Talk:Space Launch System/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Is this article officially "science-related" or not?

So once again, the provisions of the manual of style seem to have been insufficient to prevent an edit-war over units style. My interpretation is this: it seems clear that this is a science-related article (indeed, it would strain credibility to breaking point to describe an article about a NASA program as anything else) and therefore should use SI units primarily, in accordance with the Manual of Style. What are other editors' thoughts on this? Archon 2488 (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a US engineering article, but all the metric conversions are provided, so I cannot see why you are warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh8 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur its a US engineering-related article, and as such should use US Customary Units first. - BilCat (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you answered the question. The article used SI units previously, but this was changed without a clear explanation of why the article was not considered to be science-related. Science and engineering are hardly mutually exclusive, and describing a NASA program as not being science-related is to my mind a clear violation of common sense. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually the guidelines say "scientific", which isn't quite the same as "science". In general though, most articles on US organizations and their products, ie military products, including rockets and missiles, commercial aircraft, automobiles, etc use US Customary Units first, and it seems counter-intuitive say that just because a rocket is intended to put something into orbit in space means its scientific! Obviously, we need a clarification on exactly what the guidelines are intended to cover, but until then, common sense seems to indicate we use US Customary Units. - BilCat (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the difference between "science" and "scientific" is that the first is a noun and the second is an adjective. Articles on military hardware are not primarily science-related by any reasonable criterion; on the other hand, I'd argue that hardware used in a space program (indeed, a science program) is science-related. Denying this seems to violate the criterion of least astonishment; if a rover is on a science mission on Mars, one does not expect the article on it to use US Customary units simply because the organisation that designed the rover was based in the USA. (Moreover, NASA is actually supposed to use SI internally, and from NASA documents that I've seen lately, they are getting better at it.) Archon 2488 (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• This extension into all Space-related articles mean there's no clear boundary on when to stop, imo. WP:UNITS says "scientific articles", not science-related ones. This is an article about a launch vehicle and its associated program, not a scientific topic. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What measurement system an organization uses is irrelevant to the guideline. Even the NASA article uses US Customary Units first. Obviously we're not going to agree on the scope of science related articles, so we need to get a clarification on the MOS. In the meantime, can we agree to use what the NASA article itself uses? - BilCat (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessarily irrelevant which measurement system an organisation uses; it seems somewhat contradictory to argue that the article should use US Customary units because US organisations don't use the metric system, even if the organisation in question does actually use the metric system. But I agree that the MOS guideline could be clearer on what "scientific" means – it honestly never occurred to me that anyone would consider an article about NASA not to be "scientific", so there is some vagueness there. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the guideline, which is what is under discussion here. The guideline doesn't allow for a choice of measurement system based on what the organization uses. The only option allowed is for "scientific articles", whatever that actually turns out to mean. - BilCat (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Scientific or not scientific? I can't believe this is even a discussion. SLS is an engineered vehicle which can support scientific and exploratory payloads period. In and of itself it is no more scientific than any of the other NASA infrastructure like the VAB, launch pad, tower, crawler transport, simulators, or SLS fabrication facilities. Doyna Yar (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Is an article about the LHC scientific? You could argue it's just a piece of hardware which supports a science program. This is why I say the boundaries are not as clear-cut as one might think. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Are Spaceflight articles scientific/preferred units, general consensus among spaceflight editors is to use English engineering units for pre-Shuttle programs, SI for post. NASA switched to metrics around the same period. A(Ch) 18:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This additionally happens to be the way wikipedia US spaceflight articles are currently set up and provides consistency. A(Ch) 18:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's still not allowed by the general MOS guideline, so SPACEFLIGHT is wrong to go against global ENWP consensus. So rather than linking to the project discussion here so others can participate, you just declare a consensus and revert. Nice. - BilCat (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

MOS is a guide, there are always exceptions. Additionally it is unclear in this application. Blindly insisting it requires something, despite the article being stable for years under SI, is not the purpose of MOS. A(Ch) 18:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not my fault the article went against global consensus for all these years. It's confusing to editors who are used to using US units as primary to have a small subset of articles be exempt to the rule, which apparently isn't even stated anywhere in a guideline. How pre-shuttle spaceflight articles are not "scientific" is even stranger. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Anythingcouldhappen. NASA uses SI now (though some of their contractors don't), so it makes sense to use SI. Consensus in every article I've looked at is to use the units the organization in question used during the time period in question. Hence the occasional use of stupid things like "fathoms" and "cubits" in Wikipedia articles. — Gopher65_talk 02:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"It's still not allowed by the general MOS guideline, so SPACEFLIGHT is wrong to go against global ENWP consensus." – this is the very point we're debating here, so it's a bit circular just to assert it and move on. It seems perfectly sensible to me to make an exemption in the a case which is at least closely related to science (even if it is not literally a scientific research program – this just seems pedantic), and to allow articles such as this to use a style which is more closely aligned with current NASA practice. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the title of this Talk page section presents a false dichotomy. The science or not distinction relates only to a guideline, not core policy. The much bigger issue is that the article was changed to non-SI units without any clear consensus for the change, and I believe that is the larger issue.

There had apparently been a prior unstated convention on this article, as on most all of the newer spaceflight-related articles, that SI units going first (with local units following, in parenthesis) works best for the global readership of the English Wikipedia for technically dense articles. Moreover, this has been a rather long-standing convention at WikiProject Spaceflight for spaceflight-related articles. The oldest articles from the earliest days of spaceflight are History of Technology-type articles; so the convention has been to use whatever the old local units are used in that subset of articles.

So in my view, there was no consensus for the change, so the change ought to be reverted until a consensus is reached to change it. N2e (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Given the change from SI units was made with no consensus it was an improvement, and no consensus was reached here that it was required by MOS, it seems the infobox units format should be restored to its original configuration. A(Ch) 19:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is the first discussion on this talk page on primary units. So there was not an established consensus here before. Taking a subject with science and technical content and calling it a "scientific article" is too broad of an interpretation to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it appears the units have stayed US customary since this discussion. I stand by my previous comment; I think that the units should not have been changed from SI to US customary without a Talk page discussion.

However, I will now note that I see a sort of wry humour in the way the units are done here. Those units, for a global readership like Wikipedia, are archaic. But maybe that's okay. This particular launch system, designed as it has been by politically-specified design decisions on its use of technology, who its major suppliers are, etc. is also archaic. It will likely fly very few times, if the US political winds even keep it alive to that point. The vastly more efficient competition that is now present, and coming faster due to recent technology and market-driven advances, will ultimately prove too much for even strong political forces in the US to continue funding SLS given its economic inefficiency. So the archaic units are right in line with the archaic politically-driven program itself.

So I will happily live with the units in the article as they are now. It will one day form an interesting chapter in the long-term history of spaceflight once it is all left alone and archived in the Wikipedia of 20–50 years hence. Cheers. and bottoms up! N2e (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Block IB again

The 93 tonne figure for Block IB comes from an analysis conducted before the selection of the EUS, and does not reflect the stage's design or capabilities. For example, the study assumed 105 tonnes propellant - the current design allows for up to ~130 tonnes of propellant. Right now we really have no idea what the capacity of Block IB will be and should not be listing estimated payload, except to point out that an analysis of an upper stage (not the EUS) with four RL10 engines indicated a payload capacity of around 93 tonnes. There are no reliable sources for the actual estimated capacity of Block IB yet. A(Ch) 05:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but the 118 ton payload to LEO(low earth orbit) figure you've been misleadingly inserting into the Block IB section in this article and in the (EUS)Exploration Upper Stage article, was not at all supported. I'm glad you now acknowledge that was not at all supported. Therefore I, the Irish IP user, had to go and remove the wild & unsubstantiated claim of "118 ton" to LEO, which you were pushing.

