Talk:Space Launch System/Archive 1

‹ The template below (Archive) is being considered for merging with Annual archive. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This is an archive of past discussions about Space Launch System. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

2011 Merge proposal

I object merging. The SLS is a different proposal (one of the many Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle proposals) - not related to the specific side-mount Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle proposal. Alinor (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the IP user that tagged the articles did not provide any justification for merging them. Looked like drive by tagging to me.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree - no. If no one has any objections, I'm removing the tags. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In this case I suggest removing the merge templates. Alinor (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A Late Objection- A Shuttle-Derived heavy launch vehicle is a Space Launch System. NASA is seeking an alternative Space Launch System to the Ares family; possibly a system like the Jupiter (rocket family) in the DIRECT Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle architecture. I don't know the difference between the Jupiter and the Ares V family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles but I'm sure they are all Space Launch Systems. SEC. 302."SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AS FOLLOW-ON LAUNCH VEHICLE TO THE SPACE SHUTTLE." of S.3729 NASA Authorization Act of 2010 doesn’t name a new system it gives NASA the authority to develop a system that can "access lunar space and the regions of space beyond low-Earth..." without saying that system must be the Ares or any other specific launch system. Smgntion (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

regardless of how set in stone a new design is, there is no doubt that there is something being developed that's not directly a copy of any of the previous SDLVs and most news articles refer to it as SLS. The SDLV article discusses the many proposals while this focuses on the vehicle being built by NASA TMV943 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ares IV

So, I've been doing a casual search on the NASA site and associated agencies, but haven't found much more information on the SLS. However, it sounds very much like the Ares IV concept. Has anyone seen any NASA artwork or good descriptions on how SLS will be configured? TANSTAAFL (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

NASA has not decided on a configuration yet. The agency is still studying various Shuttle-derived vehicle configurations. It may be something like a smaller Ares IV or Ares V Lite to follow the NASA authorization act. Look over the article in reference 3 on the main SLS page and maybe others articles on spaceflightnow.com. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well NASA has a general SLS configuration and has put out status reports for Congress in January 2011 and Feb. 2011. I also found some later press releases and documents without SLS details using this google search. The Feb. one shows a general SLS config, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Article could use a diagram

Has NASA produced any diagram or other graphic of this vehicle. Article would be improved with a graphic. N2e (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No design finalized yet ( as per my question above)... it will probably look similar to other shuttle derived launch systems, but alas no exact or even near-guess images yet... TANSTAAFL (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This NASA Feb. 2011 report has a general configuration layout diagram that could be used. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, see File:NASA SLS ref config Feb 2011.png from page 4 in the linked report above. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

On the news, DIRECT

Just read at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14915725 that NASA officially unveiled the SLS. There is an image there that you could use. Wingtipvortex (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The design of the SLS seems to be a direct copy of the DIRECT 3.0 design. Can anyone confirm? If so, can we put a reference?13:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe very similar, but not likely an exact or direct copy. These all fall under Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle, so they will look a lot alike... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. DIRECT 3.0 became basically the old National Launch System in the low-Earth-orbit form (with one fewer engine), and added a full 8.4 m modern lightweight-design second stage (and an extra SSME) for beyond-Earth-orbit missions. NASA's current Block 1 design is somewhat like the NLS. Block 1a is very close to some DIRECT beyond-Earth-orbit designs, but uses one extra engine. But, I think Fnlayson is correct in stating that the unifying concept is that they are all shuttle-derived designs. If specific missions arise where multiple launches of similar rockets are used, that would surely represent an emphasis of specific DIRECT ideals. Fotoguzzi (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not just referring to the physical appearance but the key attributes of the design. Namely, the plan to reuse the RS-25 and 5 segment solid fuel boosters as well as the inline fuel tanks. This differs significantly from the Ares design and is one of the main features of DIRECT v3 and the SDVs. 12:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the vehicle's configuration, not simply external appearance. I don't think further discussion is worthwhile until a reference that goes it to this is found.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Saturn INT-nn

Suggest performance, visual (and fuels) closer to Saturn INT-18 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_II_%28rocket%29#Saturn_INT-18 rather than the INT-20?Paulbeeb (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

