Space Launch System is currently a Physics and astronomy good article nominee. Nominated by Leijurv (talk) at 02:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.
Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 365 days
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
"world's highest-ever total thrust at launch" disputed
First of all, The N1 (rocket) had a significantly higher thrust at liftoff with a total of 45,150 kN compared to SLS's 39,440ish kN
Second, the 5-segment booster's listed thrust seems(?) wrong. The best citation I could find for it (an Orbital ATK fact sheet from December 2017) says the booster has a maximum thrust (which I would think means Vacuum) of 3,600,000 lbf (16,000 kN). The 4-segment SRBs used for the shuttle had a 2,700 kN difference between their Sea Level thrust of 12,000 kN and their vacuum thrust of 14,700 kN. If the SLS SRBs have a similar thrust downgrade (down to ~13,300,000 kN but I cannot find a good source for their sea level thrust), then the Sea Level Thrust of Boosters+Core would be 34,040 kN. This is less than the sea level thrust of Energia, 34,800 kN. This would give the SLS Block 1/1B the 3rd highest-ever total thrust at liftoff for all flown rockets, or 2nd highest for rockets that successfully delivered payloads to orbit.
Of course, NASA may have simply forgotten about Energia and the N1 when they claim it is the most powerful rocket (it certainly has the highest thrust of any American Rocket or Rocket currently(ish) flying). Or they may already be thinking about Block 2, whose boosters may surpass the Energia or even (though Unlikely) the N1.The.dad.drew (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The.dad.drew: I think you're working off a bad assumption in regards to SRB thrust ASL being lower than thrust in vacuum. Everything I've seen suggests the opposite is true.
The N1 is probably being excluded due to the lack of successful launches. Kinda like how the old 4-segment SRBs aren't the most powerful SRBs ever built, just the most powerful to actually fly. – Jadebenn (talk·contribs·subpages) 02:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jadebenn: For one thing, no, all rocket engines produce a lower thrust at sea level than in vacuum, you literally have to subtract off ambient pressure as one of the terms of the rocket thrust equation. But I have found a good source for the thrust of the SLS 5-segment SRBs, a NASA Technical report about the SLS Booster Development. 3.6 Million lbf is indeed its vacuum thrust, with a Sea Level thrust of 3.28 Million lbf. This is marginally more powerful than the Energia, and so I will concede that the SLS will be the most powerful rocket to successfully deliver payload to orbit. The.dad.drew (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. It appears that NASA is saying that the SLS Block 2 will have a higher total payload to LEO than any rocket ever built up to the time of the claim in 2017. That's all well and good, but the first launch is Block 1 and it hasn't happened yet, Block 1 is less capable than Saturn V, Block 2 won't launch until after 2024, and SpaceX Starship is supposed to launch at about the same time as Artemis 1. This means that there is a very high probability that SLS will never have the "highest-ever total payload to LEO" as (sort of) implied in the lede. I think we should just remove the statement from the lede completely, as it will be too hard to replace it with something that is both truthful and concise. A discussion of the nuances could be added later in the article, probably in the "criticisms" section. -Arch dude (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I simplified the statement by just comparing to Saturn V and removing "highest-ever". Feel free to add a new comparison section later in the article.-Arch dude (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Funding history section
Thanks so much to the editors who have worked to create a clear section on the large amount of public funding that has gone into the development of this heavy launch vehicle over its 11 year history to date! This is exactly what encyclopedias can, and should, do well! ... and is not easy to cover thoroughly, including how the optimistic estimates meet with actual reality in these sorts of government cost-plus funded procurement and development contracts, in tradition media articles that cover the space.
