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 24.22.169.89 (talk) at 15:20, 20 September 2018 (→‎Changes to EM numbering from updated Gateway plans). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comparables: Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, BFR Comparable: Falcon Heavy

SpaceX just updated FH payload to LEO to 64mT, which is about 10% less than SLS Block I payload to LEO. So I added Falcon Heavy to the "Comparable" list. Greg (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, definitely worth it for Falcon Heavy to be listed in the InfoBox, as it is also with BFR, which some other editor seems to have added to that infobox since Sep 2017. So both are listed, and this is appropriate given payload masses, projected missions, etc.
Observation: It seems like, with multiple sources now discussing the parallels, comparables, relative costs, political implications, and number of projected flights in which future years, of several different US rockets with SLS (Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, BFR, others?), that there ought to be something in the article prose that addresses this topic as well.

What do others think? Calling previous posters: User:Greg Lindahl, User:Rod57, User:Doyna Yar, User:Boundarylayer, User:Gopher65, others?

My gut reaction is that what you're proposing would be pretty highly argued unless it was as factual as possible, and not all of the facts are known -- many dates are fuzzy or outright aspirational, some prices and performance numbers are incomplete (reused vs expended.) I wouldn't want to take part in the discussion, either. Just the list itself, that's easy. :-) Greg (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do not see the value of other launchers in the chart. First I would point out they are already compared here: [[1]] and perhaps a link under 'See also' would cover it. Secondly I would suggest that comparisons not be framed from a competitive angle as similar redundant access to space is desired by it's users/market. Doyna Yar (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Donya's link is a great comparison, I agree that this article should just point at it. Greg (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Space Launch System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely cost per flight

[2] says (based on NASA comments) "So if NASA makes 20 SLS flights by the end of the 2030s, the rocket will roughly cost the agency a total of $60 billion, or $3 billion per flight." - but if they only make 9 or 10 flights they will cost more - eg see Talk:Space_Launch_System/Archive_1#$5_Billion_Launch_Cost? ! - Rod57 (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EM-2 payload change?

The NASA FY 2019 Budget Overview states that the first module of the Lunar Gateway, the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE), will now be launched with a "commercial launch vehicle": [1] And Space News also reports a "commercial launch vehicle".[2] That seems to imply it will not be the SLS, and that the EM-2 mission will now have a different payload.

Also, both sources state the PPE launch is for 2022, while the EM-2 is scheduled for 2023,[3] which suggest different missions. Any updates and info are appreciated. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "NASA FY 2019 Budget Overview" (PDF). Quote: "Supports launch of the Power and Propulsion Element on a commercial launch vehicle as the first component of the LOP - Gateway, (page 14)
  2. ^ NASA considers acquiring more than one gateway propulsion module. Joe Faust, Space News. 30 March 2018.
  3. ^ Live Launch

Updated Block 1 Payload Numbers

NASA has updated the payload numbers for Block 1 to 95 tons LEO, numbers in the article should be updated accordingly.

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/to-the-moon.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okan170 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done a while ago, thanks. — JFG talk 08:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Payload mass to various orbits" section seems overcomplicated

This section contains lots of information that seems tangentially related to the Space Launch System. Additionally, it is hard to compare the various rockets (which seems to be the point of the section?) since there is a mix of destinations. I suggest that either the section should be removed entirely, or that the table should only record the payloads to low earth orbit. Thoughts?

Agpagpagp (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given Greg's and Doyna Yar's comments in the other discussion section, along with a lack of opposition, I'm going ahead to make the change. Agpagpagp (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was a jolly good idea. People interested in comparing large rockets can head over to Super heavy-lift launch vehicle and Comparison of orbital launch systems. — JFG talk 13:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History

The program history of this launch vehicle seems to be missing from the article, even though the SLS program history goes back 8 or 10 years. Seems like the article needs a place to keep such information, and many other launch vehicle articles have a History section. That fits appropriately with the encyclopedic objective of Wikipedia, since WP is not a newspaper to merely report the latest status of a program.

I'd like to start such a section; strictly with with well-sourced information of course.

