Talk:Space Launch System

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Space Launch System mobile launch platform and tower being moved by the crawler transporter to the Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space Center.

• ... that the Space Launch System rocket uses the same Mobile Launcher (pictured) that the cancelled Ares I rocket would have used? Source: [1]
  • ALT1:... that the Space Launch System rocket (pictured) will generate nearly nine million pounds of thrust at liftoff? Source: [2]

An artist's rendition of NASA's Space Launch System rocket in flight.

• Reviewed: [[]]

Improved to Good Article status by Leijurv (talk), DeltaDizzy (talk), CactiStaccingCrane (talk), and N2e (talk). Nominated by DeltaDizzy (talk) at 02:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article is an interesting read. There is no issue for me, everything checks out. Paraphrasing issues were settled during the GA nomination process. The picture is used in the the gallery section of the article, not in the prose, but I don't think this is a problem. Both hooks are interesting. although I prefer ALT1 which I feel would appeal more to broad audience. Just waiting for a QPQ. Lulusword (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

On second check, I realise that the nominator is exempted from a QPQ. I tweak the hook ALT0 a bit to incorporate the image into the hook. Previously, I said I preferred ALT1 but there's no image to go with it so I take it back. If there is any image that can go with ALT1 instead, feel free to add. Otherwise, this is good to go. Lulusword (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lulusword: Thanks for the review! I think either hook is fine. For ALT1, I don't have a great image honestly. However, I thought that DYK would, more-likely-than-not, not have an image? Some ideas of an image for ALT1 if I'm mistaken though: File:SLS_green_run-01.png could be used, but it is a closeup on the bottom of the rocket and I don't think it would make much sense to a wide audience. I don't think a render of the rocket on the ground such as File:Sls_block1_on-pad_sunrisesmall.jpg would work well with a hook about thrust. An ideal image would be the rocket in flight, but that hasn't happened yet, so we only have simulations and renders, which are less than ideal. An example is File:Orange tank SLS - Post-CDR.jpg (or another file in commons:Category:Illustrations of Space Launch System). I don't think it looks good and it's obviously a computer render. If ALT1 needs an image, that last one is the least bad I suppose. If this DYK would take the top spot with an image though, it should be ALT0 in my opinion. I've edited it in. Thanks again! Leijurv (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Leijurv: The image looks great! Can you put it somewhere in the article too so it can be used in the hook? Lulusword (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lulusword: Sure thing, done! Leijurv (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Lulusword (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• @DeltaDizzy: where could I find ALT1 in the article? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Theleekycauldron: The total liftoff thrust is not explicitly stated in the article but the thrust for all of the stages firing at liftoff is stated. The combined thrust could be added quickly if needed. DeltaDizzy (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• @DeltaDizzy: that'd be good, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Theleekycauldron: Alright, thrust added to the Block Differences section. DeltaDizzy (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

ALT1 to T:DYK/P1

Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter for block 1

Article does not seem to mention the Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter for block 1. Seems Teledyne Brown Engineering are building it/them [3] "The LVSA provides the physical interface between the SLS Core Stage and the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS). It also serves as the critical separation system used to separate the Core Stage of the rocket from ICPS. The cone-shaped adapter is roughly thirty feet in diameter by thirty feet tall and consists of sixteen Aluminum-Lithium 2195 alloy panels." [4] Looks like First one cost $60 M, next two were $85 M for the pair. - Rod57 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Added a brief subsection (based on above) after Upper stage subsection. - Rod57 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Interstage for Block 1B - to support EUS.

What is mass of the long Interstage ? Who is building them ? Is it part of EUS development/contract or a separate contract ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Number of stages

Isn't it supposed to have 2.5 stages, like the space shuttle? I think the boosters should count as half a stage. Cocobb8 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Still in development?

Is the SLS still in development? One mission has already launched, so isn't the launch system considered as "active" now? Cocobb8 (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I changed it anyways Cocobb8 (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• We should have a NASA source for status change from development/test to operational. - Rod57 (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect empty mass of core stage...

The Artemis 1 reference guide says the following on page 22:

Weight 2.4 million lb (1,088 t) fueled without engines and 188,000 lb (85.3 t) unfueled without engines

It also says the engines are considered to be 3.5 tons each.

At the least, if you go with the 3177 kg mass from the RS-25 article, that would put the empty mass at 95.0 tons. If you go with the 3.5 ton figure - which might include other structure required to install the engine - that would bump it up to 95.8 tons.