This well-sourced article section on Wikipedia is now the go to place for an accurate summary of rocket development funding for SLS. N2e (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite of paragraph in funding history
I'd like to rewrite this bit:
There are no current NASA estimates for the average costs per flight of SLS, nor for the SLS program recurring yearly costs once operational. In 2016, the projected annual cost for Orion, SLS, and ground systems was US$2 billion or less.[102] NASA associate administrator William H. Gerstenmaier has said that per flight cost estimates will not be provided by NASA.[103] In May 2019, NASA's Office of Audits reported that the SLS Block 1's marginal cost per launch is to be at least US$876 million.[104] By comparison, a Saturn V launch cost roughly $1.23 billion in 2016 dollars.[105][106] A letter from the White House to the Senate Appropriations Committee revealed that the SLS's cost per launch is estimated at "over US$2 billion" after development.[107] NASA did not deny this cost and an agency spokesperson stated it "is working to bring down the cost of a single SLS launch in a given year as the agency continues negotiations with Boeing on the long-term production contract and efforts to finalize contracts and costs for other elements of the rocket".[108]
I talked about this way back in July (#Coverage of Cost in the Article Itself) but it's probably time to get back to it for real. I'd like to add some analysis (sourced analysis; don't worry) on what's really going on - why there are wildly different numbers from different sources.
I plan to use Space_Shuttle#Budget as a model, because it's a featured article, and because that paragraph actually makes cohesive sense, and isn't just a list of people that disagree with each other on how much the Space Shuttle costs.
Here's a first stab at it (only put in a few sources, will add more after some editing):
There are no NASA estimates for how much SLS will cost per launch, nor for the SLS program recurring yearly costs once operational. Cost per launch is not a straightforward figure to estimate as it depends heavily on how many launches occur per year. For example, similarly, the Space Shuttle would have cost $576 million per launch at 7 launches per year, but the cost of adding a single additional launch in a given year was determined to be just $252 million of marginal cost. However, at the rate that it actually flew, the cost in the end was $1.64 billion per Space Shuttle launch, including development.[1]: III−490
NASA associate administrator William H. Gerstenmaier has said that there will be no official per flight cost estimates of any variety provided by NASA for SLS.[2]
Several internal NASA programs and project concept study reports have released proposed budgets that include future SLS launches. For example, a concept study report for a space telescope that would launch in 2035 was advised by NASA HQ in 2019 to budget $500 million for an SLS launch.[3] Another study also proposing a space telescope, also scheduled for a "mid-2030s" launch, budgeted $650 million for their launch.[4]
Europa Clipper is a scientific mission that was required by Congress to launch on the SLS. Oversight bodies both internal and external to NASA disagreed with this requirement. First, NASA's Inspector General office published a report in May 2019 about this requirement.[5][6] It said that Europa Clipper would need to give up $876 million for the "marginal cost" of its SLS launch. Then, an addendum to the letter, published in August 2019, increased this estimate and stated that switching to a commercial rocket would actually save over $1 billion, although this savings may have included a portion of costs related to the delay in launch schedule. A JCL analysis cited in that letter put the cost savings at $700 million, with SLS at $1.05 billion and the alternative at $350 million.[7][8] Finally, a letter from the White House Office of Management and Budget to the Senate Appropriations Committee revealed in October 2019 that the SLS's total cost to the taxpayer per launch is estimated at "over US$2 billion" after development is complete (program development has cost $20 billion to date in 2020 dollars). The letter urged Congress to remove this requirement, in agreement with the NASA Inspector General, adding that using a commercial launch vehicle for Europa Clipper instead of SLS would save $1.5 billion overall.
NASA did not deny this $2 billion cost of launch and an agency spokesperson stated it "is working to bring down the cost of a single SLS launch in a given year as the agency continues negotiations with Boeing on the long-term production contract and efforts to finalize contracts and costs for other elements of the rocket". This White House figure depended on the rate of construction, so building more SLS rockets faster would decrease the per-unit cost[9] (for example, Exploration Ground Systems (whose only role is to support, assemble, integrate, and launch SLS) has separately budgeted fixed costs of $600 million per year on facilities, spread across however many rockets launch that year). Jim Bridenstine then shared informally that he disagrees with the $2B figure since the marginal cost of an SLS launch should decrease after the first few, and is expected to end up around $800M to $900M, though negotiations were only just beginning for the later cores.[10]
^"I do not agree with the $2B number, it is far less than that. I would also say that the number comes way down when you buy more than one or two. And so I think at the end we're going to be in the $800M to $900M range - I don't know, honestly. We've recently just begun negotiations on what number three through whatever - we don't have to buy any quite frankly, but we intend to. But we're looking at what we could negotiate to get the best price for the American taxpayper, which is my obligation as the head of NASA."
