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 86.46.186.19 (talk) at 20:33, 10 September 2013 (→‎Incoherent writings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Boosters

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

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

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

The F-1 proposal is for a booster rocket, not first stage. There should really be a good section on the upcoming competition for the boosters. It feels only hinted to in the current booster section. TMV943 (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am eager to see how the F-1 rocket engine booster comes along too, I am especially interested if they up-rate the engine to the F-1A thrust and Isp levels that were slated for flight testing on the Saturn V-3 of the late 1970s. Moreover, someone should resurrect the LH2/LO2 M-1 (rocket engine) for the 2nd stage(although the cluster of J-2X's might be cheaper but heavier). What's really needed to do a Mars mission right is a (NTR)nuclear thermal rocket - such as NERVA which was tested in the 60s, as you need high thrust crew transfers from Earth orbit to Mars (or to a NEO orbit) so your crew aren't bored to death out there waiting 8 months on Hohmann transfer orbits to Mars.
For cargo movement you're not too bothered by how slow it goes, you're just interested in launch costs$/kg so a nuclear electric rocket(NEP) might be ideal to serve as a tug boat between high earth orbit to Mars or a NEO. The NEP would be ideal to serve as a Earth to Mars tug boat that is frugal on propellant, easy to refuel when the need arises, and has a higher Isp(better mileage) but lower thrust(slow acceleration) than the NTR.
Boundarylayer (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block 0 ?, oh and 1B etc...

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

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

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

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

Costs

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

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

Senate Launch System

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

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

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

Most of those articles are from the fall 2011, over a year ago. And a couple do not seem to be from neutral organizations. What about more recent coverage from prominent news sources? Maybe mention that name somewhere in the article, but not in the Lead as it is not common and significant enough. It'd be POV to give a short term nickname undue weight there, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not need to be neutral. My point is that this is a name that has been applied to the system, and is in fact a face of the criticism being applied to the system. Indeed it is pushing a POV to exclude this kind of information from an article of this nature, where it gives the impression that this is a puff piece and highly sympathetic towards NASA and the SLS contractors. I'm not asking for undue weight as in making a major section going into depth with this name, but I find it disingenuous to suggest that this nickname doesn't exist either. Each one of those sources would count as reliable sources in other contexts, so why not here? --Robert Horning (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Space Habitat (DSH)/Skylab 2?

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

The connections of those to SLS does seem weak. I had to look through the 2nd page of the Aviation Week article (ref. 67 now) to find a meniton of SLS in the text. Maybe combine these with the Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) missions entry. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want real speculative wish list material, see here - Falcon rocket vehicle.
As for this article, The Skylab II material is well referenced and due to the massive, large diameter propellant tanks required for a Skylab-esque station, it is a unique intrinsic capability that SLS will have over other vehicles like the Falcon Heavy. While the reference to the Deep Space Habitat(DSH) here is weak, it too should stay. Moreover in reference to 'wish lists', imagine for a moment if wikipedia was around when the Saturn V was being designed, it would be necessary to have the very speculative, but authoritative, contemporary Von Braun quotes about his 'wishes' to use the vehicle for Mars missions by no later than 1980 etc. etc. So I don't see anything wrong with including the material.
In saying that, I do understand your concerns, but they would be easily dealt with if someone were to just make clear that the DSH being carried skyward by the SLS isn't, obviously, part of the administrations firm 'roadmap'(seen as it doesn't really have a firm roadmap to speak of anyway), but DSH is, like lots of other things, merely being assessed in relation to the SLS.
Boundarylayer (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Booster Competition Subsection?

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

I don't think that is needed, since the Advanced Booster is for the main SLS version, Block II. Summarizing the text in the Booster section better helps a lot. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to disagree but I've read several articles over the past year on the subject, like testing. I see these articles mirroring the SLS and Orion testing (wind tunnel, test articles, mockups, drop tests, pad tests, etc.). The ABC is unique in that it still isn't fixed SLS hardware where as the core and second stage options are mapped out. Doyna Yar (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds right given things have moved slowly or been delayed on that. If the Booster section grows a lot more, we can we put the ABC content in a separate subsection from the current 5 segment SRB for the Block I/IA/IB versions. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Payload capacity

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

I don't see Block 1A or 1B mentioned in that presentation. Those payload masses could be potential growth capabilities, or they are counting Orion capsule and something else as the payload. There needs to be more than one presentation with a meniton of the payload to say the payload masses have officially changed. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong about 1A and 1B, sorry about that. But shouldn't the article at least make a mention of Block 1's higher estimated payload capacity? Ed Kyle's space launch report also estimates Block 1's payload to LEO at 95 tons.(217.123.143.19 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

SLS Vehicle Configurations

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

 Done - It's now on the page five tim... ok, it's only on once now;). — Gopher65talk 18:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent writings

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

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

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

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

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

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

... so do it:). The absolute worst that would happen is that someone would revert your change. Please feel free to make whatever improvements you deem necessary. I'll make this edit for you to get the ball rolling, but you can do it yourself as easily as write it here. — Gopher65talk 03:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
....concur, GO!, be gone. Contribute or vaporize Doyna Yar (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block II version using ATX/Thiokol's "Dark Knight" SRB

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Launch_System&oldid=572395579"