SLS resembles Saturn V in that it is pointy and large. That is about it. These sentences really should be removed or drastically rewritten. It might be fair to note that the paint schemes in the illustrations are meant to be redolent of the Saturn V, but the actual SLS rockets would have the standard orange foam insulation on the cryogenic tanks. Fotoguzzi (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Schedule

I'm torn between keeping and removing this section. The keep side of me says that the first question people coming to the article will have is "when?". The remove part of me says that this is speculative information at best (though it's reasonably referenced) and represents a "worst-case" scenario and could be very misleading as a result. Thoughts?--RadioFan (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Converting the table to a bulleted list or a paragraph with less detail would help, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

SLS launch cost per pound or kg to LEO

we should make the comparaison table of the 5 scenario until 2025 to see what kind of numbers it will give --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

i find something between 60 000 and 30 000 per kg to leo from the cheapest to the most expensive options, even with 12 flight, its 3 times more than a commercial rocket.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Shuttle side-mount

does my use of it was sounding innapropriate ? of course it was not built.Spudis original proposal is in between commercial and sls.I will correct the sentence to make it less ambiguous and provide a link to the study.To improve this section maybee we should separate it into 4 paragraph ( political reaction, space advocacy, technical/commercial issues, alternatives, with pro and cons in each sections, maybee into a table format ? --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is talking about current launchers and derivatives of existing ones. Side-Mount was just a concept. Side-Mount is no more relevant than the several Shuttle-based designs NASA has studied over the years. I don't see the point in singling this one out here. That's why Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle is linked. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am ok with that.I will find a way to compact the pork barrel cited 3 times into 1 sentence, also citing newt gingrich could be nice (he the only candidate with a space interst), --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please remove Ref 31 from this sentence -- it implies that I advocated EELV and or commercial launch vehicles in my blog post. I did not; I was demonstrating that a feasible heavy lift vehicle was possible with Shuttle side-mount at less cost and sooner than SLS. Spudis (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Propellant depots

any idea where the propellant depot word got lost and the nasa studies of depots vs sls (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html? ---and ---http://satellite.tmcnet.com/topics/satellite/articles/230642-did-nasa-hide-in-space-fuel-depots-get.htm) ? --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the wording may have been changed to 'on-orbit refueling' or something like that. I added 'depot' back in there to match common terminology for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

thank you, a wikilink to Propellant depot could help too--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Upper stages

It seems the upper stages are exactly other way around;

The "cps" with RL-10 is the earth departure stage, used for missions that go further than LEO; In this configuration the core of the booster(stage1) goes all the way up to orbit(like when operating without second stage), and the cps is used just as earth departure stage.

The later upper stage with J-2X is for heavier loads to LEO. In this configuration the rocket is heavier, and the core/first stage cannot lift it to orbit, L2 stage lifts it into orbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkultala (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

Opposition

The Criticisms/Opposition should include points, quotes from leading space flight sites/authors/groups. This page should not be just a one-sided, party-line NASA cheer-leading/propaganda instrument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrwhiteal (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You and others have already done that, but without any balance. Too much detail and quotes also. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly in the article is this NASA cheerleading stuff anyway? The text presents the plans and events without biased wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The critiscism /opposition section should be huge given the amout of controversy this programm provoke.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

More 3rd party sources need to be used instead the self-published ones from the group/organization to better follow Wiki policies (WP:V, WP:RS). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you define what '3rd party sources' are acceptable to you, if ott Space Interest groups like 'the planetary society', 'Space Review', 'Space Access Society', 'Tea party in space', 'Space Frontier society', 'mars society', etc... Why not put the opposing opinions/reporting by established space advocate groups out and let readers decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrwhiteal (talk • contribs) 16:02, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