There's a first pass at it. I erred on the side of including too much rather than too little. Perhaps the two internal studies are too unreliable to cite even descriptively like that. Perhaps we don't need the entire story of the Europa Clipper cost estimates. But for better or for worse, I managed to include every source that was originally in the infobox and added explanations for each. Also, in the case of any contradiction between what I say now and what I said back in July, I defer to my past self, because I'm just skimming now things I read in depth & wrote back then lol
I don't think There are no NASA estimates for how much SLS will cost per launch, nor for the SLS program recurring yearly costs once operational. is true. I think it'd be more accurate to say: There are multiple, conflicting NASA estimates for how much SLS will cost per launch and for SLS program recurring yearly costs.
If we're presenting the information this way, I would also not use the term "marginal cost" when referencing the Clipper report, unless it's stated in the context that this is a reasonable assumption based on the context of the figure. Otherwise it gives the impression the report itself says that when the reality is a bit... unclear.
I don't think ... is true Well it's currently written in the article (There are no current NASA estimates for the average costs per flight of SLS, nor for the SLS program recurring yearly costs once operational.) I thought the problem was that all the numbers we have are indirect NASA estimates, nothing in any official capacity and nothing from the actual "SLS team". As in, they are not claiming any specific cost publicly as "The Cost", and Gersteinmaier said that they won't ever. Perhaps it would make more sense as "There are no current official NASA estimates"? In the context of what I wrote up there, I think replacing the Saturn V comparison with a Space Shuttle comparison is better (and more honest tbh) because the Space Shuttle has a clear example of the cost of adding one more launch in a given year (0.25 billion) versus the actual cost of launch in the end (1.6 billion) being two very different figures so it will help the reader understand why there are such different numbers being thrown around by different parties. If we add the context that NASA is not committing to Any Specific Number then I think that will help hold the reader's hand through why the next few paragraphs are so wacky.
Otherwise it gives the impression the report itself says that It does though, see here document page 18 / PDF page 24, second paragraph: NASA officials estimate the third SLS Block 1 launch vehicle’s marginal cost will beat least $876 million while commercial launch vehicle costs are estimated to be approximately $450 million (see Table 3). So I think this does make sense. Leijurv (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the first issue is already in the article and just needs tweaked wording, and the second is a direct quote from the source, I might just add this to the article and then it could be tweaked further in main space? Leijurv (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I can see a few tweaks, and the need for citations, but overall, is a good attempt at improving the Wikipedia explication of an important and notable topic. I'll take a look at it in the article space. N2e (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@N2e: About the two remaining clarification tags, I'm not really sure how to address them: {{clarify|was the "study" advised by NASA to do ...? or did the "study" just point out that some group was advised by NASA to ...? }} and {{clarify|does the study show what sort of estimates on annual flight rate NASA was assuming in providing those per flight numbers to a potential payload user?}} The citation has the quote right there. It's just "The launch cost ($500M for the SLS launch vehicle, as advised by NASA Headquarters) is also included." on page 281. That's all the information there; they say they were advised and that that's the cost. I'm not sure what else I could say. Leijurv (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@StarshipSLS: What do you think about maybe putting your table in Artemis 1 instead? I feel like that article is the place to go into detail about this specific booster, while this article is more for general information about the rocket. And I'm not just referring to the table but also to some or all of the paragraph right before it. Leijurv (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify where in the MOS you are referring to, regarding these changes? When I look at
MOS:UNITS
I see In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary (pounds, miles, feet, inches, etc.) This article is, however, fairly plainly a scientific article. However, later on, it says or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic. Related to this idea of matching the source, the next bullet point:
I would prefer if we stuck with the cited numbers (e.g. 101,400 lbs), but used the convert template to display to the reader something in the desired units. Is this possible using that template? The reason is that while
WP:V
) if the number directly matches the cited source in both quantity and unit.