Lastly, you know you can simply calculate to find out, and get the ballpark payload figure to LEO for the Block IB of at least 97 tonnes when afforded by the EUS's 130,000 kg of propellant. As we know that the preliminary-DUUS(dual use upper stage, which although is technically "not the EUS", it is identical to it, apart from simply having less propellant) was determined by Boeing to be able to lift 93 tons to the same orbit with 105,000 kg of propellant.

86.45.185.173 (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Always nice to find a random personal attack months later. The 118 t figure comes from , where it states "evaluations into using the RL-10 driven stage, showing the SLS Block 1B, using Five Segment Boosters, resulting in an up-mass capability of 118mT to Low Earth Orbit (LEO)." That was the first source I read, so that's the number I used when creating the article. Period. The problem was that any range of potential LEO payloads was invariably replaced with the impossibly precise 93.1 t (heck if people were putting in 90 t that would be fine, but 93,100 kg?). Regardless, SLS will never launch a payload like that to LEO. SLS is for launching much lighter things way beyond LEO, which is also why you can't ballpark the payload using 105 t prop vs 130 t prop - gravity losses will eat you alive at 440 kN. More prop = less payload and more C3 A(Ch) 11:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not 93 tonnes to LEO. It's somewhere between 105 and 120, depending on whose numbers you believe. But not 93. And for that matter if Block 2 was built it would be ~140 tonnes to LEO with solids, or close to 160 with liquid boosters. It's a big rocket. 130 is a bit low. Of course, Block 2 will never be built because 1) Block 1B is more than good enough for most realistic usage cases, 2) development of Block 2 is too expensive, and 3) other choices will likely become available long before Block 2 would be looked at, thus negating the need for Block 2. — Gopher65_talk 01:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory information

In Space Launch System#Upper stage: "The Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) is scheduled to debut on Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2)."

In Space Launch System#Proposed missions and schedule: "Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2), a reclassification of SLS-2, is a single-launch mission of a Block 1 SLS with ICPS"

72.230.99.245 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The "70 tonne to LEO" launcher is Block 0. Block 1 (specifically the Block 1B path) deputes on EM-2. It's not contradictory, it's just that the naming scheme is word salad. — Gopher65_talk 01:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Block 0 was only an early concept. Block 1 with the Interim US is the 70 mt version; Block 1B has the EUS and is 110/115 mt to LEO. The mission designations are not tied to the Block names. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Safety Report 2015

I think it's important to add some comments and a link to the recent Safety Panel: There were numerous criticisms or "disquiet", as they put it, of the SLS programme (and Orion) from NASAs Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel in their report for 2015. http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2015_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf Not sure how best to frame it, but the more experienced Wikipedians may wish to have a crack:

Generally they criticised safety compromises in the SLS and Orion porgrammes, and "risk accretion" that increased risk "without a clearly articulated rationale". Specifically they mentioned: late changes to the Orion heatshield design reduced scope of Ascent Abort Test "infrequent flight rate leading to mission operations team loss and fading memories of lessons learned" - made worse by a vague schedule and level of demand beyond EM1 and EM2.

Exploration Mission 2 was of particular concern: The Panel is closely following the final decisions for EM-2 concerning the detailed mission profile and the SLS upper stage configuration. EM-2 will be the first flight of the Orion ECLSS, and there is a strong case for remaining in LEO until confidence is gained that the life support systems are performing properly. While in LEO, Orion can return to Earth in 1 to 2 hours via an emergency deorbit. However, once Orion reaches cislunar space, return to Earth is typically 3 to 6 days away and can be as much as 11 days away. While checking out the ECLSS systems in LEO, the upper stage of the SLS—the ICPS—will remain attached to Orion since it is needed to perform the TLI burn. This presents the EM-2 mission designers with a set of competing interests in determining how long Orion should remain in LEO before proceeding to cislunar space. Time spent in LEO to check out and gain confidence in the life support systems comes at the price of increased risk of an MMOD strike to ICPS causing LOM or worse. Using the EUS for EM-2 is one potential solution, but NASA does not currently have the funding to make that commitment. Adding MMOD shielding to ICPS is also a potential solution. However, the Panel notes that this dilemma is self-imposed by NASA’s decision to fly to cislunar space on the first crewed mission without a prior test flight of the ECLSS. This decision reflects an aggressive development plan that takes the Exploration System from qualification testing to integrated human operations in cislunar space in just two missions."

The report questioned whether the SLS programme was cost-effective:

NASA’s Journey to Mars report notes that,“While the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion flight rates will ultimately be determined by available funding and mission requirements, NASA is working towards flying at least one crewed mission per year.” It is not at all clear that one SLS flight per year would support the kind of launch campaign needed for a serious Mars exploration program. On the other hand, if the recommended program does require multiple, very expensive flights per year of the SLS, that should be acknowledged upfront. The ASAP believes that a well-designed mission, with anticipated rewards that are expected to outweigh the risks, would go a long way toward gaining the needed support from future administrations, the Congress, and the general public. If not, then perhaps NASA should be working on a different mission, or at least using a different approach for the current mission (my emphasis)

Summary article here: http://www.space.com/31669-nasa-safety-report-risks.html --Davoloid (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Space Launch System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120107155557/http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com:80/_news/2011/12/07/9254628-is-the-case-for-mars-facing-a-crisis to http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/07/9254628-is-the-case-for-mars-facing-a-crisis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

History

A history of design/chronology work in progress.

1978 image of a Morton Thiokol-proposed In-Line Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle.

The conceptual National Launch System(NLS) launch family of the 1990s. NLS-1 used for its core stage a modified Space Shuttle External Tank which would feed four Space Shuttle Main Engine derivatives and also include detachable Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters.

The concept of a shuttle-derived cargo lifter goes back at least as far as 1991 with the National Launch System studies (1990s) to design a shuttle-derived heavy lift cargo vehicle to allow the space shuttle to focus on lifting crew only.

With the creation of the Constellation Program, in 2006 a group of laymen, in collaboration with eight public representatives and 62 NASA employees who preferred to remain anonymous, and aware of the prior NLS concept, began to lobby and claim NASA was on the wrong trajectory with the Ares V and proposed numerous versions of thinner less capable launch vehicles that primarily deviated from the Ares V core design diameter of 10 meters by instead pushing for a core overall length and diameter, identical to the Space Shuttle external tank of 8.4 meters in width, along with using a lower number of the same Ares V engines, all of which they argued would ultimately save NASA money and allow Moon missions much sooner, if developed instead, despite having a lower lift capability.

However likely, the issue of crew safety was a concern, as Ares I being specialized for crews and much simpler, was inherently superior, the DIRECT team suggested that adding heavy safety systems could make up for this somewhat but did not release vetted calculations. upon the passing of the senate bill in late 2010 that put an end to the Constellation program and mandated a single inline SD HLV be built the DIRECT team stopped their "outside interference" and now reportedly "cheer" the development of the Space launch system from the side-lines.

Expanded diagram of the DIRECT v3.0 Jupiter-130 configuration. A picture of version 3.0 with a 4 engine SSME/RS-25 core stage and a second stage consisting of a cluster of RL-10 engines was made in 2010.