the quotation and citing some website (space review, competitive space) break the lisibility (interested readers use the refs).--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Look over the links provided above. I have generally only removed or summarized what seems to be redundant text/info and removed a couple SPS refs in an effort to prevent giving undue weight to one side. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to add that I support the presence of an opposition section in this article. I find it much easier to navigate by having it. My first natural thought reading this article was "I wonder if this was the best plan for NASA" and being able to jump to an opposition section was the quickest way to find information about the various arguments.JettaMann (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Opposition should be retitled Criticism and be limited to a summary of bullet points while the rest of the section should become a separately linked "Criticism of the SLS Program" article. Doyna Yar (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It is really all the same. Whatever you want to call it. If you mean separating criticism of the rocket from criticism of program, that can be difficult to do. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Things that should stay in the critiscism section, a link to propellant depots, proper funding of ccdev, asteroid manned mission projected at $ 143 Billions.things that could be moved : quotes of Tumlinson and Rohrabacher , 3 citation of pork barelling (one is enough and maybee congressional earnmarks is more appropriate), citation of The Space Review, SpacePolitics.com, Competitive Space Task Force.Your Thoughts ?--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Modifications have been made, comments ? --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a closed issue, so I'll remove the tag. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I find that of the critics currently referenced, the majority exist as competitors for funding - directly or indirectly through NASA initiatives/support for private space enterprise. cmasiero (talk) 21:09, 22 Febuary 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.251.49 (talk)

Why did "Criticism" get changed to "Alternatives"? The entries in that section really are criticisms, and should be headed as such. If we want another section entitled Alternatives, we should add one. I'm going to go ahead and change it back, since the current section title doesn't match what's in the section. Even if you're a big fan of SLS, it doesn't hurt to have a section for criticisms in the Wikipedia entry.

There should also be a paragraph to the effect that SLS can only loosely be called "Shuttle-derived", given that it shares no parts in common with the Space Shuttle. Even the SRBs are a completely different design. It could more accurately be termed "Constellation-derived". Voronwae (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It uses the same SSME engines and the SRBs are only lengthened by a segment. These are Not completely different. Plus it use the Shuttle stack configuration like other Shuttle-based vehicles at Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle. ~~No reason to pick nits on this.~~ -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

concur including the tanking. Perhaps it's better thought of as an 'Evolved Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle' with a bit of unofficial DIRECT influence. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, right. Something stating the degree of Shuttle connections would be good. Provided sources for such details can be found. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

When the time comes for it an 'Engineering Lineage' section is a great idea. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Support section

to balance the opposition one, i think its valuable to add a section that describe the benefits of the sls approach and who is supporting it. ? --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the section header to "Opposition and support" to provide a place for support text, but another user changed the label back without giving it a chance. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How about "Opinion" or "Critique" with pro and con subsections?Doyna Yar (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

He could look like this one Minimum_wage#Debate_over_consequences --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comparison, context, similarities to Energia

This has very striking similarities to the Energia system, the concept of using a space shuttle system's hardware for launching other things isn't unique. There are obvious differences too, like stretching out everything and making it taller, whereas the Energia just uses multiple generic strap-ons, and the main engines were always on the bottom of the big tank for the Buran, so in the sls they have to move them across.

I'm surprised it's not in the see also section, or used to provide some context for the article's subject. Of course I have no idea if anyone notable has commented on it, but for these kinds of inclusions, nothing is required. Penyulap ☏ 13:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding the link in the See also section should not be a problem. But text comparing the two launchers needs to be cited so we don't get into Original Research land. The layout for SLS flows from the Shuttle and is similar to other Shuttle-derived launchers also. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Comparison SLS vs. Ares variants and Direct's Jupiter proposal, which made a major pitch to the Augustine Commission, would seem more germane to the decisions that lead to SLS. Doyna Yar (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added "Energia, a comparable launcher which carried payloads including Polyus and the Soviet space shuttle Buran." to the see also section.

I too thought that the see also section was a good place for it, I don't know where it has or has not been discussed notably, I simply do not have an interest in the subject. The other thing I was thinking would be context, as the Energia indicates to the readers that the concept has been used before, although the Energia was built from the start with the whole idea in mind, re, placement of engines and so forth. I figured if they are studying the subject of using the shuttle launch system (with the required mods) as a launcher, they may be interested. Penyulap ☏ 09:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In line Shuttle and lamenting

I seem to recall at one time back in the 70's there was a proposed inline Shuttle/Saturn stack. I know their retired, but I can't help but wonder what an inline Shuttle/SLS stack would take. Now my personal interpretations of the STS retirement are what they are and I do not want to offend anyone or get into a long issue over them. I believe STS (along with other ISS hardware) was prematurely retired politically. They had a significant number of flights remaining on their airframes and upgraded avionics that could have potentially been utilized, manned or automated, for decades in it's previous configuration or possibly otherwise. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