For example: you changed {{cvt|101400|lbs}} to {{cvt| 46| t| lb}}. This changed the visual outcome to the reader from Block 2 Cargo: > 101,400 lb (46,000 kg) to Block 2 Cargo: > 46 t (101,000 lb). The cited source says SLS Block 2 will be designed to lift more than 46 t (101,400 lbs.) to deep space. Perhaps we should instead have {{cvt|101400|lbs|t|0}} which renders visually as 101,400 lb (46 t)? I would prefer that since then both numbers match the source, both 101400 and 46, as opposed to 46 matching the source, and 101000 not matching 101400.
To maintain a consistency between numerous launch vehicles, we need a standard template, but of course to include Metric as well as Imperial to make it readable to both the parties
In both the cited source you mentioned (nasa.gov) pages, they had given Metric unit tonne in primary and given lb in bracket, so I don't think there is any confusion there
But to your point, as we are losing on the specifics, I will modify the convert template to feed in the accurate decimal value for tonne in primary unit, which will resolve to specific lb
I think simpler approach is to use {{Cvt}} with order=flip which will retain the original value as well as change the primary unit to Metric according to MOS Chandraprakash (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Proof for Citation reference nasa.gov using Metric as primary unit.
@Frozenprakash: Whoa, you shouldn't upload images like that. While you can upload it in this case due to commons:Template:PD-NASA, you certainly shouldn't have marked it as "own work" or set your own copyright license. I would recommend marking them with commons:COM:GCSD#G7.
Sounds good, makes sense to have the more accurate figure with |0 and order=flip as needed. I still see a number of changes though when I compare the revisions: [4]. What is the reason for those? For example, I picked a random one: there's | length = {{cvt|177|ft|m}} which was changed to 54 meters. This is wrong for the same reason; the cited source says 177 feet. So it should convert from 177 feet into meters, instead of the other way around. If you want to flip the order per MOS, just add the order flip option, don't change the source unit. It seems to me like all of these changes should be reverted to the original values, but with a few units changed or order=flip added... Or is there something I'm missing? Leijurv (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checking back in @Frozenprakash:, are you down to make those changes? I don't particularly want to sort through all the edits you made and the newer ones since then updating unit figures. But I see you did not edit since June 23 and you say you were going to make an update ^ on June 27. I believe the issue is mostly still present, even though some other editors have updated some of the figures?
Also you really should mark those two Commons screenshots for deletion. They are copyright violations because they are not your own work, they are screenshots from NASA's website. It has been more than a week so my earlier suggestion to mark them as commons:COM:GCSD#G7 is no longer on the table. You should clear up the copyright status by correcting it away from "Own work", which it isn't, and determining whether the images are allowed on commons. If they are actually free images, mark them as such (something valid other than "own work"), and if they are not, mark them as commons:COM:CSD#F1 (or I will soon). Leijurv (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Planned timeline?