I would also argue that the mass of the launch vehicle stage adapter (another 4.5 tons) should be added to that mass. 73.140.138.202 (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• On that last point, LVSA is not part of the core stage (it is specific to the Block 1 cfg). Block 1b has Interstage instead. - Rod57 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Criticism in lede

@RickyCourtney: I think it's reasonable to add more criticism to the lede, but I believe that the sentence you added is a bit repetitive. The previous paragraph already says that it reuses Shuttle hardware, and already says that it was delayed by six years. "Senate Launch System" is a bit too specific for the lede I think. And I'd say that the topics of criticism are mismanagement, delays, and cost overruns, rather than reusing Shuttle processes. Leijurv (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Currently the prose makes the "Shuttle-derived" aspect sound like it was an idea to save money. That's how it was "spun" at the beginning, but in subsequent years, it's become more clear that that decision was more about "[keeping] a river of contracts flowing to large aerospace companies, including Boeing and Northrop Grumman, who had been operating the Space Shuttle."

SLS was born in era when the Obama White House was actively moving towards fixed-price commercial contracts like the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program and the Commercial Crew Program. So, Congress "created the Space Launch System rocket in 2011 and forced it upon an unwilling White House."

""The rocket was designed to mollify space shuttle contractors and preserve jobs in key states. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch made sure the new rocket used solid boosters, manufactured in his state. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby insisted that Marshall Space Flight Center design and test the rocket. Florida Senator Bill Nelson brought home billions of dollars to Kennedy Space Center to “modernize” its launch facilities."

When Jim Bridenstine suggested to a Senate committee that NASA use Falcon Heavy or Delta IV Heavy to launch Orion instead of SLS, effectively telling the Senate the space agency did not actually need the large rocket to fly the very missions it was created for, he "...was called to a meeting with Richard Shelby, the senior senator from Alabama who chaired the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. Effectively, the octogenarian Shelby controlled NASA's budget. Moreover, the SLS rocket was being managed in his state, at the Marshall Space Flight Center. The program was worth thousands of jobs. Shelby was livid. In his southern drawl, he told Bridenstine he should resign."

Congress also attempted to force NASA to launch its Europa Clipper on the SLS. Again, it was initially "spun" that it was because only SLS could get Clipper to Jupiter quickly, but became more clear that it was about the Senate wanting to find additional missions for the SLS rocket. (Source).

Lastly, I'll point out that NASA's Inspector General took the extraordinary step of writing a letter to the Senate, asking them to not meddle in decisions that concern actual rocket science.

I found all of that in about 30 minutes of research. In light of that, think there's plenty of there there to include something in the lede.

I would suggest rewriting the second paragraph of the lede as follows...

Development of SLS began in 2011, as a replacement for the retired Space Shuttle as well as the cancelled Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles. Intended to complement commercial launch vehicles developed with NASA funding, SLS was built using existing Shuttle technology, including solid rocket boosters and RS-25 engines. The rocket has been criticized for its political motivations, seen as a way to preserve jobs and contracts for aerospace companies involved in the Shuttle program rather than a necessary piece of hardware, earning SLS the derisive nickname "Senate Launch System." The project has faced significant challenges, including mismanagement, substantial budget overruns, and significant delays. The first Congressionally mandated launch in late 2016 was delayed by nearly six years, and future launch schedules are considered unrealistic.