But what would they do? It cost well over a billion dollars to launch TMV943 (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well for one thing large downmass, say in the event of a damaged ISS module that could be repaired on the ground. Nevermind just doing the orbital infrastructure work, ISS support, and science they had for decades. The shuttles had no destination until the ISS they were designed to service, now ISS is compromised from it's original vision with no crew hab and shuttle. The crew reduction from 10 to 6 meant a better than 50% reduction on science because the station requires the work of 3 just for maintenance. The shuttles were certified for 100 flights each, their frames could be modified for reuse on a new safer launcher like SLS. I can't honestly say what that may cost, but there are plenty of government bean counters who could do a cost/benefit analysis. If i'm not mistaken the military aid we give to Egypt and Israel just to buy the peace was better than the STS annual budget. I'm not suggesting the flight schedule they had, but wouldn't keeping one in reserve make some sort of sense? From strategic national assets to museum pieces, makes me wonder if they'll see Buran's fate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to use them, then keep two with the 2nd as a backup. The shuttle program seemed to have gotten costly with so many people supporting the program near the end. I preferred keeping the Shuttle going, but it'd take good boost of funding for that, ISS, commercial space, and SLS development. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I kindly remind you of WP:NOTFORUM: Either discuss improvements of the article or take this topic somewhere else.--Oneiros (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for the reminder. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Welp, so much for that..., thanks guru. Reminds me of middle school. Delete at your leisure (how do you throw the bird again in ASCII?) Doyna Yar (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Artist Concept picture with exploded view of elements...

I found an image released by MSFC on their flickr photostream I am sure that it could be used here, then again I don't know if the original artist has any rights or if it's all property of the US gov. Dreammaker182 (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a GO for LAUNCH one eight two, it's public domain and you're all clear. Penyulap ☏ 17:59, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Costs

I added a target cost just now. I did work out the implied launch costs (per pound) to LEO, which I hope qualifies as a trivial calculation. Noting that it is not fair to compare total program costs (including development) with marginal costs seemed necessary, and is probably uncontroversial, but could use an external reference. I hope one pops up in the current reliable media soon. NB Elron Musk quoted (if I recall) $100M for 53 mt of payload to LEO using the Falcon9 Heavy. I'm eager to see if that actually flies next year, as scheduled. Wwheaton (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.newspacewatch.com/docs/IAC-12.D3.2.3.x15379-NASAStudy.pdf , this study put the price at 65 000/kg for 70 mt sls and 40 000/kg for the 130 mt one.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Block 0 ?, oh and 1B etc...

The article of date refers to a Block 0 configuration with 3 RS 25D engines, but there is no use or mission specified for it. I suspect this is an anachronism, that should be expunged if it has no further role in the program. Does anyone object to dropping this? Wwheaton (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was a planned version initially. Just note it is no longer part of the plan. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well it's been a while since I read it but there is references to a Block 1B alternative to Block 1A here; http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/07/wind-tunnel-testing-sls-configurations-block-1b I never got around to any inclusion in the article. Any thoughts? Doyna Yar (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I got Block 1B refs in finally... Doyna Yar (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Senate Launch System

Because this is potentially volatile and could easily stray into POV violation territory, I'm posting this on the talk page first and asking if this could be added intelligently into the article somewhere and to start a discussion as to where this ought to be placed by those who have been maintaining this article.

As a derisive term applied to this rocket, the term "Senate Launch System" seem like something which should at least be mentioned in this article... either in the lead paragraph (as an "alternate name" per WP:MOS) or in the criticism section. For those who say find reliable sources, I'll give five:

The term has thus been used by multiple people in major publications and be considered reliable sources... including the primary title of two of those articles (notably those articles are already used as a source for this Wikipedia article). I don't think this fits WP:UNDUE as something to be ignored due to overpowering the article and should be inserted somewhere into the article in an intelligent manner. Indeed it is shocking to me that it isn't in this article except as a source title name... as if this article is being deliberately cleansed and censored to promote a particularly positive POV. Rather than fighting with an edit war, I'd rather some intelligent discussion about where it should be inserted happen instead. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of those articles are from the fall 2011, over a year ago. And a couple do not seem to be from neutral organizations. What about more recent coverage from prominent news sources? Maybe mention that name somewhere in the article, but not in the Lead as it is not common and significant enough. It'd be POV to give a short term nickname undue weight there, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be neutral. My point is that this is a name that has been applied to the system, and is in fact a face of the criticism being applied to the system. Indeed it is pushing a POV to exclude this kind of information from an article of this nature, where it gives the impression that this is a puff piece and highly sympathetic towards NASA and the SLS contractors. I'm not asking for undue weight as in making a major section going into depth with this name, but I find it disingenuous to suggest that this nickname doesn't exist either. Each one of those sources would count as reliable sources in other contexts, so why not here? --Robert Horning (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Boosters

The wikipedia entry on the Rocketdyne F-1 engines links to a 2012 press release from Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne indicating that they are developing a proposal for liquid-fueled SLS boosters of the same dimensions as the SRBs, but using a single F-1 engine on each booster. Should this be included on the SLS page? TechnicalBard (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

An updated F-1 engine is one proposed solution. NASA has not selected an advanced booster for SLS yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

C'mon NASA.. you KNOW we all want to see five F-1 engines in the first stage like the S-1C booster, with twin SRBs... just for one launch... please!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.1.2.18 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The F-1 proposal is for a booster rocket, not first stage. There should really be a good section on the upcoming competition for the boosters. It feels only hinted to in the current booster section. TMV943 (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I am eager to see how the F-1 rocket engine booster comes along too, I am especially interested if they up-rate the engine to the F-1A thrust and Isp levels that were slated for flight testing on the Saturn V-3 of the late 1970s. Moreover, someone should resurrect the LH2/LO2 M-1 (rocket engine) for the 2nd stage(although the cluster of J-2X's might be cheaper but heavier). What's really needed to do a Mars mission right is a (NTR)nuclear thermal rocket - such as NERVA which was tested in the 60s, as you need high thrust crew transfers from Earth orbit to Mars (or to a NEO orbit) so your crew aren't bored to death out there waiting 8 months on Hohmann transfer orbits to Mars.

For cargo movement you're not too bothered by how slow it goes, you're just interested in launch costs$/kg so a nuclear electric rocket(NEP) might be ideal to serve as a tug boat between high earth orbit to Mars or a NEO. The NEP would be ideal to serve as a Earth to Mars tug boat that is frugal on propellant, easy to refuel when the need arises, and has a higher Isp(better mileage) but lower thrust(slow acceleration) than the NTR.

Boundarylayer (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Deep Space Habitat (DSH)/Skylab 2?

Deep Space Habitat (DSH) is a credible NASA concept with it's own article, and may be part of the 'future' BEO architecture, but is NOT unto itself a SLS mission. All DSH missions listed are already referenced above. As of yet I do not think it belongs here. The Skylab 2 thing is flimsy at best and me being nice, and I'm not nice. I would suggest a better source or it's gonna be contested. This is why I don't post every *eyes rolling* Boeing proposal that comes down the pike if it doesn't have some tie in to NASA paperwork. This isn't a wishlist, It's supposed to reflect what we know about the 'roadmap' that is directly connected to SLS.Doyna Yar (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The connections of those to SLS does seem weak. I had to look through the 2nd page of the Aviation Week article (ref. 67 now) to find a meniton of SLS in the text. Maybe combine these with the Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) missions entry. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want real speculative wish list material, see here - Falcon rocket vehicle.

As for this article, The Skylab II material is well referenced and due to the massive, large diameter propellant tanks required for a Skylab-esque station, it is a unique intrinsic capability that SLS will have over other vehicles like the Falcon Heavy. While the reference to the Deep Space Habitat(DSH) here is weak, it too should stay. Moreover in reference to 'wish lists', imagine for a moment if wikipedia was around when the Saturn V was being designed, it would be necessary to have the very speculative, but authoritative, contemporary Von Braun quotes about his 'wishes' to use the vehicle for Mars missions by no later than 1980 etc. etc. So I don't see anything wrong with including the material.

