"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]
NASA says that it is the most powerful rocket ever built.StarshipSLS (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2021 (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]
Other bodies, such as the Government Accountability Office, the NASA Office of Inspector General, the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the White House Office of Management and Budget have put out cost per launch figures, however.
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]

References

  1. ^ Jenkins, Dennis R. (2016). Space Shuttle: Developing an Icon – 1972–2013. Specialty Press. ISBN 978-1-58007-249-6.
  2. ^ Berger, Eric (October 20, 2017). "NASA chooses not to tell Congress how much deep space missions cost". arstechnica.com. Retrieved December 16, 2018.
  3. ^ https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/firs/docs/OriginsVolume1MissionConceptStudyReport_11Oct2019.pdf
  4. ^ https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/habex/pdf/HabEx-Final-Report-Public-Release.pdf
  5. ^ https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-19-019.pdf
  6. ^ https://spacenews.com/inspector-general-report-warns-of-cost-and-schedule-problems-for-europa-clipper/
  7. ^ https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/Follow-uptoMay2019AuditofEuropaMission-CongressionalLaunchVehicleMandate.pdf
  8. ^ https://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-asks-congress-for-europa-clipper-launch-flexibility/
  9. ^ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-does-not-deny-the-over-2-billion-cost-of-a-single-sls-launch/
  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

What do we think? @N2e: I know you'd be interested in this @Jadebenn: Preemptive thanks for keeping me honest regarding WP:NPOV :) Leijurv (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Everything else looks good from what I've seen. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leijurv: Whoops! Forgot to ping. Sorry, I'm a bit rusty at this. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jadebenn: Thanks for the read through!
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]
Added to main article here, with a few tweaks to wording to make it more clear what's going on, and a whole lot of citation fixes. Leijurv (talk) 21:37, 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]

"first two flights"

@2603:7080:1b07:97ac:e102:e997:501:3be0: Regarding edits [1] and [2]. First, please follow WP:BRD, second, see my edit summary in the first revert ([3]) revert ip edit: cited sources do not indicate this applies to only the first few, see the RfC on the talk page for this exact figure. If you look at from #RfC for SLS Launch Cost to this section you can see there has been tens of thousands of words of discussion on this particular infobox entry. Also see the section of the main article Space Launch System#Per launch costs. The cited reliable sources do not say that that figure only applies to the first two. For example, we have the Bridenstine source saying 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, you know, in the US$800 million to US$900 million range - I don't know, honestly but this is offhand, non-independent, unofficial/informal, etc. Bridenstine has every obligation to make the cost lower, and to make the cost seem lower. He is also no longer the head of NASA. We need to be careful of WP:CRYSTALBALL here, and we should not treat speculation of future contract negotations as anything but speculation. Please follow WP:BRD and do not reinstate the edit, if you still want to make it please discuss here what sources you have to support the claim, otherwise it is WP:OR. Leijurv (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Detail here versus artemis

@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]

@Leijurv: Ok. I will. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leijurv: Actually, I don't have time to do it right now, so could you please do it? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I've done so and brought it up here: Talk:Artemis_1#History_of_SLS_versus_history_here. Leijurv (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Units

@Frozenprakash: A few questions:

Let me know what you think, thanks! Leijurv (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point.
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
Chandraprakash (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
File:SLS ref 1.png
Cite 15
File:SLF ref 2.png
Cite 16
Chandraprakash (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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]
I see.
Sure I will update the changes accordingly. Chandraprakash (talk) 20:32, 27 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]
Praise be, it's public domain. Main page and PDF (see page 4). Leijurv (talk) 06:54, 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]

-Arch dude (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Overall good though! I like the new lede. Leijurv (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Special:Diff/1038835975 This is good 👍 Those details are sprinkled throughout. I also do not have a 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 WP:CITEKILL :) Perhaps just citing 2 or 3 good examples of big slips? Leijurv (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 User_talk:Leijurv#Space_Launch_System. I agree in spirit that the delays are comically long and expensive and that should be conveyed, so I don't feel strongly enough to remove any cites myself though... but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else did so while pointing to WP:CITEKILL :) Leijurv (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I moved the eight slips into a single footnote to avoid the overciting in the lede while still retaining the gory details. -Arch dude (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wall, Mike (August 16, 2016). "Yes, NASA's New Megarocket Will Be More Powerful Than the Saturn V". SPACE.com. Archived from the original on 5 May 2017. Retrieved August 12, 2021.
  2. ^ The Congress of the United States. Congressional Budget Office, October 2006, pp. X,1,4,9. Archived 1 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine "The Apollo Saturn V launch vehicle had a lift capability of 140 metric tons to low Earth orbit" Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  3. ^ Wells, Jane (January 26, 2016). "Boeing builds the most powerful rocket ever made". cnbc.com.
  4. ^ Wood, Anthony (July 25, 2015). "Most powerful rocket ever edges closer to lift-off". New Atlas. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018. Retrieved September 13, 2018.