On 29 May 2009, DIRECT spokespersons gave a presentation to the 28th Annual International Space Development Conference entitled, "Direct 3.0: Landing Twice the Mass on the Moon at Half the Cost." Many engine configurations were analyzed but the DIRECT version 3.0 proposal, released in May 2009, recommended two: the Jupiter-130 and Jupiter-246, with claimed lift capacities exceeding 70 and 110 tonnes, respectively, to low Earth orbit.

• Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee
• Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle not in-line
• Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle inline
• List of space launch system designs
• To include http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sdv.html a comparison of vehicles very similar to SLS/Direct V 3.0 done in the early 2000s.
• With the above links mercurial mentions to "STME engines" elaborated upon here in this NASA pdf, enough to possibly warrant an article dedicated to this engine concept someday.
• 185.51.72.3 (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Block III/3?

The user generated table in this article includes mention to a Block III and its payload capabilities, however as it is only briefly mentioned in a single (non-NASA)reference, I think that shows that it is not, as far as I'm aware, even past the conceptual design stage. So if this table allows the inclusion of conceptual vehicles without any sign of official confirmation that it is even being studied, then Sea Dragon should definitely be included, as that did actually pass the brain-storming, concept stage.

So unless someone has new info on Block 3, I recommend its complete removal, either that, or the table becoming much-much bigger.

(Correction, I found another article that mentions this "Block III" and its dubiously* high payload lift capabilities of 150 metric tons to low earth orbit. However as it is also an old article, it describes SLS as having five RS-25 core engines, but we now know they dropped that idea entirely. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/03/sls-studies-focusing-sd-hlv-versus-rp-1-f-1-engines/ Even still, I'm highly skeptical of this 150 ton figure as the following source states that this very arrangement could lift only 138 tons "gross". http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=30862.0;attach=515287;image )

Anyway, this has all got be thinking about the liquid rocket booster(LRB) variant of SLS block II, that surely should be included in the table as that arrangement might actually come to fruition at some stage(~2030), unlike this Block III/3 concept, which is out of the running as far as I can see? The Irish IP/185.51.72.3 (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Block 2(II) includes advanced rocket booster, probably with liquid engines. Block II is listed in the table just above the Saturn V entry. I removed the Block III entry since it is speculative and not a planned version. Thanks for pointing this out. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to note that 150 tonnes to LEO is not 'dubiously high' for the SLS. With the advanced solid boosters, SLS Block II could probably do ~140 tonnes to LEO (zero inclination change, etc). With the advanced liquid boosters it would be in the 160 tonne to LEO range. SLS block II will never be developed for political and funding reasons, but it's certainly possible that they could hit 150 in block II, never mind some hypothetical not-even-a-paper-rocket block III. — Gopher65_talk 23:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• As already stated in the 'advanced booster' section of the article "Estimates in 2012 indicated that the Pyrios booster could increase Block 2 low-Earth orbit payload to 150 t, 20 t more than the baseline." cited from http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/dynetics-pwr-liquidize-sls-booster-competition-f-1-power/. Doyna Yar (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, but that's back when they were estimating 70 to LEO for the block 1, ~94 tonnes for the block 1B, and 130 for the block 2 with solids. Since then the core stage estimate has been uprated, leading to greater estimated payloads on all versions. The most recent estimates floating around are ~140 for the block 2 with solids, and almost 160 with liquids. — Gopher65_talk 03:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Gopher65 I haven't read anything that even remotely supports your suggestions here. Particularly the following: The most recent estimates floating around are ~140 for the block 2 with solids - Can you corroborate that with a reference?

Boundarylayer (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've read it in a few different places, IIRC. Here is an estimate of the performance of the advanced solids. That was my 45 second long attempt to find a source on the first page of a google search, so I don't know if it's satisfactory or not. I know I didn't read it from that source, I think I got it from a few news articles a couple years ago, but I have no idea which ones. In addition to Block II's payload being bumped up, I seem to recall that the most recent version of Block 1 (the version of Block 1 that will actually fly) can do almost 90 tonnes to LEO (again, 200km circular orbit with zero inclination change). The Block 1B will be able to do ~108 tonnes to LEO. And that's without advanced boosters or anything:). Just an uprated second stage. — Gopher65_talk 02:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Block I

Will Block I only fly one time before switching finally to Block IB? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.86.172 (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed that seems to be the plan.

Boundarylayer (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Block I will only fly once before being decommissioned in favour of Block 1B. The original plan was to do at least two flights with Block 1, but the second flight would have been a crewed test flight. This would have meant man-rating Block 1 for use in a single crewed flight, which would have cost a great deal of money. If they'd gone that route, they'd *still* have needed to man-rate Block-1B anyway. Instead they chose to retire Block 1 after one test flight, and move directly on to Block 1B, skipping over the expensive certification of Block 1 altogether. — Gopher65_talk 02:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Payload mass to various orbits is unreadable

I think it would be great if payload mass per orbit had separate columns, also it should make sortability possible -- SpacePotatoe (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Space Launch System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006080619/http://spacefrontier.org/2011/09/15/monster-rocket/ to http://spacefrontier.org/2011/09/15/monster-rocket/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329041733/http://planetary.org/programs/projects/space_advocacy/Planetary_Society_Statement_20110712.pdf to http://planetary.org/programs/projects/space_advocacy/Planetary_Society_Statement_20110712.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924081721/http://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=260132 to http://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=260132
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021121535/http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf to http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319191604/http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/tms-in-the-news/howwecanflytomarsinthisdecade%E2%80%93andonthecheap to http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/tms-in-the-news/howwecanflytomarsinthisdecade%E2%80%93andonthecheap
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news%2Fawst%2F2010%2F11%2F29%2FAW_11_29_2010_p28-271784.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160118071957/https://thespacereporter.com/2016/01/additional-1-3-billion-nasa-fund-next-mars-rover-europa-mission/ to https://thespacereporter.com/2016/01/additional-1-3-billion-nasa-fund-next-mars-rover-europa-mission/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923193950/http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/sls/docs/sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdf to http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/sls/docs/sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Likely cost per flight

[1] says (based on NASA comments) "So if NASA makes 20 SLS flights by the end of the 2030s, the rocket will roughly cost the agency a total of $60 billion, or $3 billion per flight." - but if they only make 9 or 10 flights they will cost more - eg see Talk:Space_Launch_System/Archive_1#$5_Billion_Launch_Cost? ! - Rod57 (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparables: Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, BFR Comparable: Falcon Heavy

SpaceX just updated FH payload to LEO to 64mT, which is about 10% less than SLS Block I payload to LEO. So I added Falcon Heavy to the "Comparable" list. Greg (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, definitely worth it for Falcon Heavy to be listed in the InfoBox, as it is also with BFR, which some other editor seems to have added to that infobox since Sep 2017. So both are listed, and this is appropriate given payload masses, projected missions, etc.

Observation: It seems like, with multiple sources now discussing the parallels, comparables, relative costs, political implications, and number of projected flights in which future years, of several different US rockets with SLS (Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, BFR, others?), that there ought to be something in the article prose that addresses this topic as well.

What do others think? Calling previous posters: User:Greg Lindahl, User:Rod57, User:Doyna Yar, User:Boundarylayer, User:Gopher65, others?