In saying that, I do understand your concerns, but they would be easily dealt with if someone were to just make clear that the DSH being carried skyward by the SLS isn't, obviously, part of the administrations firm 'roadmap'(seen as it doesn't really have a firm roadmap to speak of anyway), but DSH is, like lots of other things, merely being assessed in relation to the SLS.

Boundarylayer (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Advanced Booster Competition Subsection?

I've been kicking this around for months. Does the ABC merit a subsection under the booster section and/or perhaps a separate article? Doyna Yar (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed, since the Advanced Booster is for the main SLS version, Block II. Summarizing the text in the Booster section better helps a lot. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to disagree but I've read several articles over the past year on the subject, like testing. I see these articles mirroring the SLS and Orion testing (wind tunnel, test articles, mockups, drop tests, pad tests, etc.). The ABC is unique in that it still isn't fixed SLS hardware where as the core and second stage options are mapped out. Doyna Yar (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds right given things have moved slowly or been delayed on that. If the Booster section grows a lot more, we can we put the ABC content in a separate subsection from the current 5 segment SRB for the Block I/IA/IB versions. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Payload capacity

The payload capacity cited in the article is 70 tons for Block 1 and 105 for Block 1A/1B, but according to this this document the Block 1 has a payload capacity of 90 tons to LEO and the Block 1B/1A a payload of 130 tons. I know that the real capacities are/were restricted for political reasons but now that there's a document with the real payloads, should the real higher payloads be mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.143.19 (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see Block 1A or 1B mentioned in that presentation. Those payload masses could be potential growth capabilities, or they are counting Orion capsule and something else as the payload. There needs to be more than one presentation with a meniton of the payload to say the payload masses have officially changed. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I was wrong about 1A and 1B, sorry about that. But shouldn't the article at least make a mention of Block 1's higher estimated payload capacity? Ed Kyle's space launch report also estimates Block 1's payload to LEO at 95 tons.(217.123.143.19 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC))

SLS Vehicle Configurations

Hey... any chance we can get the graphic for the SLS Vehicle Configurations repeated on this page more then just the two time it already is? I mean... it really doesn't do the graphic justice only posting it twice. Maybe we can sneak it in to another section of the article just to make sure that readers don't miss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.15.255.228 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Done - It's now on the page five tim... ok, it's only on once now;). — Gopher65_talk 18:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Incoherent writings

"Mars Society founder Robert Zubrin suggested that a heavy lift vehicle should be developed for $5 billion on fixed-price requests for proposal, finance issues aside, in the same breath however Zubrin also stated that he does not agree with those that say we don't need a heavy-lift vehicle, and stated "We absolutely do need heavy-lift".[56]"

This comment is grammatically nonsensical. Going off of that text alone, it does not follow that if one suggests developing a new booster it means they wish to see heavy lift capacity fail (though it is admittedly unclear what the writer was actually trying to say). I suggest rewriting it as:

Mars Society founder Robert Zubrin suggested that a heavy lift vehicle should be developed for $5 billion on fixed-price requests for proposal. Zubrin also stated that he does not agree with those that say we don't need a heavy-lift vehicle, and stated "We absolutely do need heavy-lift".[56]

This is internally consistent and the two sentences are not in disagreement.

I see this kind of stuff a lot on wiki and it makes the articles hard to read, which makes people go somewhere else.

174.131.5.205 (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

... so do it:). The absolute worst that would happen is that someone would revert your change. Please feel free to make whatever improvements you deem necessary. I'll make this edit for you to get the ball rolling, but you can do it yourself as easily as write it here. — Gopher65_talk 03:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

....concur, GO!, be gone. Contribute or vaporize Doyna Yar (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Block II version using ATK's "Dark Knight" SRB

The editor User:Fnlayson continues to assert their false beliefs in the article. They write in the edit history of September 10, 2013 "Remove overlinking, trim overly wording descriptions, and corrections. Block II uses Advanced Boosters, not SRBs. Further details should go in the linked articles."

