humanity pushes further into the cosmos, the frequency of large orbital burns will only increase. Understanding man-made space weather is no longer just an academic exercise; it is a practical necessity for safeguarding the navigation and communication networks that modern society relies upon. The data gathered from the ESS Open Archive preprint and highlighted by sources like SpaceWeather.com provides a vital foundation for predicting how future missions will interact with the Earth's upper atmosphere.

By comparing these human-made events to natural phenomena, such as a solar storm, scientists can develop better models to protect sensitive GNSS systems from temporary disruptions. Keep Looking Up.

Author: Zendar Universe Space Desk | Reviewed by the Zendar Universe Research Team

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Did NASA's SLS rocket make a hole in the atmosphere? No, it did not tear a physical hole. It caused a temporary depletion of charged particles.

2. What is an ionospheric hole? It is a temporary reduction in the density of electrons in the ionosphere. It is not a physical tear or ozone damage.

3. Did Artemis II disrupt GPS? It caused changes in the ionosphere that can theoretically delay GPS signals. However, no widespread GPS outage or accident was documented.

4. How many disturbances did Artemis II cause? The mission caused three separate traveling ionospheric disturbances over North America.

5. Which part of the mission caused the strongest disturbance? The strongest disturbance came from the Apogee Raise Maneuver (ARM) using the ICPS upper stage.

6. Why was the SLS launch weaker than the smaller burns? The smaller burns released energy directly at ionosphere heights (190 to 400 km), which has a much greater effect than energy released lower in the atmosphere.

7. Was India affected by the Artemis II disturbances? No, the disturbances occurred over North America, and the study reported no effects on India.

8. Is the Artemis II ionosphere study peer reviewed? No, it is currently a preprint on the ESS Open Archive and has not yet been peer reviewed.