My gut reaction is that what you're proposing would be pretty highly argued unless it was as factual as possible, and not all of the facts are known -- many dates are fuzzy or outright aspirational, some prices and performance numbers are incomplete (reused vs expended.) I wouldn't want to take part in the discussion, either. Just the list itself, that's easy. :-) Greg (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I honestly do not see the value of other launchers in the chart. First I would point out they are already compared here: [[2]] and perhaps a link under 'See also' would cover it. Secondly I would suggest that comparisons not be framed from a competitive angle as similar redundant access to space is desired by it's users/market. Doyna Yar (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Donya's link is a great comparison, I agree that this article should just point at it. Greg (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

EM-2 payload change?

The NASA FY 2019 Budget Overview states that the first module of the Lunar Gateway, the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE), will now be launched with a "commercial launch vehicle": And Space News also reports a "commercial launch vehicle". That seems to imply it will not be the SLS, and that the EM-2 mission will now have a different payload.

Also, both sources state the PPE launch is for 2022, while the EM-2 is scheduled for 2023, which suggest different missions. Any updates and info are appreciated. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

References

The "Payload mass to various orbits" section seems overcomplicated

This section contains lots of information that seems tangentially related to the Space Launch System. Additionally, it is hard to compare the various rockets (which seems to be the point of the section?) since there is a mix of destinations. I suggest that either the section should be removed entirely, or that the table should only record the payloads to low earth orbit. Thoughts?

Agpagpagp (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Given Greg's and Doyna Yar's comments in the other discussion section, along with a lack of opposition, I'm going ahead to make the change. Agpagpagp (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That was a jolly good idea. People interested in comparing large rockets can head over to Super heavy-lift launch vehicle and Comparison of orbital launch systems. — JFG ^talk 13:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

History

The program history of this launch vehicle seems to be missing from the article, even though the SLS program history goes back 8 or 10 years. Seems like the article needs a place to keep such information, and many other launch vehicle articles have a History section. That fits appropriately with the encyclopedic objective of Wikipedia, since WP is not a newspaper to merely report the latest status of a program.

I'd like to start such a section; strictly with with well-sourced information of course.

But before I do, is there any objection that might prevent consensus on this matter. The article has existed a long time and it has no History section in its current form. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Great idea to add a History section. A lot of the existing contents could be moved there. — JFG ^talk 04:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, then let's do it when there is some time to edit and get it all organized well. Ping me JFG when you have some time, and we'll see if we can't both get some editing done to create a really useful section. N2e (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The history is not totally missing. The development section was meant to cover the development history. Some design details could be moved to Vehicle description to make this clearer. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, some of that is spread throughout the article, especially development history, and some bits of program history. But the overall program-level history does seem to be generally lacking, and certainly not very accessible to the global reader who comes to this article the first time. N2e (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Boeing audited

Boeing was audited by NASA and the development schedule and costs of the SLS are not looking good. There is talk of "questionable payments" and more delays to come. Not sure where to add this info: [3]. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I added this information before I saw your post. I put it in Space Launch System#Program costs and funding. - Alternate Side Parking (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Changes to EM numbering from updated Gateway plans

A recent change was made to the EM chart to:

• put the airlock module as part of the payload for EM-3,
• claim that the SLS-launched logistics module with robotic arm that is following the launch of the habitation modules has been delegated to a commercial launcher and
• remove the subsequent mission after the robotic arm mission that would provide the crew airlock to the station.

All of these changes are inaccurate or unsubstantiated. There are two NASA Spaceflight articles which do an excellent job of outlining the construction of LOP-G and corresponding Exploration Missions. Please read both: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/nasa-goals-missions-sls-eyes-multi-step-mars/ and https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/09/nasa-lunar-gateway-plans/ . The April 2017 article relates to a talk given by Bill Gerstenmaier to NASA Advisory Council (NAC) for what was then called the Deep Space Gateway and Transport Plan. It is important to note that logistics missions occur several times throughout construction. Those are interspersed between the SLS Exploration Missions are performed mostly by commercially-contracted Cislunar Support Flights (CSF). However one of these logistics missions had been delegated to SLS as it would be co-manifested with the robotic arm. Quoting the article: "EM-3 would last between 16 and 26 days and would be the first flight capable of performing scientific objectives on the DSG. This mission would be followed by a commercially-contracted Cislunar Support Flight (CSF). “[The Deep Space Gateway] doesn’t preclude the commercial industries or using their vehicles to take significant logistics to this gateway,” noted Mr. Gerstenmaier. “This is a demonstrable, objective way to build the skills … as directed by the Authorization Act.” The EM-4 mission would then follow in 2025 with a 4 person crew to add a ≤10mT Logistic module (which will include a Canadian-built robotic arm) to the DSG."

According to the April 2017 article the Gateway construction begins with the launch of the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) to lunar orbit, followed by a mission to add a habitation module, followed by a SLS-launched logistics mission in which the logistics module is co-manifested with the robotic arm, and finally followed by a mission to add a crew airlock which would complete the Gateway. From what I can see this basic order of operations has not changed. What has changed is:

• that the PPE mission was delegated to a commercial launcher,
• a new step was added after the launch of PPE to have ESPRIT co-manifested with the U.S. Utilization module launched by SLS, and
• a second habitat module was added which is also launched by SLS (this is stated explicitly in the September 2018 article "The habitation modules would then follow one at a time on EM-4 and EM-5." and you can see stated in the graphic that these are both SLS-launched).

While not stated explicitly in the September 2018 article, the launch of the habitation modules would still need to be followed by two more Exploration Missions for the Gateway to be complete. These would include a logistics mission where the logistics module is co-manifested with a robotic arm and a final mission to launch the crew airlock. There seems to be some confusion due to the fact that the Gateway now has two airlocks. There is a science airlock which is part of ESPRIT as well as the crew airlock. Those are shown to be distinct in the info-graphic here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasas-exploration-campaign-back-to-the-moon-and-on-to-mars . In the Block 1B configuration, SLS has the capability to launch a ≤10mT payload co-manifested with Orion to Gateway's L₂ Southern NRHO. Launching ESPRIT, U.S. Utilization Module, Orion and the crew airlock on a single EM would be outside both mass and volume constraints.

I would request we revert all of the revisions in the 11:55, 18 September 2018‎ edit until those can be substantiated.

With everything we know the correct order of the Exploration Missions up to the completion of the Gateway currently stand as follows:

• EM-1: Orion Capsule around the moon with 13 CubeSats
• EM-2: First crewed Orion Capsule and ICPS sent on free-return trajectory around the moon
• EM-3: Delivery of ESPRIT and U.S. Utilization module to LOP-G
• EM-4: Delivery of International Partner Habitat to LOP-G
• EM-5: Delivery of U.S. Habitat to LOP-G
• EM-6: Delivery of Logistics module co-manifested with robotic arm to LOP-G
• EM-7: Delivery of crew airlock to LOP-G

24.22.169.89 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Pseismic

Just a comment to note that except for the PPE module, the concepts for the potential Gateway components (modules) are still in flux, and so are the tentative launches and dates. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I realize the Gateway elements are in flux and that the dates are tentative. However a very well-laid-out plan was given to the NAC in early 2017 and very specific changes were then later made public. I think that until further information is made known we can conclude that the original plan plus the publicized changes are what is now in effect. If there is no further objection I will correct the inaccurate or unsubstantiated changes that were made to the Exploration Mission list. Pseismic (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am grateful you spend this time updating the proposed launch schedule. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

We might update this again as NASA is now leaning towards delegating more logistics launches to commercial providers. If I'm reading this correctly, NASA anticipates 3 logistics launches to be needed during the construction of the Gateway. The first logistics launch would include the robotic arm and they say "The first two logistics modules will likely launch on commercial rockets." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-seeks-information-for-gateway-cargo-delivery-services *edit: I've updated this now and renumbered the exploration missions to reflect the changes. Presumably SLS could be used on the 3rd supply mission (which would change the numbering again) but I don't think anyone knows for sure if that will be the case. Pseismic (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Expected delay (March 2019)

NASA 2020 Budget Proposal Targets SLS Megarocket. As far as I understand it is not final. It has the maiden flight in the "early 2020s", whatever that might mean (2022-2024?). Europa Clipper (2023) might move to a commercial launch vehicle. --mfb (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Updated Block 1 Payload Numbers

NASA has updated the payload numbers for Block 1 to 95 tons LEO, numbers in the article should be updated accordingly.