However they are clearly wrong, there is an advanced SRB proposed for Block II. READ -> http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/the-dark-knights-atks-advanced-booster-revealed-for-sls/ 86.46.186.19 (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The 5-segement SRB used on SLS Block I is not the Advanced Booster on SLS Block II. NASA plans to use Advanced Boosters for Block II (see NASA fact sheet). The ATK Advanced Booster is not the Advanced Booster for Block II, unless[/until] it beats the F-1B booster, and other proposed ones in NASA's booster competition. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that the block I, ~70 MT to LEO, SRBs aren't the same as the proposed Block II, ~130 MT to LEO, advanced SRB, as the latter is termed the advanced SRB going by the preliminary name "Dark Knight". However you edited the booster section to remove any mention to an advanced SRB being in the running for block II.

Now you're largely just stating the obvious here with your reply and not acknowledging you were in serious error. In fact you still are in error, seen as you, yet again, just removed mention to this Block II 130 Metric ton advanced SRB for the second time. Moreover you are wrong here in your reply, the Thiokol/ATK advanced booster IS indeed an advanced booster in the Block II competition.

Do you need me to walk you through this again?

86.46.186.19 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I listed the ATK Advanced Booster as competing with the other proposed Adv. Boosters in my post above. Block II currently has Advanced Boosters, which are placeholders until one of the proposed boosters is selected. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No you did not list the ATK's block II advanced SRB competitor in the article, you removed all mention to it. Now in your most recent edit of the article you tacked on mention to ATK's block II "Dark Knight" advanced SRB to the end of the booster section in the most ad hoc of manners, without listing any performance data or putting it in context. Don't worry though, I fixed that.

86.46.186.19 (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The source does not provide thrust for the Adv. ATK booster or I would have mentioned that too. It only says "provid(ing) NASA the capability for the SLS to achieve 130 mT payload with significant margin", which has been added. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes the initial source I provided does indeed only say that. However I should have presented the one more detailed one below. As I know ATK's advanced booster can only achieve the Block II requirement of 130 metric tons to LEO, IF and only IF, the number of RS-25s/ core Hydrolox engines, are increased from the planned 4 to ATK's desired 5. So it is not at all fair to present the article as you have done so. Comparing apples to oranges, as with just 4 RS-25 engines they will only be able to lift 113 metric tons. See the performance data from the horse's mouth, that little gold triangle means they require a change of the core stange to five RS-25 engines to achieve 130 to 138 metric tons - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=30862.0;attach=515287;image In sum we need to rewrite the booster section, as it's getting pretty ridiculous the amount of times you keep on inserting misleading info. 86.46.186.19 (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Metric Tons

This is a likely source of confusion and disagreement, so I think it would be helpful to explain Wikipedia policy explicitly. Whenever SI units are used (including "non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI" like the tonne/metric ton) Wikipedia policy as given in Wikipedia:UNITS requires that they are given the correct symbol. This applies regardless of context, with only a few exemptions such as "cc" for engine displacements. SI symbols are not abbreviations; they are language-independent symbols like mathematical and musical notation, designed to be understood by anyone regardless of language; they are used even in languages that are not written in the Latin alphabet, as well as languages that use completely different names for the units. Moreover, there is by design a one-to-one correspondence between symbol and unit, to avoid ambiguity - the only correct interpretation of the symbol "70 mT" is actually "70 milliteslas" which is obviously not what is meant. Language-dependent abbreviations of unit names, such as "kph", "cu. m.", "mtrs", "mT" and so on, are likely to cause confusion, they are strongly discouraged by the BIPM and the NIST, and they are against Wikipedia style policy. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I found it quite frustrating why Fnlayson took it upon himself to vandalize the page on september 18th 2013 with the changing of the Low Earth orbit payload figures, from being displayed in words with "metric ton", to his desired "70 mT" & "130 mT" symbolism.

86.47.66.149 (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No need for accusations. Honest misunderstandings/mistakes are not vandalism. I used a common abbreviation for metric ton to match what is a quote in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Configuration layout

The current layout described the core stage, boosters and upper stages in a somewhat confusing and cluttered manner. Would it be better to remove these sections and instead give each configuration (Block 1, 1B, etc.) it's own section? I'll try to write something soon but I thought such a radical change should be discussed first. M129K (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about doing this as well. I would be glad to help you write sections for each configurations. The current layout is fine, but lacks detail that I would be happy to assist in adding. --HarderResearch (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)