But before I do, is there any objection that might prevent consensus on this matter. The article has existed a long time and it has no History section in its current form. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea to add a History section. A lot of the existing contents could be moved there. — JFG talk 04:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then let's do it when there is some time to edit and get it all organized well. Ping me JFG when you have some time, and we'll see if we can't both get some editing done to create a really useful section. N2e (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The history is not totally missing. The development section was meant to cover the development history. Some design details could be moved to Vehicle description to make this clearer. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, some of that is spread throughout the article, especially development history, and some bits of program history. But the overall program-level history does seem to be generally lacking, and certainly not very accessible to the global reader who comes to this article the first time. N2e (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to EM numbering from updated Gateway plans

A recent change was made to the EM chart to:

  • put the airlock module as part of the payload for EM-3,
  • claim that the SLS-launched logistics module with robotic arm that is following the launch of the habitation modules has been delegated to a commercial launcher and
  • remove the subsequent mission after the robotic arm mission that would provide the crew airlock to the station.

All of these changes are inaccurate or unsubstantiated. There are two NASA Spaceflight articles which do an excellent job of outlining the construction of LOP-G and corresponding Exploration Missions. Please read both: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/nasa-goals-missions-sls-eyes-multi-step-mars/ and https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/09/nasa-lunar-gateway-plans/ . The April 2017 article relates to a talk given by Bill Gerstenmaier to NASA Advisory Council (NAC) for what was then called the Deep Space Gateway and Transport Plan. It is important to note that logistics missions occur several times throughout construction. Those are interspersed between the SLS Exploration Missions are performed mostly by commercially-contracted Cislunar Support Flights (CSF). However one of these logistics missions had been delegated to SLS as it would be co-manifested with the robotic arm. Quoting the article: "EM-3 would last between 16 and 26 days and would be the first flight capable of performing scientific objectives on the DSG. This mission would be followed by a commercially-contracted Cislunar Support Flight (CSF). “[The Deep Space Gateway] doesn’t preclude the commercial industries or using their vehicles to take significant logistics to this gateway,” noted Mr. Gerstenmaier. “This is a demonstrable, objective way to build the skills … as directed by the Authorization Act.” The EM-4 mission would then follow in 2025 with a 4 person crew to add a ≤10mT Logistic module (which will include a Canadian-built robotic arm) to the DSG."

According to the April 2017 article the Gateway construction begins with the launch of the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) to lunar orbit, followed by a mission to add a habitation module, followed by a SLS-launched logistics mission in which the logistics module is co-manifested with the robotic arm, and finally followed by a mission to add a crew airlock which would complete the Gateway. From what I can see this basic order of operations has not changed. What has changed is:

  • that the PPE mission was delegated to a commercial launcher,
  • a new step was added after the launch of PPE to have ESPRIT co-manifested with the U.S. Utilization module launched by SLS, and
  • a second habitat module was added which is also launched by SLS (this is stated explicitly in the September 2018 article "The habitation modules would then follow one at a time on EM-4 and EM-5." and you can see stated in the graphic that these are both SLS-launched).

While not stated explicitly in the September 2018 article, the launch of the habitation modules would still need to be followed by two more Exploration Missions for the Gateway to be complete. These would include a logistics mission where the logistics module is co-manifested with a robotic arm and a final mission to launch the crew airlock. There seems to be some confusion due to the fact that the Gateway now has two airlocks. There is a science airlock which is part of ESPRIT as well as the crew airlock. Those are shown to be distinct in the info-graphic here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasas-exploration-campaign-back-to-the-moon-and-on-to-mars . In the Block 1B configuration, SLS has the capability to launch a ≤10mT payload co-manifested with Orion to Gateway's L2 Southern NRHO. Launching ESPRIT, U.S. Utilization Module, Orion and the crew airlock on a single EM would be outside both mass and volume constraints.

I would request we revert all of the revisions in the 11:55, 18 September 2018‎ edit until those can be substantiated.

With everything we know the correct order of the Exploration Missions up to the completion of the Gateway currently stand as follows:

  • EM-1: Orion Capsule around the moon with 13 CubeSats
  • EM-2: First crewed Orion Capsule and ICPS sent on free-return trajectory around the moon
  • EM-3: Delivery of ESPRIT and U.S. Utilization module to LOP-G
  • EM-4: Delivery of International Partner Habitat to LOP-G
  • EM-5: Delivery of U.S. Habitat to LOP-G
  • EM-6: Delivery of Logistics module co-manifested with robotic arm to LOP-G
  • EM-7: Delivery of crew airlock to LOP-G

24.22.169.89 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Pseismic[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Launch_System&oldid=860419342"