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/to-the-moon.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okan170 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done a while ago, thanks. — JFG ^talk 08:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Boeing's Web page shows no change in payload：Two capabilities: 70 metric tons and 130 metric tons of payload capacity http://www.boeing.com/space/space-launch-system/index.page#/videos/rocket-structural-engineer ——联合国军 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The 70 mT and 130 mT values are for Block 1 and Block 2 respectively, not just Block 1. These are long standing payload weights also. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Block 1 to 70 tons LEO.——联合国军 (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

So? That has not changed recently and is not new. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Changes to the Space Launch System plans

The 2020 budget proposal for NASA is calling for massive changes to the Space Launch System. First off, the Exploration Upper Stage and Block 1B has been cancelled which means that the Space Launch System will only carry the Orion Crew Capsule. This means that all elements of the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway will be launched on Commercial Rockets like the Falcon Heavy and Delta IV Heavy. Also the Space Launch System will no longer launch the Europa Clipper mission to Jupiter's moon Europa. I think this article needs to be edited to match the current plans. UnknownLegacy (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe they are actually cancelling Block 1B as that's the deep space exploration version. More like they are deferring things to future budgets. It's better to wait until the budget bill is finalized and signed before making article updates that may be undone or changed by the time the budget is actually signed. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree in that we better wait until the budgetary dance is over, signed, and the money assigned by Congress. The same with the article on the Lunar Gateway and its PPE module. Rowan Forest (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Massive rewrite in late June, 2019?

Could we have some discussion of big changes before they go in? There's been a long string of changes by 5Ept5xW in the past couple days. Despite most of the changes being described as minor, they look pretty substantiative to me. Fcrary (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

minor in that I was mostly reordering the existing work. The structure of the article was outdated. 5Ept5xW (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That's really hard to see. It looks like you are adding and deleting large blocks of text. But sometimes it looks like you're actually deleting in one edit and adding the same (or similar) text in a subsequent edit. Without descending through dozens of edits in the change logs, it's really hard to see what's being moved, deleted or added. Fcrary (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

this is a 7,000 word article. I am doing the best I can, and I would rather have a mess in the edit history than a mess in the actual article. However I will try and keep that in mind in the future. 5Ept5xW (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"Unbalanced" Tag

@Soumya-8974: What's your reasoning behind tagging the Early SLS section with the "unbalanced" tag? What, in your mind, is unbalanced in that section? - Jadebenn (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It has a slanted point of view from NASA, who always tell gospels to us. I actually want to slap the {{POV}} in the "Early SLS", but it is only used in articles. So I slapped the {{Unbalanced}} instead. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 09:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You have still not met your burden of making "clear what the neutrality issue is" (template doc, When to remove, item 2). Exactly what point(s) of view of high-quality, reliable secondary sources, about the Early SLS, do you believe are being neglected? There is also an ample Criticism of the project section included. Just having a problem with NASA is not enough (and sarcasm about "gospels" is unwarranted). JustinTime55 (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have BOLDly removed the tag, pending an explanation of what exactly the unbalanced material is. If it's reinstated, Soumya-8974, I expect to see a clear explanation on this talk page of what material in particular you believe is unbalanced. - Jadebenn (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image changed?

Sorry if this was discussed elsewhere, but I don't understand why the artist rendering of SLS in the main infobox (this image: [4]) has been replaced by a core stage construction image. I would presume that a rendition of the completed rocket at the top of the article would be more informative for readers than an in-progress construction image from the gallery. It would be appreciated if someone could fill me in, thanks! Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 02:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be @Soumya-8974: who made the change without discussion or consensus: Yes, would you care to explain yourself? Actual hardware (as that becomes available) is not always preferable to artwork. In this case I agree with Yiosie: it is more important to display in the infobox (which becomes the page's image) the entire vehicle on the pad. There is no good reason to change it to hardware until a complete vehicle on the pad is available. As a matter of fact, I just discovered that the hardware photo you substituted is already in the Gallery, therefore is redundant. I am reverting it. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What about the Orion spacecraft? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 09:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Dragonfly and other payloads should be noted for SLS

Dragonfly, NASA's drone mission to Titan, along with the Webb Telescope should be noted as notable SLS payloads. 9:23 AM mountain time, 10/29/2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.110.58.225 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The SLS has not been proposed for the Dragonfly mission (at $1B it would duplicate the capped cost), and the James Webb will launch on an Ariane 5. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible Incorrect Information about Artemis 3 on Block 1 vs Block 1B

As far as I know, NASA has only ordered 3 ICPS units, of which one is dedicated to launching Europa Clipper. Because of this, it's impossible for Artemis 3 to launch on Block 1 unless another ICPS is ordered - something that I do not believe NASA has done. In addition, Artemis 3 is pictured with an SLS Block 1B in the Artemis Mission manifest. Because of this, I believe Artemis 3 should be considered to be launching on Block 1B. Jadebenn (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It's still not settled whether Europa Clipper will fly on a SLS. So it's possible an ICPS will be available for Artemis 3. We might want to say "Block 1 or 1B", but I don't think we can just assume it will be a Block 1B. Fcrary (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't think the decision has been made either way yet. Pointing out the launch vehicle isn't clear would be an acceptable compromise in my view. - Jadebenn (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like ESD update at HEO committee today confirmed Artemis 3 would be block 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitbyte2015 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

American English but...

A recent edit added the "this article uses American English" header. That's fine with me since it is (or will be) an American launch vehicle. But associated change description objected to "test campaign" and "launch campaign", and changed "test campaign" to "test program." I'm not sure about the testing, but the set of events leading up to a launch is frequently called a "launch campaign." In the US, by NASA and by American aerospace companies. That's not a British or Commonwealth usage. Fcrary (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Campaign" is not really common wording in the US in my experience. "Test" or "test program" are more commonly used for testing in the US. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Campaign" is commonly used in the United States. For example, election campaigns, advertising campaigns, military campaigns and (if you are a scientist) observing campaigns. It's not a word most people hear on a day-to-day basis, but many words in American English are not. When's the last time you heard someone speak the word, "flange"? As for tests, I said I wasn't sure about that one. I don't believe I've ever heard someone use the term "test campaign." But "launch campaign"? Yes, that is the term used by Americans who get a rocket ready for launch. Fcrary (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, campaign is commonly used in politics, but that's a different context altogether. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

??? Since when has NASA used "launch campaign"? According to space vehicle launch preparation, the term is used by the ESA and evidently came from Europe. It seems to be a neologistic fad by Americans who want to sound continental; it totally goes against traditional American usage. And I never heard "test campaign" until I saw it in this article.