I think this article needs some sort of description of NASA's future development and launch timeline. The article does not appear to discuss when the first Block 1B will launch or when the first Block 2 will launch. This is particularly important (to me, at least) to a reader's understanding of the the capabilities of the system compared to other systems like the Saturn V. I added the 2029 date for Block 2 to the lede, but my reference, while reliable, is a bit vague. -Arch dude (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Artemis 3 is 2024, and there are only three ICPS missions, meaning EUS (so block 1B) will start after that, making it no earlier than 2025. Specific sources are hard to come by but here is one for EUS still being in testing phase in 2024. Also this one that I just cited says that BOLE test firings will begin in 2024. Leijurv (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also from the second page of this there is this image and it says Credit: NASA and it says it's from a NASA presentation but I can't quite find which one. It might be a good infographic to add or page to cite. Leijurv (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will tighten up the Artemis paragraph in the lede and consolidate the dates for the blocks, making the lede shorter and (I hope) more coherent. -Arch dude (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I use old-fashioned wikitext editing. Editing the lede was almost impossible because the citation templates were so long. Therefore, I have moved the citation text into the reflist. This has no visual effect on the article. See
WP:LDR. Does this cause any problems for folks using the visual editor? I will now start actual copyediting of the readable text. -Arch dude (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
That's cool I wasn't aware of that. I also do wikitext editing and when there's a ton of references I use a ton of "show preview" and ctrl+f for certain phrases. Perhaps I will use list defined references in the future :) Leijurv (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New lede
I think I retained all of the information that was in the old lede, and I added the planned first launch dates. I now need to make sure I have the correct references connected to the correct facts in the lede. This will be tedious. I did remove four refs temporarily, but I will add them back if we still need them, so I'm storing them here. I strongly suspect that some of the older refs should be removed, as they are superseded.
Here are the refs I temporarily removed:
[1][2][3][4]
I think it is a little oversimplified to call it just three phases (1 1B 2). There are many subvariants. For example, the RL10 engine in the ICPS will be changed from the B-2 variant (perhaps) to the C-2 variant between Artemis 1 and Artemis 2 (yet still remaining at one engine). Additionally, the main engine switch from RS-25D to RS-25E will increase thrust (and supposedly decrease cost even though that is highly questionable), but it isn't actually given a label. (in my personal opinion it might make sense to call the RS-25E variant "Block 1C" but that's just my opinion there are no sources that actually do that). Also from the third to the fourth launch, the RL10 C-2 will be swapped to RL10 C-3 and increased in quantity from one to four (per Exploration Upper Stage). Additionally, at some point within Block 2, the RS-25E contract will end and will be replaced with RS-25F which has additional improvements and a couple percent more thrust.
Anyway all that being said I think the lede might want to make some mention of how there are many subvariants in each block, I don't really know how to phrase it right, but I think it's important to call out that nearly every rocket will unique and there are constant changes even within each block. Even though Congress put out certain requirements for each, might be good to mention that it isn't all the same rocket in each block.
Glad you like it. I'll add something brief, but this is the lede: details belong in the body of the article. Can you work on it? -Arch dude (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS on the specific RL10 variants, those are rumors / indirect leaks / insider info. NASA has changed their plans so many times on this that there are a lot of conflicting sources :( For example, this sentence of the main article However, this competition was planned for a development plan in which Block 1A would be followed by Block 2A, with upgraded boosters. NASA canceled Block 1A and the planned competition in April 2014. seems simple but it took a lot of research to understand exactly what happened, and why the sources pre/post that time wildly conflicted with each other. Just yesterday I realized the plans for BOLE were wrong and fixed those too. Leijurv (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Fcrary: The reference I cited supports that SLS will transition from RS-25D to RS-25E (so, an increase in thrust) in the middle of Block 1B. But whatever that detail is already in the article body so it doesn't particularly need to be in the lede if you really feel strongly against it. Leijurv (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same reference? It looks like the one connected to the edit I reverted was a NASA press release from 2017, talking about things like the "first flight test of SLS with Orion in 2018". It doesn't mention anything about upgrades within a SLS block. So I don't see that as a relevant reference. And if the article is going to make a point about upgrades within a SLS block, in the lead, I think we should limit it to significant upgrades. You wrote, above, that "the RS-25E contract will end and will be replaced with RS-25F which has additional improvements and a couple percent more thrust." A couple percent increase in thrust does not sound like a significant upgrade. Fcrary (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
if the article is going to make a point about upgrades within a SLS block, in the lead, I think we should limit it to significant upgrades ... A couple percent increase in thrust does not sound like a significant upgrade Fair enough. I don't feel strongly about that.