I would also include references in appropriate places in the body of the article to support this new paragraph in the intro. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You said "I disagree" but thankfully I don't see much of any disagreement. Broadly, I'm on the same page on just about everything you've said here, and if you look at the history you'll see that much of the SLS criticism and launch costs and delays were added by me (e.g. look at Talk:Space_Launch_System/Archive_4). Point by point: I think that "Shuttle-derived" doesn't really point either way on reasoning being political versus financial - it's left ambiguous. Looking down into relevant sections of the article: ... a directive to use "to the extent practicable" existing components, hardware, and workforce from the Space Shuttle and from Ares I ... non-competitiveness of legislation requiring the use of Space Shuttle components ... In 2011, U.S. Representative Tom McClintock and other groups called on the Government Accountability Office to investigate possible violations of the Competition in Contracting Act, arguing that the requirement that Space Shuttle components be used on SLS were non-competitive and assured contracts to existing Space Shuttle suppliers. The implication from these passages in my mind is what you say, that it was a political decision - agreed. I think these passages do pretty clearly convey that this was not intended to save money. However, I can concede that the lede doesn't specifically say that it was a political decision at the expense of cost. I can see the argument that that is important enough to SLS to be mentioned in the lede. For the next few points, all agreed. For rewriting the second paragraph to incorporate this information, well that's exactly what I was getting at, so, great! For this revision specifically, I'm unsure about Intended to complement commercial launch vehicles developed with NASA funding - I assume you're referencing commercial crew? I think this is true, from what I can tell they were started around the same time, but how relevant is that to SLS? Possibly is there some deeper connection here that I'm unaware of? Next, rather than a necessary piece of hardware I think this is sortof the wrong tradeoff. It presents the downside of SLS as being unnecessary/impractical, and essentially makes me think that the problem is that SLS underperforms in some way. But I think that that's a bit inaccurate - SLS as a piece of hardware is fine, the problem that draws criticism is the cost-plus contracts and poor contractor performance (expense, delays). So I might rewrite this as preserve jobs and contracts for aerospace companies involved in the Shuttle program, at great expense to NASA or something along those lines. For the derisive nickname, I know that Eric Berger loves to say it, but it comes across to me as not particularly DUE in the lede - it's just a nickname. And for the rest, sounds good, I'll assume you have a good source for future launch schedules being considered unrealistic.

So here is what I would suggest:

Development of SLS began in 2011, as a replacement for the retired Space Shuttle as well as the cancelled Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles. SLS was built using existing Shuttle technology, including solid rocket boosters and RS-25 engines. The rocket has been criticized for its political motivations, seen as a way to preserve jobs and contracts for aerospace companies involved in the Shuttle program at great expense to NASA. The project has faced significant challenges, including mismanagement, substantial budget overruns, and significant delays. The first Congressionally mandated launch in late 2016 was delayed by nearly six years, and future launch schedules are considered unrealistic.

Possibly, additionally it could make clear that the reuse of shuttle hardware was mandated by Congress. e.g. SLS was mandated by Congress to usebuilt using existing Shuttle technology. Leijurv (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

First off, I apologize for coming off a bit too defensive. I appreciate your collaboration.

Fair enough point on the nickname, I can stand down on that point. I really like your revised version of the second paragraph, including "SLS was mandated by Congress to use existing Shuttle technology..."

As to the other points...

Intended to complement commercial launch vehicles developed with NASA funding

What I meant by this was that Dragon/Falcon, Cygnus/Antares, Starliner/Atlas received funding from NASA to spur their development in the 2000s and 2010s. These are all medium-lift launch vehicles, so in that sense they all complement SLS.

rather than a necessary piece of hardware

My thinking behind this was that is, in essence, what Bridenstine said in 2019 when he suggested that Falcon Heavy or Delta IV Heavy could be used launch Orion.

I'll assume you have a good source for future launch schedules being considered unrealistic.

Artemis III (Kenneth Chang): "James Free, NASA’s associate administrator, said that the revised Artemis schedule was not overly optimistic, although he admitted that additional delays could still occur."

Granted, the launch schedule for Artemis III is considered unrealistic because of delays with the lander, unrelated to SLS.

Artemis IV (NASA OIG): "ML-2 to Cost over Three Times More than Planned and Will Not Be Completed in Time to Meet the Current Artemis IV Schedule"

Artemis IV (Eric Berger): "The Artemis IV mission has a nominal launch date of 2028, but the new report confirms the widely held assumption in the space community that such a date is unfeasible." RickyCourtney (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries! I'd say go ahead on that second paragraph revision. Gotcha on the complementary launch vehicles, and on how "piece of hardware" was in comparison to other vehicles. Those sources seem fine for future schedule being considered unrealistic, particularly OIG and nytimes. While Berger is factually reliable (discussion here), I would tend to hesitate before citing him to suggest an overall considered-negative reputation for Artemis, that's probably the least reliable angle on his articles (i.e. if his articles think Artemis is not doing well, I wouldn't like citing that to suggest that Artemis is considered in general to be not doing well). Leijurv (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd really question the outcome of that RFC given Eric's reporting on issues such as the ML-1 lean and particularly the post-hurricane, pre-launch articles about Artemis 1 (which admittedly was only a window of a few days). A runner-up would be using a cost estimation tool incorrectly to report EUS unit cost would be $800M, not even realizing that the tool output in 1990s dollars and therefore made the estimate even more ridiculous...