It is not in Merriam Webster; a google search for "launch campaign" hits more conventional usage in the context of product marketing (with ambiguous use of "launch" to refer to the introduction of new product). Do you have any RS which proves it's acceptable American usage? JustinTime55 (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

If you make your Google search a little less ambiguous, you'd get a different result. Try "rocket launch campaign." The first result that gives me is a ULA web page, "ABOUT THE INTERN ROCKET PROGRAM ... The Student Rocket Launch simulates a real launch campaign so the interns can experience..." The second is an ESA web page. The third is a spaceflightnow.com story, dated November 17, 2019, titled, "ULA kicks off next Delta 4-Heavy launch campaign." The fourth is also spaceflightnow.com, August 16, 2018, "Tanking test marks resumption of Delta 2 rocket’s final launch campaign" The next is an Ars Technica story from September, 2019, which also used the term "launch campaign." And, although personal knowledge isn't citable, I worked on the Deep Space One, Juno and MAVEN missions at the time of launch. In all three cases, the launch service provider (Boeing, ULA and ULA, respectively) called the activities leading up to launch a "launch campaign."

Webster's isn't really the best place to look for technical terminology, and the simple fact that you haven't, personally, hear the term doesn't mean it's not American English. The space vehicle launch preparation article is a stub, with only one reference. And all that reference shows is that ESA uses the term (also) and that Arianespace can do two launch campaigns in parallel at Guyana. Fcrary (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Developments beyond block 2

Have there been any proposed developments beyond block 2 - eg a wider payload fairing (more than 8.4m) ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Not likely since Block 2 has been put on hold or deferred. The focus has been Block 1 and 1B to date, along with the boosters replacement/upgrade (BOLE). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that BOLE IS Block II when you do the math. They don't call it Block II to avoid being forced to meet Block II performance, so BOLE can be 1-2mT to TLI less (the Advanced Boosters may not have sufficient capacity improvements). There were proposals for a 5-engined core SLS and J-2X EUS that could improve performance further, as well as Liquid Boosters, but those are as likely as they were for the Shuttle at this point. Fredinno (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"Space launch system" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Space launch system. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Space Launch System Solid Rocket Booster" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Space Launch System Solid Rocket Booster. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

@McSly and Materialscientist: I'm thinking we should request some form of page protection from the admins to put an end to these edit wars. This is getting tiring. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As for Moamem, please do not continue to edit war without attempting to find consensus on this talk page first. You may be found in violation of Wikipedia policy on edit warring and blocked from editing the page. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 09:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@McSly, Materialscientist, and Jadebenn: Two separate question here, Program Cost and Launch Cost :
A) Program cost :

1. Your source is a random website spaceflightnow.com, that has no more authority than anyone else. My source is the White House budget.
2. Your source says "NASA has spent more than $15 billion on developing the Space Launch System since 2011." which seems like a ballpark figure that looks suspiciously like the figure from last year from this same page. It was $15 billions in 2019, we are now in 2020.
3. The figure I gave is the exact one from the Funding History" section. So if the figure here is false, so should be the one in funding history.
4. I originally wanted to mention the nominal and actualized figures but a member thought it was "not constructive". I disagree but as a compromise I only published the nominal figure.
5. There is really no debate here, we have the exact budget to the $100k precision we do not need to go to some random source. the cost of the program until 2020 is $18647.9 million. It's a fact.

B) Launch cost :

• You have 4 sources :

1. A Youtube video where NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine says and I quote : "In the end we're gonna be in the 800 million to the 900 million dollars, I dont know honestely", This is hardly a "source".
2. An OIG report saying and I quote "NASA officials estimate the third SLS Block 1 launch vehicle’s marginal cost will be at least $876 million". The relevant word being "Marginal cost". Which is not what we're talking about here. We're talking launch cost which includes fixed cost. If you want to mention a marginal cost of "at least $900 millions" I see no issue with that. But that should be a separate line.
3. The 3rd source is simply not working, maybe a mistake?
4. The last source is an outlier, with an ridiculous $500 millions. "The launch cost ($500M for the SLS launch vehicle, as advised by NASA Headquarters) is also included". Does not seem very robust assertion with all the incentives in the world to downplay the costs to get the program funded. Even NASA is not pretending this figure is remotely credible. Should not even be considered.

To reiterate 1) I don't know. 2) Marginal cost > $900 million. 3) Nothing. 4) A source with incentives to downplay the cost being a surprising outlier.

My source is from the White House OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET : "OMB's most prominent function is to produce the President's Budget, but OMB also measures the quality of agency programs, policies, and procedures to see if they comply with the president's policies and coordinates inter-agency policy initiatives." This seems to be the most reliable and fair source short of an OIG report. Here is the exact quote " At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete"

Jadebenn please stop this ridiculous SLS apologetics all over the internet, it's tiring. - Moamem (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: The third source should work fine. I'll have to investigate that later. For reference, it's another NASA decadal project budgeting either $600M or $750M (I can't recall which) for the SLS launch cost, which is quite consistent with both the $500M cited in the other decadal project and the $875M cited in the OIG report on Europa Clipper, which is itself consistent with NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine's remarks.

So that's all four of those sources in agreement versus your one offhand mention in a policy document, which, by the way, as broken down in a NASA teleconference, was arrived at by taking the yearly costs of the entire SLS program and a launch. We have a category for that: That's the yearly cost. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: Also, third source is fixed now. Had forgotten some quotation marks. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:

1. You have absolutely not addressed the Program Cost, if you still don't I'll take it as an agreement.
2. No your numbers do absolutely not agree : 1st) "$800 mil to 900 mill, I don't know honestly" 2nd) Marginal cost over $876 millions 3rd) still not working 4th) $500 mil. How con you pretend they agree?
3. The OIG report is saying "NASA officials estimate the third SLS Block 1 launch vehicle’s marginal cost will be at least $876 million". Marginal cost is not the question here. And even this number is according to NASA estimates.
4. You do not have multiple sources. This is just one source NASA. From multiple documents.
5. OMB is a more impartial source. And no it does not include the development cost because it specifically says : "once development is complete"
6. If SLS launches once a year then the launch cost is equal the yearly cost (excluding development cost). I don't know what was said at this conference but what's your issue here?

Again I want to reiterate that Jadebenn is a famous SLS advocate all over the internet. He notably moderates SLS and Artemis program subs on Reddit. Trying to paint me as going against some sort of "consensus" is dishonest but not surprising. You are not a neutral party here. You are involved with this project. - Moamem (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A "famous" SLS advocate? That's a stretch and a half. By that token, you yourself are a "famous" SLS opponent. Please refer to Wikipedia:An interest is not a conflict of interest. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:Since you didn't address my first point, and that one is kind of obvious, I'm going to assume that we are in agreement here.

As for the rest I provide you with a multi hundred words, numbered argument and you respond with a one liner that does not a address any of the points. Please address every point separately.Moamem (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: Because I addressed them already. That's not launch costs. It's yearly costs. I have four estimates for launch cost, you just don't like them because you want to put a bigger number there. The current cost-per-year vs. cost-per-launch compromise came about in order to address both points. You want to essentially remove one metric entirely.

In addition, I would like to point out you committed a violation of WP:3RR. As I'm assuming good faith, it's likely you just were unaware of the policy. However, now that you are aware, I would advise you think very long and hard before making any future reverts to this page. If you continue to edit war after this point, be aware that the admins may deem that behavior grounds for a page block. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:I did not brake the rule, but good trolling you made me doubt myself. On the other hand you are one edit away from breaking the rule yourself. But this bickering is irrelevant, you did not address my points. please do!

