Jump to content

Talk:Space Launch System

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreammaker182 (talk | contribs) at 17:48, 23 July 2012 (→‎Artist Concept picture with exploded view of elements...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2011 Merge proposal

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

Yea, the IP user that tagged the articles did not provide any justification for merging them. Looked like drive by tagging to me.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - no. If no one has any objections, I'm removing the tags. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I suggest removing the merge templates. Alinor (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Late Objection- A Shuttle-Derived heavy launch vehicle is a Space Launch System. NASA is seeking an alternative Space Launch System to the Ares family; possibly a system like the Jupiter (rocket family) in the DIRECT Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle architecture. I don't know the difference between the Jupiter and the Ares V family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles but I'm sure they are all Space Launch Systems. SEC. 302."SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AS FOLLOW-ON LAUNCH VEHICLE TO THE SPACE SHUTTLE." of S.3729 NASA Authorization Act of 2010 doesn’t name a new system it gives NASA the authority to develop a system that can "access lunar space and the regions of space beyond low-Earth..." without saying that system must be the Ares or any other specific launch system. Smgntion (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
regardless of how set in stone a new design is, there is no doubt that there is something being developed that's not directly a copy of any of the previous SDLVs and most news articles refer to it as SLS. The SDLV article discusses the many proposals while this focuses on the vehicle being built by NASA TMV943 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ares IV

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

NASA has not decided on a configuration yet. The agency is still studying various Shuttle-derived vehicle configurations. It may be something like a smaller Ares IV or Ares V Lite to follow the NASA authorization act. Look over the article in reference 3 on the main SLS page and maybe others articles on spaceflightnow.com. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well NASA has a general SLS configuration and has put out status reports for Congress in January 2011 and Feb. 2011. I also found some later press releases and documents without SLS details using this google search. The Feb. one shows a general SLS config, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article could use a diagram

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

  • No design finalized yet ( as per my question above)... it will probably look similar to other shuttle derived launch systems, but alas no exact or even near-guess images yet... TANSTAAFL (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This NASA Feb. 2011 report has a general configuration layout diagram that could be used. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, see File:NASA SLS ref config Feb 2011.png from page 4 in the linked report above. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the news, DIRECT

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

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

Maybe very similar, but not likely an exact or direct copy. These all fall under Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle, so they will look a lot alike... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. DIRECT 3.0 became basically the old National Launch System in the low-Earth-orbit form (with one fewer engine), and added a full 8.4 m modern lightweight-design second stage (and an extra SSME) for beyond-Earth-orbit missions. NASA's current Block 1 design is somewhat like the NLS. Block 1a is very close to some DIRECT beyond-Earth-orbit designs, but uses one extra engine. But, I think Fnlayson is correct in stating that the unifying concept is that they are all shuttle-derived designs. If specific missions arise where multiple launches of similar rockets are used, that would surely represent an emphasis of specific DIRECT ideals. Fotoguzzi (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not just referring to the physical appearance but the key attributes of the design. Namely, the plan to reuse the RS-25 and 5 segment solid fuel boosters as well as the inline fuel tanks. This differs significantly from the Ares design and is one of the main features of DIRECT v3 and the SDVs. 12:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the vehicle's configuration, not simply external appearance. I don't think further discussion is worthwhile until a reference that goes it to this is found.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn INT-nn

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

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

Schedule

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

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

SLS launch cost per pound or kg to LEO

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

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

Shuttle side-mount

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

The sentence is talking about current launchers and derivatives of existing ones. Side-Mount was just a concept. Side-Mount is no more relevant than the several Shuttle-based designs NASA has studied over the years. I don't see the point in singling this one out here. That's why Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle is linked. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with that.I will find a way to compact the pork barrel cited 3 times into 1 sentence, also citing newt gingrich could be nice (he the only candidate with a space interst), --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propellant depots

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

I think the wording may have been changed to 'on-orbit refueling' or something like that. I added 'depot' back in there to match common terminology for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, a wikilink to Propellant depot could help too--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Opposition