As I said above, I have had trouble pinning this down as plans have changed a lot, and all of this is hypothetical. None of these rockets have flown :) Leijurv (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but eight consecutive citations for schedule slips might be a bit of
Those eight references are all in the loooong sentence at the end of the history section that has all of the dates in the text. I left them in as a less brutal way of saying "about one announced slip per year, thus doubling the development time".-Arch dude (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I understood where they came from, I'm just not sure I would do it that way. The first one in particular, that the initial date was 2016, was contentious about a year ago, see
What we really need is a single citation to a reliable source article whose subject is the woes of the SLS. Maybe someone will write that some day in some liberal or conservative magazine that likes to bemoan "government waste". -Arch dude (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing that we have is the series of articles written by Eric Berger in Ars Technica :) (many are already cited) Leijurv (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have taken a look at this article for a while, and here're the things that can be improved:
Captions must be succulent. NASA moved out US$889 million of costs relating to SLS boosters, but did not update the SLS budget to match, a March 2020 Inspector General report found. This kept the budget overrun to 15% by FY 2019. At 30%, NASA would have to notify Congress and stop funding unless Congress reapproves and provides additional funding. The Inspector General report found that were it not for this "masking" of cost, the overrun would be 33% by FY 2019. The GAO separately stated "NASA's current approach for reporting cost growth misrepresents the cost performance of the program". is just way too long. The maximum length is about 3-4 lines of text, and no more.
Lead should be shorter. It should be from 2-3 paragraphs and be capitating to the reader.
70 t (69 long tons; 77 short tons) should be converted to 70 metric/imperial ton (... lb) since practically no one use long and short tons, and ambiguous. (imperial or metric?)
Block 1: Core stage, 5-segment SRBs, ICPS 2nd stage. [...] should be converted to prose, and remove bolding.
Replace / for or.
If possible, convert lists to prose, such as Costs of payloads for the SLS (such as Orion crew capsule) [...]
Be specfic. [...] an alternative to be designed and fabricated by the company, but it was rejected by NASA in November 2019 on multiple grounds. What alternative? Why is it rejected?
Check the article for redundant dashes. 140- to 150-tonne should be 140 to 150 (metric/imperial) ton. This unit would also benefit from {{cvt}} template as well.
This is way too tiring to read: The intended uncrewed first flight of SLS has slipped multiple times: originally from late 2016 to October 2017, then to November 2018, then to 2019, then to June 2020, then to April 2021, then to November 2021, and then to some time between January 2022 and March 2022. It should be simplified, and consider worth including. The intended uncrewed first flight of SLS has slipped multiple times: late 2016, October 2017, November 2018, 2019, June 2020, April 2021, November 2021, and then to some time between January 2022 and March 2022. and The intended uncrewed first flight of SLS has slipped multiple times, and as of October 2021 the launch date is between January 2022 and March 2022. is a good alternative in my opinion.
Regarding the first one, I've made that edit here: Special:Diff/1048452526. (btw "succinct" is not quite the same as "succulent" but captions should be both). Regarding units see #Units, it was messed up some months ago and I have not gotten around to fixing (I hoped the other editor would). Regarding the slips, Arch dude moved them into a refnote, perhaps the same could be done? Or maybe that was just to save space in the lead. @Arch dude: thoughts? Leijurv (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Captions must be succulent. NASA moved out US$889 million of costs relating to SLS boosters, but did not update the SLS budget to match, a March 2020 Inspector General report found. This kept the budget overrun to 15% by FY 2019. At 30%, NASA would have to notify Congress and stop funding unless Congress reapproves and provides additional funding. The Inspector General report found that were it not for this "masking" of cost, the overrun would be 33% by FY 2019. The GAO separately stated "NASA's current approach for reporting cost growth misrepresents the cost performance of the program". is just way too long. The maximum length is about 3-4 lines of text, and no more.