So let's take it one at a time : The 1st reference is A Youtube video where NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine says and I quote : "In the end we're gonna be in the 800 million to the 900 million dollars, I don't know honestly", This is hardly a "source". Can we agree on that? Moamem (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: To echo McSly: "you seem to confuse not knowing everything about future cost with knowing nothing about future cost. Those are not the same thing."

It's a weak citation by itself, but I believe it's still relevant, especially when taken with the other three citations referenced. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: Your 3rd source is even less relevant, it only says : "The launch vehicle costs of $650M FY20 ($925M RY) for the SLS Block 1B and $300M FY20 ($429M RY) for the Falcon Heavy were assumed.". This number is an assumption as it says in your reference! - Moamem (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a price estimate for a future mission in the planning and formulation stage is a price estimate. That tends to be how these things work. Similarly, if this mission were to go on Delta IV, Falcon Heavy, or Atlas V, the project would contain a price estimate for those rockets. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:I wonder if you even read my comments. This not a price estimate. This is an assumption, which by definition does not have to be proven : "The launch vehicle costs of $650M FY20 ($925M RY) for the SLS Block 1B and $300M FY20 ($429M RY) for the Falcon Heavy were assumed."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moamem (talk • contribs) 01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: If I plan a mission for an Delta IV Heavy, I will assume a launch cost of roughly $400M. Until the contract's been inked and the flight's actually on the manifest, the price is an assumption. That doesn't mean it's not a good ballpark range for what it'll actually cost. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:I'll get back to this, since I want to take one reference at a time. Is it ok if I delete this branch of the conversation, or you can do it.Moamem (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: You are not supposed to delete conversations on talk pages except in extreme circumstances. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 12:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: I believe there was a misunderstanding. I reverted this edit because you included a web citation to Wikipedia itself. You can't do that. Your most recent edit seems fine.

I realize there's bad blood between us, but can you please attempt to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy before assuming I'm out to get you? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 12:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Mass Off-Site Canvassing

@PhilipTerryGraham, CRS-20, Gopher65, JustinTime55, LoganBlade, and McSly: It appears Moamem has been canvassing since May 28th over on (Redacted). At this time, the thread has 1547 views and 18 replies. I'm fairly sure that's a violation of the stealth canvassing policy, but I have no idea what to do in this situation. Advice? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ban him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 06:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Or, if this the only instance that has been brought up in regards to this editor, point out "Hey, don't do that, please. (Wikipedia:Canvassing#How_to_respond_to_canvassing)" There's probably some template that could be put on this talkpage, as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: "I could really use someone to help making this contributor see reason!" ...yep, this is straight-up textbook canvassing. I'm not an admin, but the least I can do is slap a warning on Moamem's talk page, which is what I've gone ahead and done. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 11:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Hi, I was not aware of this anti canvasing rule but I know anti brigading rules on other platform. And I tried to stay away from that. I posted not on some anti-SLS platform but on the (Redacted) which is to my knowledge the biggest platform for space enthusiasts on the internet of which Jadebenn is also a very prolific member (I actually expected him to participate in this debate). My presentation was very fair IMO tho in a subsequent message ONE sentence was poorly phrased I admit. I present His arguments (fairly) and my arguments and my conclusion was as follows : "I am interested in arguments and references for the SLS launch cost (either way). I know that we do not have (and probably never will) a precise cost for SLS but I think we can have a better approximation than the one on Wikipedia : Adding the contracts already signed, Government estimates from the IOG or the OMB...".

I would like to add That I did also solicit 11 contributors active is space articles to participate to the debate with no results :

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soumya-8974

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yul_B._Allwright
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CRS-20
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JHunterJ
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ionmars10
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PhilipTerryGraham
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sovxx
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jarrod_Baniqued
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blainster
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LoganBlade
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:N2e

Frustrated with the lack of interest and the dismissive attitude Jadebenn that considered his position as a defacto baseline for this article, some not so kind words might have slipped my fingertips. I don't think its fair to call it "MASS Off-Site Canvassing". It was one post on the biggest forum on the subject that was quite fair with one out of line phrase over maybe 40 or 50.

I do admit my error tho and will try to avoid it next time. But just to be clear is the problem getting input from outside platforms or my (single) poorly worded phrase? - Moamem (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: It's the poorly worded phrasing, mostly. When requesting for input from others, always be neutral and don't call upon people to specifically support you. We'd highly encourage phrasing such as "Well you can also participate on the SLS Wiki Talk page here", which is what you wrote earlier in the thread, and highly discourage phrasing such as "I could really use someone to help making this contributor see reason!", which is what we took issue with. I mentioned this on your talk page, but I think it would be better if I said it to the both of you here... Moamem, you should be talking less about Jadebenn, and Jadebenn, you should be talking less about Moamem, and you both should be talking more about the cost of SLS and how it should be represented in this article. A civil debate cannot take place if you people are more interested in being angry at each other than actually discussing the issue at hand. I don't care of one of you is being more uncivil than the other, one of you at least has to be the better participant and not stoop down to the other's level. You both had been slapped with a warning by an administrator, and there's a reason for that. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I've been trying to take that advice since I got slapped down after the edit warring debacle. I know we don't interact much, but I believe you've seen me working fairly often on space articles in this section (I remember you from some previous discussions), so I hope you understand this is not my usual behavior. I've never quite had to deal with a situation like this, and it's been getting to me.

I'm currently attempting to follow WP:DISENGAGE and take a longer-term view of the situation, as my issue with the edit war was that my actions inflamed the situation and caused it to turn into a battle of "he started it!"

Anyway, I believe we've both decided to accept Eggsaladsandwich's compromise proposal in the section above, so if you'd like to make the appropriate edit I'd greatly appreciate it. I really don't want to touch that figure and risk somehow causing another conflict. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I saw Moamem's post on nasaspaceflight.com. It reminded me of similar discussions about the Shuttle's cost per launch, and that's why I came to this page. Hopefully I've done more good than harm. Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: You were warned to not conduct off-site canvassing last month. Could you please explain (Redacted) – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: No, I was told that posting on other platforms was totally fine. The problem was with a single phrase I used that was deemed charged. I tried to be as neutral as possible in my wording. I literally pinged you on my posts so there is no sneaking around on my part. If you think any wording is inappropriate I'm open to changing it. I went off site because not that many people seem interested in our conversation on Wikipedia so going to other platforms for input seemed appropriate. It seems that you don't want people to actually participate in this conversation, otherwise what is your problem? - Moamem (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I could use your advice here. Not sure what should be done in the case of repeated off-site canvassing. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC) – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:What is you problem with going offsite for input? It's allowed! - Moamem (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham, CRS-20, Gopher65, JustinTime55, LoganBlade, and McSly: Okay, it's worse than I thought. Moamem didn't make one post on (Redacted), he made five.

• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)

Already we're having IPs change the figure while bypassing the RfC and consensus-building process. As Moamem was warned against off-site canvassing last month, I find it hard to believe this was done in good faith. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:I specifically asked PhilipTerryGraham if I was not allowed to request input offsite and his answer was "It's the poorly worded phrasing, mostly. When requesting for input from others, always be neutral and don't call upon people to specifically support you.". Now unless you have an issue with the wording (where I'm open to accommodate you) please quit whining and trying to play the referee! - Moamem (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Like on (Redacted) you're acting like a dictator. You don't want people to participate in this conversation because you know your position is untenable. I'm glad Moamem made his post so we're aware of what you're doing here. The posts were very fair and informative like he used to do on the sub before you unjustly banned him agains our whiches. This is not cool Zegfred (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Zegfred, but it's not relevant to my belief that Moamem has committed a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Canvassing. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zegfred:Thanks man! Moamem (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

The post he made was balanced. What are you complaining about? That you're not controlling what is been said? If you had an once of impartiality you would have posted about this on the SLS sub a long time ago. A lot of us would be interested in this discussion. But you only interested in making SLS look good as usual. Zegfred (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

program and launch cost estimates

I'm not sure what motivated Jadebenn's undo but it if it is his position that the cost estimates I edited were unreasonable then it is worth open discussion. So the previous estimates of cost $800 to 900 million are quite low by most sources. Even parts of NASA and the OIG in particular have said that the costs per launch will exceed $2 billion. The expenditures so far are fairly clear even if nasa tried to obfuscate the total costs by removing the cost of the boosters from the program costs. If we include all of the costs for the parts of the launch vehicle that are required to get payload to orbit(boosters, engines, tanks...), then we are at approximately $19 billion so far. Program costs have exceeded 2 billion for the past 4 years but using 2 billion per year for the next decade is a reasonable conservative estimate. That gives us a lowball estimate for the program of $39 billion by 2030. Production is currently 1 per year and while efforts are being made to increase that to two per year, NASA is openly skeptical that this will happen in the next 4 years. If the production rate continues then we will have 10 launches or less by 2030. Simple math puts the amortized cost per launch at 3.9 billion across that span. As cheaper launch options from ULA, SpaceX and BO come online over the next decade, SLS will be increasingly hard to justify. If these assumptions or any of the material I'm basing them on are incorrect I would like to hear an explanation. My goal here is accurate reporting and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandowTheHeretic (talk • contribs) 17:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You can claim that NASA is attempting to obfuscate the costs, but the OIG has no motive to do as you say. In addition, the ~$900M appears on large amounts of NASA literature. The 2020 decadal projects use it when budgeting for a launch on SLS. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean that figure is straight from the NASA OIG. It's in the Europa Clipper report. SLS is $875M per launch. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

First, none of the references you list support your numbers at all. A quote from Bridenstine saying,"Honestly I don't know" makes his 800 or 900 million guess an entirely useless reference. Literally every other source says that the actual cost per rocket not including development costs is likely to be over 2 billion. Second, it was the OIG report from 3-10-20 that points out that NASA tried to hide the SLS program costs by moving the budget for the boosters off of the rest of the project cost. We know the the RS25s are around 145 million each now so 4 of them gets us to 580 million. The best estimate for the booster cost I could find is 109 million per launch without including the development. A RL-10 is 38 million so that gets us to 727 million without including ANY of the work done by Boeing who is the primary contractor. The OMB estimate from 10-23-19 puts the cost per launch at over 2 billion which clearly does not include the development costs either since then we are back to 3.9 billion. Can we agree on a range with the most optimistic and realistic total costs? If the production rate is doubled in 4 years which is the best case scenario then the to cost per launch until 2030 drops to 2.4 billion. Is a range then of 2.4 to 3.9 billion reasonable? Also, I'm willing to concede that the 19 billion includes some future spending and that 17.4 billion is a more reasonable current cost? If you object to these figure, please include sources that actually support your numbers SandowTheHeretic (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have three citations supporting that figure. You, on the other hand, are synthesizing figures from combinations of others. Not only does this violate wikipedia policy on original research, it's wrong. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

considering the costs in different ways, we get some insight into what the "Activity" is costing. Cash is a reality and commercial firms live that. In the Public sector budget is the reality, but where the budget is, is always a challenge. NASA engaged in significant budget analysis to determine the cost of the Shuttle and used to typically look at it from a "DDTE", Program cost per year, Marginal cost basis. The Space Shuttle was a significant DDTE cost to get the design closed, the first hull built and the first test flights, then there were the average costs which included the standing army divided over the flights in that year and finally the marginal cost. There were one or two flights where the vehicle didn't need reconfiguration and flew at the marginal cost (2 SRBs, 1 ET, A load of propellant and a month of ground prep.) Marginal cost gave you some insight into reflights or additional flights of the same payload (Spacelab, BBXRT, SpaceHab, ISS Logistics), but average cost told you what the sustaining program was really costing and what made sense from a policy POV. The classic case is do you compare a C-5 or C-17 in cost to a FedEx or AtlasAir. FedEx commercial rates are their published rates. So to look at something like the C-5, it's common to figure out either the DDTE or 1st unit cost, then look at the average annual cost divided per aircraft, then look at the average annual cost divided by the actual flight hours, then look at the marginal cost. Marginal costs are useful for figuring out the cost of committing one flight hour and often used to bill other agencies, but rarely useful for figuring out the program costs. An excellent example is Air Force One. There was the program cost to rig the plane with the special White House additions, then the average annual cost to hangar it at Andrews and keep the special systems up, then the marginal cost for one little flight. The White budgets the annual cost via the USAF, but the marginal cost is billed to the campaign when the president does a political rally. So at any rate in any discussion of SLS, look at other past flights systems (Apollo, Shuttle) and look at accounting of Military systems (c-5, C-17,AF-1) and then look at commercial services ( Ariane, ULA, SpaceX,Fedex, AirCargo, Commercial) and assess the relative costs in cash and accounting systems. --Patbahn (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs)

Bridenstine says $800M to $900M, the decadal project I added has budgeted ~$600M (that is the most clear-cut launch cost you'll ever get), another decadal project estimates $500M, and the NASA OIG says $875M. Those are better sources than yours. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 21:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Bridenstine says, "In the end I think we are going to be in the $800M to $900M range. I don't know honestly." So he admits on the spot that that number has no basis in reality, so that reference is garbage. The Spaceflightnow article says, "NASA has spent more than $15 billion on developing the Space Launch System since 2011." So we know that it is a number greater than $15 billion and nothing else. The 500 million figure from the Origins doc is frankly unbelievable since you couldn't even get the RS25s for that much. This is especially true if we include the initial costs of the 16 shuttle engines which comes to $640 in unadjusted dollars. EUS needed for it also adds 114 million just in the additional RL-10s. That means that for just the engines and boosters for a block 1B, the cost is 841 million. That doesn't include the tanks, the construction, the development, the ground crew or any of the facilities. 500 million is either a typo or a deliberate underestimate. In March of 2019 Brian Dewhurst (Nasa senior budget analyst) said the SLS cost was $1,775 million not including ground services. In February of 2020 he revised that up to 2 billion going on to say that that is what they are spending per year and the expect to be able to launch one per year. The White House OMB agrees with this cost estimate and commented “At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete, the use of a commercial launch vehicle would provide over $1.5 billion in cost savings,” in regards to the Europa Clipper. So we have a member of NASA and and a White House advisor who both end up in the same ballpark on SLS launch costs which is a number vastly higher then the flat out lies you are trying to prop up as legit numbers.SandowTheHeretic (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@SandowTheHeretic: you seem to be doing a lot of your personal interpretations of the sources as well as quite a bit of synthesis. This is not allowed on wikipedia (see WP:OR.) And on your intepretation of what Bridenstine said, you seem to confuse not knowing everything about future cost with knowing nothing about future cost. Those are not the same thing. --McSly (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@SandowTheHeretic: To clarify, you ought to be looking at the cost per-year category if you're looking at the total programmatic costs at a certain cadence. The cost per-launch is simply the cost to build and launch a single SLS. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 21:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)