Still, I think there's at least a broad consensus that Eric himself has a particular POV that he isn't shy about pushing. His content should be considered editorial in nature. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That is to say (and I believe this is borne out in your initial comment) I consider an exclusive reliance on his material for citations very problematic.

NASASpaceFlight has some very good coverage of the initial SLS era in the 2010s, and the politics areound it are not anywhere near the black and white picture Eric Berger likes to portray. Part of the reason the requirement to keep Constellation contracts alive is because Lori Garver had begun investigating if there was a way to cancel all the CxP contracts without paying any cancellation fees to the big contractors. This obviously got the defense-minded Senators anxious (imagine the impacts to Boeing, LM, AJR, etc. all being forced to eat hundreds of millions of contract cancellation costs with no recourse), and keeping the contracts alive as a vehicle for a follow-up program would ensure that wouldn't be possible.

There's also coverage about the (seemingly intentional) delay in announcing what follow-up program would replace Constellation, and how that lead to massive workforce reductions as the shuttle contractors got tired of waiting. Large numbers of MAF personnel got pink slips, and given that administration's goals at that time (end to in-house SDHLV program)... I don't think it requires much conspiracy to think that may have been the point – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 14:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I’d welcome a roundup of those sources to write it up as a counterpoint. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The contract cancellation talk comes from Lori Garver's own book (which frankly, is not very flattering towards her or her political skills, but I am clearly not the intended audience).

A lot of the 2010s era stuff has been hit bad by link rot but here's at least one article talking about the layoffs in relation to the follow-up program continually being delayed in announcement: https://web.archive.org/web/20100106044243/http://www.wdsu.com/news/17585395/detail.html – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd still take umbrage with "The rocket has been criticized for its political motivations, seen as a way to preserve jobs and contracts for aerospace companies involved in the Shuttle program at great expense to NASA," and "and future launch schedules are considered unrealistic." Both of these read as POV pushing to me.

For the first quote, I think you could rephrase it in some manner to make clear it's a common critique. For the second, I'd just axe it entirely ala WP:CRYSTAL. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no particular point of view I’m personally pushing.

Now when you say it's a "common critique" — do you mean that accusations of such pork barrel spending are common in America? Could you suggest how you would reword it?

As to the unrealistic future launch schedule, I’m reconsidering that. I actually think that’s something that probably belongs in the Artemis lede. While the SLS schedule may slip, the bigger risks now seem to be the Starship lander and ML-2. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Some non-Berger sources:

NY Times: "The Space Launch System was born not on the drafting tables of engineers, but on the desks of senators. In 2010, Congress legislated into existence a launch vehicle for firing heavy things to deep space. … they demanded that NASA rummage through crates of old space shuttle parts whenever possible"

Washington Post: "…derided by critics as the “Senate Launch System” for doing more to provide jobs in key congressional districts than explore space and has been the subject of scathing reports by government watchdogs who criticized NASA’s poor management and the lackluster performance of Boeing, the rocket’s prime contractor."

-- RickyCourtney (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Your first source is stating the factual truth that SLS is mandated by legislation (albeit in an 'artsy' way). Your second is an op-ed repeating that a common line of attack is, in fact, a common line of attack. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually think that’s something that probably belongs in the Artemis lede. If the reasoning for the delay is due to other factors like HLS and ML-2 then yeah I think it would make sense to talk about it over in Artemis - saying so in the SLS lede would indeed create the wrong implication, that SLS is to blame for Artemis 3 and 4 slips. Leijurv (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Metric use

@RickyCourtney: I don't really have strong opinions on this, but it's my understanding that customary units are often given primacy because the SLS itself is not wholly metricized, and so many of the design requirements and parameters are not metric. I don't mind a swap to metric-first but it could be a bit inaccurate to the actual data. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I will go back through and recheck the source data to ensure that nothing got garbled. I got a bit heavy handed. The page was a mess with a mix of metric first, imperial first and a lot of odd use of metric tonnes. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Appreciated! – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This has come up a few times and I've always tried to match the original sources (which are generally imperial). As in, I use the cvt template and write in the original measurement, and choose whether to order=flip or not based on whatever makes it display imperial first, the idea being that the original measurement is always displayed as-is without a double conversion. A similar discussion happened here, and a few other places I can't find at the moment. MOS:METRIC is pretty clear about non-scientific articles, but in this case it seems the US ties are quite strong throughout the sources. So I believe the article should be imperial (and a few years ago I would have argued for it (and did)) but it's really fine either way. Leijurv (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)