Talk:Space Launch System

Massive rewrite in late June, 2019?

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

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 The structure of the article was outdated. 5Ept5xW (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Unbalanced" Tag

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

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

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

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

Infobox image changed?

Sorry if this was discussed elsewhere, but I don't understand why the artist rendering of SLS in the main infobox (this image: [1]) has been replaced by a core stage construction image. I would presume that a rendition of the completed rocket at the top of the article would be more informative for readers than an in-progress construction image from the gallery. It would be appreciated if someone could fill me in, thanks! Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 02:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Dragonfly and other payloads should be noted for SLS

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

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

American English but...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Developments beyond block 2

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

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

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

"Space launch system" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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

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

program and launch cost estimates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring

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

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

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

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

B) Launch cost :

• You have 4 sources :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Jadebenn:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SLS Launch Cost

@Jadebenn:Since the above conversation has become unreadable and we seem to have come to an agreement concerning the Program Cost so far, I think starting a new section focusing only on Launch Cost is a good idea. For now I am going to delete the Lunch Cost altogether until we come to an agreement (ie you come to your senses). It's all estimates in the best of cases anyway. So you admit that the NASA administrator speech is "a weak citation by itself" and add that it should somehow be lumped with the other (weak) references to make your case. multiple anecdotal evidence do not amount to a good argument. This is a fallacy. So I'm gonna take your references one by one!

• A Youtube video where NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine says and I quote : "In the end we're gonna be in the 800 million to the 900 million dollars, I don't know honestly", is hardly a "source". Can we agree on that and move on?

@Moamem: That's not what you're supposed to do. As you're having difficulty with me, you should attempt to engage other editors in the conversation. One way you can do this is by pinging prolific editors. Another would be to post on the Wikiproject Spaceflight talk thread. Moving without consensus is frowned upon once an edit has proven controversial. I have also addressed your point in regards to this source. Please refer to our previous conversation. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:Well yeah, YOUR edit! You're the one who made the edit! As can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=929316586&oldid=929241314

I am merely putting the original an real figure back up there! I mean your level of dishonesty is incredible.

@Moamem: Yes, I made a compromise edit that was accepted, as can be seen by McSly and Materialscientist's reversions of your changes. I addressed both points by adding a new category instead of engaging in a pointless edit war. The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle was followed. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:You did not make any compromise with anyone, you just made the edit on your own with the comment "Corrected cost information" as can be seen here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=929316586&oldid=929241314 . The fact that you were not immediately challenged does not mean it is the consensus positions. Actually you would be quite lonely in the camp that tries to assert that SLS launch cost (not marginal launch cost which is a different figure that can be addressed if you want, but is not the one discussed here) is anywhere near $500 millions or even 900. At this point this seems to be general knowledge among the public.

@Jadebenn: I just realised how much you've been acting like you own this page, I am at least the 6th person in the last 6 months that tries to revert this figure to the real one :

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=925620594&oldid=925395840

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=925963019&oldid=925876896

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=926359702&oldid=926277355

4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=927943530&oldid=927446682

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=955609445&oldid=955286614

and me.

Which side is the consensus on?Moamem (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Just as an FYI to everyone: "Launch cost estimate" isn't the same as "total program costs per launch" or even "program operating expenses per flight". The launch cost per flight might well be "900 million or something, we don't really know", just as NASA claims.

• Total costs per flight depends on the eventual total number of flights. This number is hard to guess based on current information, but it will likely end up between 4 and 20 billion per flight. Big range due to unknowns.
• Program operating expenses per flight depends on the flight rate. This is what the OP keeps talking about. It will probably be between 2 and 5 billion per flight, depending on whether SLS launches twice per year (basically impossible), once every year, once every two years, or even less often. The less often if flies, the higher this number gets.
• Direct launch costs depends on nothing, though it is of course affected by the economies of scale that higher flight rates bring. Estimates have ranged between 400 million and 1.5 billion, depending on who you talk to. Bridenstine is pushing 900 million. That's probably not too far off, + or - a bit.

These are three different numbers with three different uses. They are not comparable or interchangeable. — Gopher65_talk 21:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)