Talk:Space Launch System

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)

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)

$5 Billion Launch Cost?

How can this possibly be accurate? NASA's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget request for Exploration Systems Development was $2.7 Billion. This included development of SLS, Orion and the ground systems. I would expect costs to go down after the first flight... not up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.76.102 (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not hard to validate or invalidate that number. We can do what's called a "first order approximation" to test whether that number is in the right ballpark. We can guesstimate the likely range of total costs per launch (including amortized development and program upkeep costs) with just a few bits of information:

1) Actual costs per flight are expected to range between 500 million (which is almost certainly overly optimistic) and 1.5 billion. Let's use the simple average of that and assume 1 billion per flight. Might be a bit more, might be a bit less, but that's close enough for a first order estimate.

2a) We don't know how many flights the SLS will eventually have, but we can guess based on current market developments and the political tailwinds the project has. The project has 4 "firm" flights. We'll assume all of those will go ahead. It's also likely that the SLS will be replaced with a much cheaper commercial launcher from one of several companies (Blue Origin, SpaceX, ULA) before 2035. All of those companies have expressed interest in replacing the SLS, and SpaceX has stated that they're in active development of a cheaper SLS replacement, which they expect to be testing about the time the SLS Block 1B first launches (~2021). Let's take that with a grain of salt though, and assume that SpaceX or another company will take longer than that to bring their SLS replacement online.

2b) NASA has stated that they don't have the funds to launch SLS more than once every 1.5 years, at most. They also don't have the funds to develop payloads or Orion missions to launch even every 1.5 years. Without a massive boost to their budget (~3 to 5 billion per year would be nice), we can expect SLS to launch at most once every 2 years.

2c) Taking those two things together, we know that there will be 4 launches (scheduled) of the SLS before 2027, and ~0.5 launches per year after that for ~10 years. So there will be a maximum of 9 SLS launches, barring a colossal shift of priorities in the US House and Senate (which while unlikely is possible, but we can't predict things like that).

3) SLS development costs + Orion are now estimated at ~45 billion dollars, including the first 4 flights (it was 41 billion, but the Senate and House mandated to NASA that the SLS budget would be increased at the expense of other programs). This does not include the ~10 billion spent on the constellation program before it was cancelled, even though that technology was rolled into SLS. Really it's about a 50 billion dollar program in terms of development, plus ~ 1 billion for each and every flight. But let's ignore that extra 10 billion, because for some reason everyone else does.

4) If there is a shift in Washington that leads to more SLS flights than currently estimated, total costs per flight (direct costs + amortized development costs) will of course go down. If SpaceX or ULA or BO manage to bring an SLS killer online by 2021 as they believe they could, SLS might not even get its currently scheduled 4 flights. If that happened, the costs per flight would of course go up. For step 5 let's assume neither of those happens.

5) If we take NASA's estimate of 45 billion cost of development (including the first four flights) as gospel, then we add in the averaged estimate per flight of 1 billion for the estimated remaining 5 flights (for a total of nine), we end up with 50 billion in total program costs. 50/9 = ~5.5 billion per flight, amortized.

6) If we're wrong and SLS gets 2 flights before being cancelled, total costs will be ~ 20 billion per flight. If it ends up getting 40 launches (no one - NO ONE - is projecting this) SLS will cost 45 + (40-4)*1 = 81 billion/40 = ~2 billion per flight.

7) So now we have our range. At the far extremes of our estimate, the SLS will cost somewhere between 2 and 20 billion dollars per flight. The most reasonable estimate, backed by available data, is about ~5.5 billion per flight.

So yup, I'd say that 5 billion per flight is in the right ballpark. — Gopher65_talk 18:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Payload mass to various orbits chart

I think it would be helpful if the payload mass could be sort-able. Doyna Yar (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Errr... I don't know how to do that though:). — Gopher65_talk 19:03, 27 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)