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

You and others have already done that, but without any balance. Too much detail and quotes also. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly in the article is this NASA cheerleading stuff anyway? The text presents the plans and events without biased wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The critiscism /opposition section should be huge given the amout of controversy this programm provoke.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More 3rd party sources need to be used instead the self-published ones from the group/organization to better follow Wiki policies (WP:V, WP:RS). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you define what '3rd party sources' are acceptable to you, if ott Space Interest groups like 'the planetary society', 'Space Review', 'Space Access Society', 'Tea party in space', 'Space Frontier society', 'mars society', etc... Why not put the opposing opinions/reporting by established space advocate groups out and let readers decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrwhiteal (talk • contribs) 16:02, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
the quotation and citing some website (space review, competitive space) break the lisibility (interested readers use the refs).--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please sign your posts. Look over the links provided above. I have generally only removed or summarized what seems to be redundant text/info and removed a couple SPS refs in an effort to prevent giving undue weight to one side. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add that I support the presence of an opposition section in this article. I find it much easier to navigate by having it. My first natural thought reading this article was "I wonder if this was the best plan for NASA" and being able to jump to an opposition section was the quickest way to find information about the various arguments.JettaMann (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition should be retitled Criticism and be limited to a summary of bullet points while the rest of the section should become a separately linked "Criticism of the SLS Program" article. Doyna Yar (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is really all the same. Whatever you want to call it. If you mean separating criticism of the rocket from criticism of program, that can be difficult to do. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Things that should stay in the critiscism section, a link to propellant depots, proper funding of ccdev, asteroid manned mission projected at $ 143 Billions.things that could be moved : quotes of Tumlinson and Rohrabacher , 3 citation of pork barelling (one is enough and maybee congressional earnmarks is more appropriate), citation of The Space Review, SpacePolitics.com, Competitive Space Task Force.Your Thoughts ?--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Modifications have been made, comments ? --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a closed issue, so I'll remove the tag. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find that of the critics currently referenced, the majority exist as competitors for funding - directly or indirectly through NASA initiatives/support for private space enterprise. cmasiero (talk) 21:09, 22 Febuary 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.251.49 (talk)

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

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

It uses the same SSME engines and the SRBs are only lengthened by a segment. These are Not completely different. Plus it use the Shuttle stack configuration like other Shuttle-based vehicles at Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle. No reason to pick nits on this. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
concur including the tanking. Perhaps it's better thought of as an 'Evolved Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle' with a bit of unofficial DIRECT influence. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, right. Something stating the degree of Shuttle connections would be good. Provided sources for such details can be found. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the time comes for it an 'Engineering Lineage' section is a great idea. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support section

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

I changed the section header to "Opposition and support" to provide a place for support text, but another user changed the label back without giving it a chance. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Opinion" or "Critique" with pro and con subsections?Doyna Yar (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He could look like this one Minimum_wage#Debate_over_consequences --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upper stages

It seems the upper stages are exactly other way around;

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

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

Comparison, context, similarities to Energia

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

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

Adding the link in the See also section should not be a problem. But text comparing the two launchers needs to be cited so we don't get into Original Research land. The layout for SLS flows from the Shuttle and is similar to other Shuttle-derived launchers also. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison SLS vs. Ares variants and Direct's Jupiter proposal, which made a major pitch to the Augustine Commission, would seem more germane to the decisions that lead to SLS. Doyna Yar (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "Energia, a comparable launcher which carried payloads including Polyus and the Soviet space shuttle Buran." to the see also section.
I too thought that the see also section was a good place for it, I don't know where it has or has not been discussed notably, I simply do not have an interest in the subject. The other thing I was thinking would be context, as the Energia indicates to the readers that the concept has been used before, although the Energia was built from the start with the whole idea in mind, re, placement of engines and so forth. I figured if they are studying the subject of using the shuttle launch system (with the required mods) as a launcher, they may be interested. Penyulap ☏ 09:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In line Shuttle and lamenting

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

But what would they do? It cost well over a billion dollars to launch TMV943 (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one thing large downmass, say in the event of a damaged ISS module that could be repaired on the ground. Nevermind just doing the orbital infrastructure work, ISS support, and science they had for decades. The shuttles had no destination until the ISS they were designed to service, now ISS is compromised from it's original vision with no crew hab and shuttle. The crew reduction from 10 to 6 meant a better than 50% reduction on science because the station requires the work of 3 just for maintenance. The shuttles were certified for 100 flights each, their frames could be modified for reuse on a new safer launcher like SLS. I can't honestly say what that may cost, but there are plenty of government bean counters who could do a cost/benefit analysis. If i'm not mistaken the military aid we give to Egypt and Israel just to buy the peace was better than the STS annual budget. I'm not suggesting the flight schedule they had, but wouldn't keeping one in reserve make some sort of sense? From strategic national assets to museum pieces, makes me wonder if they'll see Buran's fate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to use them, then keep two with the 2nd as a backup. The shuttle program seemed to have gotten costly with so many people supporting the program near the end. I preferred keeping the Shuttle going, but it'd take good boost of funding for that, ISS, commercial space, and SLS development. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Right. Thanks for the reminder. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, so much for that..., thanks guru. Reminds me of middle school. Delete at your leisure (how do you throw the bird again in ASCII?) Doyna Yar (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Concept picture with exploded view of elements...

I found an image released by MSFC on their flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasamarshall/7630664212/in/photostream I am sure that it could be used here, then again I don't know if the original artist has any rights or if it's all property of the US gov.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Launch_System&oldid=503803822"