70 t (69 long tons; 77 short tons) should be converted to 70 metric/imperial ton (... lb) since practically no one use long and short tons, and ambiguous. (imperial or metric?)
Be specfic. [...] an alternative to be designed and fabricated by the company, but it was rejected by NASA in November 2019 on multiple grounds. What alternative? Why is it rejected?
I'm confused by this one. For SLS payloads, Orion is the only one that we know of. NASA might launch further payloads on SLS in the future, but currently, the only planned ones are Artemis 1 through 3 which are Orion. (all that is said elsewhere in the article). So I'm not sure how that could be more specific. And for the second one, Strikethrough because I simply misunderstood where one suggestion ended and the next began, oops What alternative? Why is it rejected?, look at the next sentence of the article rejected by NASA in November 2019 on multiple grounds. These included lower performance compared to the existing EUS design, unsuitability of the proposal to current ground infrastructure, and unacceptable acceleration in regards to Orion components.. This is a summary of the secondary source [5] which goes into more specifics, such as instead of unsuitability of the proposal to current ground infrastructure it actually says the total height of the SLS rocket's core stage with Blue Origin's upper stage exceeds the height of the Vertical Assembly Building's door, resulting in "modifications to the VAB building height and substantial cost and schedule delays.". If it doesn't fit in the VAB that's a big issue. I will edit the two sentences so that they flow better and make more sense. Leijurv (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article for redundant dashes. 140- to 150-tonne should be 140 to 150 (metric/imperial) ton. This unit would also benefit from {{cvt}} template as well.
This is way too tiring to read: The intended uncrewed first flight of SLS has slipped multiple times: originally from late 2016 to October 2017, then to November 2018, then to 2019, then to June 2020, then to April 2021, then to November 2021, and then to some time between January 2022 and March 2022. It should be simplified, and consider worth including. The intended uncrewed first flight of SLS has slipped multiple times: late 2016, October 2017, November 2018, 2019, June 2020, April 2021, November 2021, and then to some time between January 2022 and March 2022. and The intended uncrewed first flight of SLS has slipped multiple times, and as of October 2021 the launch date is between January 2022 and March 2022. is a good alternative in my opinion.
Resilience section should be merged. Lone sentences should be merged as well. The level 3 sections (2.3.1.) should be deleted, as it is way too overkill. Merge the subject to a paragraph.
Infographic from the March 2020 Inspector General report, demonstrating how NASA used accounting to "mask" a cost increase by moving US$889M of boosters from SLS to another cost center, while neglecting to update the SLS budget to match. is way way too POV pushing.
A lot of sentences have an unnecessary details, such as Ars Technica, in an article published on the same day, highlighted that over the entire RS-25 contract the price of each engine works out to US$146 million and that the total price for the four expendable engines used in each SLS launch will be more than US$580 million.
In my opinion, a lot of acronyms can be expanded, such as TLI for trans-lunar injection.
Done Too many diffs to link because I hit save on each one :) But I read through a few times and removed all acronyms that were only ever used in expanded form, and linked or expanded the rest. I believe the acronym situation is now Acceptable. Leijurv (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This can be a bit too demanding, but incorperating criticisms to the develop history would be epic
Oh god... I don't know if that would make conceptual sense. I struggle to imagine a way to do that cleanly, I'm not sure that would be better than what we have now. Leijurv (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(suggestion from Discord) We have a lot written about the construction history of the first SLS, for Artemis 1. We should also write similar sections for the other ones being built. Artemis 2 had a forward join very recently and the spray-on orange foam is being applied. Artemis 3's main liquid hydrogen tank is assembled. And we should also write about Artemis 4 through whatever and all the contracts that have been signed for future parts ordered. Leijurv (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, if it doesn't work well in this article I think it should instead go into each mission's page. Artemis 1 basically already has this with its table of stacking progress and such. Leijurv (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could reference the occasional NASA press releases when a major milestone occurs or the addition of images(and their captions) to images.nasa.gov when a (usually more minor) milestone is achieved? DeltaDizzy (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(suggestion from Discord) A section on potential applications beyond Artemis. We already have some sources cited for this (e.g. we already cite [7] and [8]), we just should write about them, what SLS brings to the table, etc. For example we could write about how SLS would have made Europa Clipper get to its destination faster (even though it could not be done due to the vibration issues). Some others are Luvoir, Lynx, Europa Lander, Interstellar probe, Persephone, Neptune Odyssey. Leijurv (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(suggestion from Discord) Talk more about the changes from RS-25D -> RS-25E -> RS-25F. Specifically because they don't align with "block boundaries" and it's basically constant improvement within a block (sort of). It has a nontrivial impact on cost and thrust. Several percent more thrust is a big deal. I mentioned some of this info at
Speaking of blocks, we might want to mentions all of the changes in the block graphics to prose, for assesibility and MOS compliance. You might wabt to scrool up in Wikimedia discord. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GA criteria: there are some things mentioned in the lede (such as deep space exploration) that are not mentioned elsewhere in the body. Although perhaps this would be fixed by talking about the interstellar probe ^^^ Leijurv (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should revisit all the image sizes, like all the upright=1.2 and such, I think CRS-20 added those or something. All unnecessary ones should be removed. Leijurv (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This section need to be written as prose, because of accessibility and MOS. Also, it makes that section a lot more nuanced. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
That section that you've linked is already prose. Did you mean #Variants instead of #Upper stages? The table is just an aid to explanation that is already in prose. The numbers for payload can also be found in the infobox. Leijurv (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done What information specifically is only in the table, and cannot be found elsewhere? There's nothing wrong with tables lol, such as the table down below for the planned future launches of SLS. Leijurv (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, sorry, did you mean the three exploded diagrams? Those used to be down in the gallery, they are not "load bearing" they're just visuals. Again I'm open to the idea but what specific bits of information are missing from prose? Leijurv (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the differences between blocks are already covered in prose. Unless there's something specific in those diagrams that you think should be in prose but isn't, I say DoneLeijurv (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to remove ( ), and rephrase the facts inside them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
A bad example: (Although these savings may have included a portion of costs related to the delay in launch schedule; a commercial alternative could launch sooner than SLS)
Hi, I am the reviewer, CactiStaccingCrane (talk). I have helped fixed a lot of small errors, as well as bigger ones such as organisation of the article. I am not exactly sure if the 4 (currently not assessed) criteria has been met, so I want someone with more experience to hit home with the review. For you, @Leijurv: you might want to take a look at the criteria and explain why article met them. In the meantime, I would continue review as much as I can. Good luck! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite ready yet to say that the article meets all criteria. I still need to rearrange some things, fix some acronyms (expand them, or remove them), etc. Of course, I will continue to go through the rest of the things you've mentioned, and of course if someone else wants to make specific suggestions that would be very welcome. Leijurv (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't review it, but I just want to mention that cleanup tags need to be addressed (sorry if it was discussed before): [altitude and inclination needed], US$2.257[inconsistent], the Exploration Upper Stage[inconsistent]. Artem.G (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Budget question
Fiscal year 2019 says 2.144 billion in the table, but the cited source [21] says 2.150 billion. Every year that I've checked at random has been close but not quite right. What's going on? Also, it says Enhanced Upper Stage (EUS) development (non-add)*** but we say that the EUS costs are included with the SLS costs. It appears they are not. Should we be adding them in for consistency in the years where they weren't (per
WP:CALC)? I can't figure out who added this number since the "Who wrote that?" plugin doesn't work on tables, otherwise I would ping them. Thoughts please? Leijurv (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
Done Has been addressed. Special:Diff/1048452526 Leijurv (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done (just wanted to tag this as not done, still pending resolution of Special:Diff/1048773333) Leijurv (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
![[19]](https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/RS-25-Evolution-For-SLS.jpg){kind=link}
! Long road ahead though, I think this article should aim for the stars! (pun intended) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)