Review by CactiStaccingCrane

Hello, I have taken a look at this article for a while, and here're the things that can be improved:

That's it for now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]
@Leijurv and CactiStaccingCrane: Just replace the tedious sentence with another ref to the same footnote. I built the footnote from the contents of that sentence in the first place. -Arch dude (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above suggestions and discussion were moved to Talk:Space Launch System/GA1 Leijurv (talk) 05:20, 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.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Space Launch System/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CactiStaccingCrane (talk · contribs) 02:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Hello, I'm CactiStaccingCrane (talk), and I gonna take a look at the article! Sent at 02:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaDizzy @Arch dude main contributors to the article CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the article's talk page

 Done Has been addressed. Special:Diff/1048452526 Leijurv (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe DeltaDizzy may have already done this in Special:Diff/1048448938? Leijurv (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, yup CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
 Done DeltaDizzy (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Originally done in Special:Diff/1048464798, I redid the edit due to reference issues in Special:Diff/1048466690 (no text was changed, I just moved the references in, the visual editor seemed to have duplicated them weirdly) Leijurv (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was done by DeltaDizzy in Special:Diff/1048454466 Leijurv (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
 Done Special:Diff/1048464322 Leijurv (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1048459722 Leijurv (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
 Done Special:Diff/1048457845 Leijurv (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I searched the article for dash and read through all of them, I believe I have addressed them all in Special:Diff/1048485184. Leijurv (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1048469975 Leijurv (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General prose issues

 Done by me, Cacti.
Diff was Special:Diff/1048461130 Leijurv (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1048643057 Special:Diff/1048645261 Special:Diff/1048645462 Special:Diff/1048648318 I believe that's all of them (how do you search for all cleanup tags other than just looking with your eyes???), except for one in the Budget section, see Special:PermanentLink/1048649479#Budget question, which DeltaDizzy might hopefully clarify soon. Leijurv (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 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)[reply]
 Done Resolved through this series of edits. Leijurv (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should remove with. It's a good word, did nothing wrong. I don't see comprise. Leijurv (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, guess that it is my mistake then.  Done
I don't see a total of.  Done Reworded the ability to in Special:Diff/1048471032. I don't see in agreement with. sort of is in a quote. I don't see to date. Leijurv (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1048463143 Leijurv (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1048462992 Leijurv (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1049150589 Leijurv (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 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]
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]
We can cut down some criticisms, and paraphrase it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
 Done Special:Diff/1048643185 Special:Diff/1049150589 Leijurv (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1048638014 Leijurv (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should we seperate it to a new article that talks about SLS history? It's starting to get a bit unwieldy CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:51, 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]
 Done Special:Diff/1049327331 Wrote a paragraph about it and added three images. I wasn't able to find a source or image on the Artemis 3 LH2 though. Leijurv (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, asked in the Artemis Discord and got a source Special:Diff/1049329420. Leijurv (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although, I still think it would be good to get more than just that one source [6] for construction progress of artemis 2 through 4. Leijurv (talk) 06:33, 11 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]
Some sources that I've found that could be used: Neptune Odyssey [9], Persephone [10], Luvoir [11] [12] [13] [14], Lynx mostly the same as Luvoir, Europa Lander just take sources from Europa Lander, Interstellar probe [15]. Leijurv (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1049670044 Leijurv (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1049155186 Leijurv (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Sorry for my typos, I don't have autocorrect on lol CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1049677654 Leijurv (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also Special:Diff/1049678437 Leijurv (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is a potential use for SLS to be sustainable. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this was  Done by my above edit talking about SLS use cases, such as the interstellar probe: Special:Diff/1049670044 Leijurv (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right on cue, CRS-20 added more of them just now, to the new images I added to the article: Special:Diff/1049655715 and Special:Diff/1049663316. Lol. Leijurv (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1049673584 Leijurv (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 mean moving all the info inside the pics into prose. The pics are fine, but describe them in prose would be better. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What information specifically, please? Do you mean, like, naming all the little components and bits and bobs? For example, looking specifically at File:Block_1_70t_Crew_Expanded_View.jpg, the only thing I can see that belongs on this article (and not on Orion (spacecraft)) would be something like The core stage is attached to the ICPS using something called a "Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter", is that what you mean? I mean I suppose we could say that, but there's an unlimited pool of more and more technical detail we could go into of how it all fits together. At that point I would defer to WP:DUE and say that the components we should talk about are the components that WP:RS talk about. Leijurv (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, just cover differences between block in prose. Technical differences is gonna be a billion page long, so not that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:48, 13 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  Done Leijurv (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)
 Done Special:Diff/1049337685 Leijurv (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff

No copyright violations

No non-free images

Reference OK

Media relevancy OK

No original research

Second opinion reason

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]
@Artem.G: May I ask how you located those cleanup tags? Is there a tool or gadget for it? Leijurv (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware about such a tool, I just look through the article and saw these tags. :) Artem.G (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: as a second opinion, I wanted to say that while the article can still be improved, in my view it currently meets all the criteria to be a GA. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For real??? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, let me check 1 more time CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing to other GAs, I think this is a good article. @Leijurv: @DeltaDizzy:, you officially got your first ! Long road ahead though, I think this article should aim for the stars! (pun intended) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:24, 15 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]

DeltaDizzy (who added these numbers) might take a look at this tomorrow perhaps :) Leijurv (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories