This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I found an image released by MSFC on their flickr 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. Dreammaker182 ( talk) 17:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I got Block 1B refs in finally... Doyna Yar ( talk) 04:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Yes the initial source I provided does indeed only say that. However I should have presented the one more detailed one below. As I know ATK's advanced booster can only achieve the Block II requirement of 130 metric tons to LEO, IF and only IF, the number of RS-25s/ core Hydrolox engines, are increased from the planned 4 to ATK's desired 5. So it is not at all fair to present the article as you have done so. Comparing apples to oranges, as with just 4 RS-25 engines they will only be able to lift 113 metric tons. See the performance data from the horse's mouth, that little gold triangle means they require a change of the core stange to five RS-25 engines to achieve 130 to 138 metric tons - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=30862.0;attach=515287;image In sum we need to rewrite the booster section, as it's getting pretty ridiculous the amount of times you keep on inserting misleading info. 86.46.186.19 ( talk) 00:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a likely source of confusion and disagreement, so I think it would be helpful to explain Wikipedia policy explicitly. Whenever SI units are used (including "non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI" like the tonne/metric ton) Wikipedia policy as given in Wikipedia:UNITS requires that they are given the correct symbol. This applies regardless of context, with only a few exemptions such as "cc" for engine displacements. SI symbols are not abbreviations; they are language-independent symbols like mathematical and musical notation, designed to be understood by anyone regardless of language; they are used even in languages that are not written in the Latin alphabet, as well as languages that use completely different names for the units. Moreover, there is by design a one-to-one correspondence between symbol and unit, to avoid ambiguity - the only correct interpretation of the symbol "70 mT" is actually "70 milliteslas" which is obviously not what is meant. Language-dependent abbreviations of unit names, such as "kph", "cu. m.", "mtrs", "mT" and so on, are likely to cause confusion, they are strongly discouraged by the BIPM and the NIST, and they are against Wikipedia style policy. Archon 2488 ( talk) 22:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The current layout described the core stage, boosters and upper stages in a somewhat confusing and cluttered manner. Would it be better to remove these sections and instead give each configuration (Block 1, 1B, etc.) it's own section? I'll try to write something soon but I thought such a radical change should be discussed first. M129K ( talk) 12:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The section on design and development begins with the announcement by NASA of design selections. This is plainly not the beginning of the program, which would have begun with solicitation of designs. Thus the section is incomplete; it assumes the design process instead of informing about it. Dismalscholar ( talk) 08:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The following addition to the picture attached was deleted as "irrelevant" by the previous editor. However I can't fathom why someone would think a ~1 Sievert to and fro radiation exposure to crew would be deemed "irrelevant". The length of the chemical propelled MSL mission was approximately 8 months, 240 days, the graphics 180 day estimate is based on readings from this mission. It is relevant to the choice of the upper stage engines of the crewed Mars transfer vehicle if they are propelled by slow chemical engines or something comparatively exotic that could do it in 180 days or less.
[[File:PIA17601-Comparisons-RadiationExposure-MarsTrip-20131209.png|thumb|right|Comparison of Radiation Doses from cosmic rays and the solar wind in milli Sieverts detected on the trip from Earth to Mars by the RAD on the MSL (2011-2013). The above 180 day transit estimate is based on readings made during the approximately 8 month/240 day MSL transit, a trip propelled by a chemical rocket, the Centaur, an RL-10 engined upper stage of the Atlas V.<ref name="SCI-20130531a">{{cite journal |last=Kerr |first=Richard |title=Radiation Will Make Astronauts' Trip to Mars Even Riskier |url=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1031.summary |date=31 May 2013 |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=340 |page=1031 |doi=10.1126/science.340.6136.1031 |accessdate=31 May 2013 |issue=6136}}</ref><ref name="SCI-20130531b">{{cite journal |title=Measurements of Energetic Particle Radiation in Transit to Mars on the Mars Science Laboratory |url=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1080.abstract |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |date=31 May 2013 |volume=340 |pages=1080–1084 |doi=10.1126/science.1235989 |accessdate=31 May 2013 |author=Zeitlin, C. et al. |issue=6136 |last2=Hassler |first2=D. M. |last3=Cucinotta |first3=F. A. |last4=Ehresmann |first4=B. |last5=Wimmer-Schweingruber |first5=R. F. |last6=Brinza |first6=D. E. |last7=Kang |first7=S. |last8=Weigle |first8=G. |last9=Bottcher |first9=S. |first10=E. |first11=S. |first12=J. |first13=J. |first14=C. |first15=A. |first16=S. |first17=G.}}</ref><ref name="NYT-20130530">{{cite news |last=Chang |first=Kenneth |title=Data Point to Radiation Risk for Travelers to Mars |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/science/space/data-show-higher-cancer-risk-for-mars-astronauts.html |date=30 May 2013 |publisher=[[New York Times]] |accessdate=31 May 2013 }}</ref>]]
It's not our job to deconstruct published criticism, just to record it if relevant. The critisicm section looks to be pretty well cited and referenced, and as a government program, published criticisms from industry figures ARE relevent and noteworthy. Recording that there has been critisicm of the program does not affect the article's NPOV, therefore I have removed the rewrite tag. Jmackaerospace ( talk) 15:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, I have added a section POV template which is more in line with what you seem to think is the problem. Suggest you read Wikipedia:Criticism_sections#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism because as previously stated, I can see no problem with this section as written. Jmackaerospace ( talk) 09:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Just so everybody's aware, it looks like NASA's pushed back the initial launch date of the Block 1 SLS to November 2018, and that has the potential to push back all the subsequent mission dates as well. I haven't changed anything in the article, as the source below doesn't give a definite date that it's pushing to. You can read the article below: http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-says-heavy-lift-rocket-debut-not-likely-230603632.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.famous.adventurer ( talk • contribs) 09:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
While SpaceX respectfully is making great strides in the industry, their HLV is very much on the vaporous drawing boards and far from even a prototype. In time it may be relevant, but I don't think it belongs here at this time. Doyna Yar ( talk) 02:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that "hitting a nerve" with comments on the Talk page is very relevant. A media source has noted that there may be some competition for American HLV vehicles, and possibly two of them, in the 2020s. The brief mention of that currently in this article does not seem unduly weighted, is verifiably sourced, and seems to state only that basic fact. After all, neither vehicle is flying today, both are only in early stages of development with flight years away. So given that Wikipedia is not censored, I would think it quite appropriate to leave the mention of the competitive vehicle in the article. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 04:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Funny, no mention, debate, or issue in the Falcon Heavy page. Hell not even a mention of SLS..? Hint and a half if the SpaceX junkies aren't playin' it up you're not getting enough oxygen citizen. Just add Falcon Heavy's page to See also and lets just wait and see. Yeesh! Doyna Yar ( talk) 03:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe any sort of full consensus was reached in the above discussion on what to do with the "Competition for an American heavy-lift launch vehicle" section of the article, although there were some elements of agreement. Moreover, much of the discussion above was not even about that section, which started this discussion, but about other topics, including "Criticism" of the SLS and how the much-smaller Falcon Heavy may or may not compete with the SLS. While these may be relevant topics for the Talk page, they should be discussed in some separate section, not in the section discussion "competition" that may emerge in the 2020s from the MCT and SLS.
Just today, I observed that someone made a rather major edit based on a "suggestion" made in the above section, but which did not have widespread consensus. I have added that deleted material back into the article, and have started a discussion below, per WP:BRD. Please join that discussion if the topic of "competition" or the "MCT and SLS as both being >100 mt launch vehicles potentially available from American producers in the 2020s" interests you. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I have added back a section that was deleted in an edit on 14 September 2014 by User:Fnlayson. I assume good faith. Suggest we discuss it further here, per WP:BRD, and see if perhaps smaller changes can't be proposed and consensus obtained.
So to start with, how might we incorporate this material on this competitive aspect into the article, as some subsection that doesn't imply it has anything to do with criticism?
Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Space Launch System/Archive 1. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Space Launch System/Archive 1 at the Reference desk. |
I will just note that the above Talk page section has become such a mess, with a discussion of a VERY wide variety of topics well beyond the quite narrow topic of the BRD on a few lines of article prose, and with (apparently) a lot of history and previous unsettled arguments brought into the mix, that for me, it's not really possible to continue having a rational discussion on the much more narrow topic that was originally under discussion in this section. YMMV, but if I have more to say, I'll likely say it somewhere where the topic breadth can be clearly limited to a single item at a time, and hopefully avoid the discussion being joined by a lot of history of previous (unfinished?) discussions that are unrelated. Cheers to all of you, N2e ( talk) 11:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
We have some pretty wild claims being made about the payload lift capability of the Block IB with the Exploration Upper stage. I believe the discrepancy between 93.1 & 118 tons to LEO is due to the sources that cite the first reference referring to actual payload and the latter to sources including payload+the fuel and engine weight of the Exploration Upper stage. Naturally seen as 93.1 is the payload to LEO capability; this is the more accurate figure.
In any case, we need to clear up exactly what payload capacity to LEO the Block IB SLS will have - [which is presently a vehicle architecture with the Exploration Upper Stage 2nd stage combined with the core stage's four RS-25 engines and dual 5(or 5.5) grain segment shuttle derived SRB's] - will really be capable of.
Thoughts? 178.167.254.30 ( talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
"The SLS will launch the Orion Crew and Service Module and may support trips to the International Space Station if necessary. " Really? I haven't read any mention of plans to lift modules to ISS, although I suppose it's possible. Certainly it's many times too large for crew. Can someone cite justification for the second half of this sentence? Voronwae ( talk) 03:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Really confusing having 'metric ton' and 't' used in the same article - would be better if one form were used consistently. As this is a US project, unfortunately it would seem that the SI 'tonne' may not be an acceptable form to use, however clear it might be. I would suggest that perhaps the first instance is written as xx metric tons (tonnes, t) so that more readers will grasp the units used, then subsequently use 't' for brevity. My feeling is that 't' is perhaps not a commonly known/used unit in Europe - I had to look it up (in Wikipedia of course). I wonder what NASA uses in its documents.
Also, have "...produce 1,800,000 lbf (8.0 MN) of thrust..." - imperial then metric. And "...propellant load of up to 285,000 lb (129,000 kg)..." - again imperial them metric. I'm sure it's best to be consistently and primarily metric throughout, and use imperial in parentheses for clarity for US readers. Taliska ( talk) 02:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
To me it looks more like it was derived from the Saturn instead of the Shuttle. It looks a lot like a Saturn with two boosters strapped on. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Space Launch System/Archive 1. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Space Launch System/Archive 1 at the Reference desk. |
SkywalkerPL ( talk) 09:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Block IB's second stage, scheduled to debut on Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2), will use the 8.4 meter Exploration Upper Stage (EUS), previously named the Dual Use Upper Stage (DUUS), powered by four RL10 engines.
The conceptual design does use the RL10C-1 as a baseline, but the contracts for the EUS engines haven't been awarded yet, and NASA is still evaluating options. So, while it's certain they will have to be similar to the RL10, no engines have been selected as far as I know. - Daydreamers ( talk) 15:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
As reference [24] indicates that nothing from the proposed vehicle is recovered during the launch, perhaps it is appropriate to add the term 'expendable' in the opening paragraph, and remove any reference about reusability in the article. 217.239.14.72 ( talk) 00:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
My least favorite part of the criticism section is the propellant depot idea. First of all, any propellant depot in low Earth orbit would experience orbital decay and eventually fall back to Earth. Second, with the announcement of EmDrive it appears that spacecraft propulsion may not need any propellant at all once the spacecraft arrives at low Earth orbit assuming it has sufficient solar power. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 02:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Here is the SLS Block I Launch Manifest, published on 25 May 2015: [1]; Launch date is July 2018. It will fly 11 CubeSats as secondary payloads; some were selected already. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 19:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of non-NASA sources stating the above, however during my two edits as the Irish IP user 178.167.154.99 & this new IP number my service provided has just assigned to me, I have included two pieces of data on the Saturn V, one of which was made available by the stellar work of User:Alogrin over on the Talk:Saturn_V page, who has determined that the previously cited "118 metric ton" capability of the Saturn V was incorrect and based on shoddy references. It was in fact closer to 140 metric tons according to the references they uncovered. 92.251.136.96 ( talk) 03:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, There are 2 errors in references right now:
Regards, Yann ( talk) 10:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Why are the Europa Multiple-Flyby Mission and Uranus orbiter and probe elevated to the top of this section when they belong in the 'Other proposed missions' section? And now the Tactical timeframe DRMs from the NASA roadmap are gone too? Why are 1) 'BEO Uncrewed Lunar Fly-by – Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1), and 2)BEO Crewed Lunar Orbit – Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2) deleted from the article? Doyna Yar ( talk) 23:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
How can this possibly be accurate? NASA's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget request for Exploration Systems Development was $2.7 Billion. This included development of SLS, Orion and the ground systems. I would expect costs to go down after the first flight... not up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.76.102 ( talk) 08:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if the payload mass could be sort-able. Doyna Yar ( talk) 16:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I found an image released by MSFC on their flickr 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. Dreammaker182 ( talk) 17:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I got Block 1B refs in finally... Doyna Yar ( talk) 04:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Yes the initial source I provided does indeed only say that. However I should have presented the one more detailed one below. As I know ATK's advanced booster can only achieve the Block II requirement of 130 metric tons to LEO, IF and only IF, the number of RS-25s/ core Hydrolox engines, are increased from the planned 4 to ATK's desired 5. So it is not at all fair to present the article as you have done so. Comparing apples to oranges, as with just 4 RS-25 engines they will only be able to lift 113 metric tons. See the performance data from the horse's mouth, that little gold triangle means they require a change of the core stange to five RS-25 engines to achieve 130 to 138 metric tons - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=30862.0;attach=515287;image In sum we need to rewrite the booster section, as it's getting pretty ridiculous the amount of times you keep on inserting misleading info. 86.46.186.19 ( talk) 00:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a likely source of confusion and disagreement, so I think it would be helpful to explain Wikipedia policy explicitly. Whenever SI units are used (including "non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI" like the tonne/metric ton) Wikipedia policy as given in Wikipedia:UNITS requires that they are given the correct symbol. This applies regardless of context, with only a few exemptions such as "cc" for engine displacements. SI symbols are not abbreviations; they are language-independent symbols like mathematical and musical notation, designed to be understood by anyone regardless of language; they are used even in languages that are not written in the Latin alphabet, as well as languages that use completely different names for the units. Moreover, there is by design a one-to-one correspondence between symbol and unit, to avoid ambiguity - the only correct interpretation of the symbol "70 mT" is actually "70 milliteslas" which is obviously not what is meant. Language-dependent abbreviations of unit names, such as "kph", "cu. m.", "mtrs", "mT" and so on, are likely to cause confusion, they are strongly discouraged by the BIPM and the NIST, and they are against Wikipedia style policy. Archon 2488 ( talk) 22:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The current layout described the core stage, boosters and upper stages in a somewhat confusing and cluttered manner. Would it be better to remove these sections and instead give each configuration (Block 1, 1B, etc.) it's own section? I'll try to write something soon but I thought such a radical change should be discussed first. M129K ( talk) 12:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The section on design and development begins with the announcement by NASA of design selections. This is plainly not the beginning of the program, which would have begun with solicitation of designs. Thus the section is incomplete; it assumes the design process instead of informing about it. Dismalscholar ( talk) 08:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The following addition to the picture attached was deleted as "irrelevant" by the previous editor. However I can't fathom why someone would think a ~1 Sievert to and fro radiation exposure to crew would be deemed "irrelevant". The length of the chemical propelled MSL mission was approximately 8 months, 240 days, the graphics 180 day estimate is based on readings from this mission. It is relevant to the choice of the upper stage engines of the crewed Mars transfer vehicle if they are propelled by slow chemical engines or something comparatively exotic that could do it in 180 days or less.
[[File:PIA17601-Comparisons-RadiationExposure-MarsTrip-20131209.png|thumb|right|Comparison of Radiation Doses from cosmic rays and the solar wind in milli Sieverts detected on the trip from Earth to Mars by the RAD on the MSL (2011-2013). The above 180 day transit estimate is based on readings made during the approximately 8 month/240 day MSL transit, a trip propelled by a chemical rocket, the Centaur, an RL-10 engined upper stage of the Atlas V.<ref name="SCI-20130531a">{{cite journal |last=Kerr |first=Richard |title=Radiation Will Make Astronauts' Trip to Mars Even Riskier |url=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1031.summary |date=31 May 2013 |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=340 |page=1031 |doi=10.1126/science.340.6136.1031 |accessdate=31 May 2013 |issue=6136}}</ref><ref name="SCI-20130531b">{{cite journal |title=Measurements of Energetic Particle Radiation in Transit to Mars on the Mars Science Laboratory |url=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1080.abstract |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |date=31 May 2013 |volume=340 |pages=1080–1084 |doi=10.1126/science.1235989 |accessdate=31 May 2013 |author=Zeitlin, C. et al. |issue=6136 |last2=Hassler |first2=D. M. |last3=Cucinotta |first3=F. A. |last4=Ehresmann |first4=B. |last5=Wimmer-Schweingruber |first5=R. F. |last6=Brinza |first6=D. E. |last7=Kang |first7=S. |last8=Weigle |first8=G. |last9=Bottcher |first9=S. |first10=E. |first11=S. |first12=J. |first13=J. |first14=C. |first15=A. |first16=S. |first17=G.}}</ref><ref name="NYT-20130530">{{cite news |last=Chang |first=Kenneth |title=Data Point to Radiation Risk for Travelers to Mars |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/science/space/data-show-higher-cancer-risk-for-mars-astronauts.html |date=30 May 2013 |publisher=[[New York Times]] |accessdate=31 May 2013 }}</ref>]]
It's not our job to deconstruct published criticism, just to record it if relevant. The critisicm section looks to be pretty well cited and referenced, and as a government program, published criticisms from industry figures ARE relevent and noteworthy. Recording that there has been critisicm of the program does not affect the article's NPOV, therefore I have removed the rewrite tag. Jmackaerospace ( talk) 15:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, I have added a section POV template which is more in line with what you seem to think is the problem. Suggest you read Wikipedia:Criticism_sections#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism because as previously stated, I can see no problem with this section as written. Jmackaerospace ( talk) 09:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Just so everybody's aware, it looks like NASA's pushed back the initial launch date of the Block 1 SLS to November 2018, and that has the potential to push back all the subsequent mission dates as well. I haven't changed anything in the article, as the source below doesn't give a definite date that it's pushing to. You can read the article below: http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-says-heavy-lift-rocket-debut-not-likely-230603632.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.famous.adventurer ( talk • contribs) 09:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
While SpaceX respectfully is making great strides in the industry, their HLV is very much on the vaporous drawing boards and far from even a prototype. In time it may be relevant, but I don't think it belongs here at this time. Doyna Yar ( talk) 02:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that "hitting a nerve" with comments on the Talk page is very relevant. A media source has noted that there may be some competition for American HLV vehicles, and possibly two of them, in the 2020s. The brief mention of that currently in this article does not seem unduly weighted, is verifiably sourced, and seems to state only that basic fact. After all, neither vehicle is flying today, both are only in early stages of development with flight years away. So given that Wikipedia is not censored, I would think it quite appropriate to leave the mention of the competitive vehicle in the article. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 04:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Funny, no mention, debate, or issue in the Falcon Heavy page. Hell not even a mention of SLS..? Hint and a half if the SpaceX junkies aren't playin' it up you're not getting enough oxygen citizen. Just add Falcon Heavy's page to See also and lets just wait and see. Yeesh! Doyna Yar ( talk) 03:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe any sort of full consensus was reached in the above discussion on what to do with the "Competition for an American heavy-lift launch vehicle" section of the article, although there were some elements of agreement. Moreover, much of the discussion above was not even about that section, which started this discussion, but about other topics, including "Criticism" of the SLS and how the much-smaller Falcon Heavy may or may not compete with the SLS. While these may be relevant topics for the Talk page, they should be discussed in some separate section, not in the section discussion "competition" that may emerge in the 2020s from the MCT and SLS.
Just today, I observed that someone made a rather major edit based on a "suggestion" made in the above section, but which did not have widespread consensus. I have added that deleted material back into the article, and have started a discussion below, per WP:BRD. Please join that discussion if the topic of "competition" or the "MCT and SLS as both being >100 mt launch vehicles potentially available from American producers in the 2020s" interests you. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I have added back a section that was deleted in an edit on 14 September 2014 by User:Fnlayson. I assume good faith. Suggest we discuss it further here, per WP:BRD, and see if perhaps smaller changes can't be proposed and consensus obtained.
So to start with, how might we incorporate this material on this competitive aspect into the article, as some subsection that doesn't imply it has anything to do with criticism?
Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Space Launch System/Archive 1. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Space Launch System/Archive 1 at the Reference desk. |
I will just note that the above Talk page section has become such a mess, with a discussion of a VERY wide variety of topics well beyond the quite narrow topic of the BRD on a few lines of article prose, and with (apparently) a lot of history and previous unsettled arguments brought into the mix, that for me, it's not really possible to continue having a rational discussion on the much more narrow topic that was originally under discussion in this section. YMMV, but if I have more to say, I'll likely say it somewhere where the topic breadth can be clearly limited to a single item at a time, and hopefully avoid the discussion being joined by a lot of history of previous (unfinished?) discussions that are unrelated. Cheers to all of you, N2e ( talk) 11:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
We have some pretty wild claims being made about the payload lift capability of the Block IB with the Exploration Upper stage. I believe the discrepancy between 93.1 & 118 tons to LEO is due to the sources that cite the first reference referring to actual payload and the latter to sources including payload+the fuel and engine weight of the Exploration Upper stage. Naturally seen as 93.1 is the payload to LEO capability; this is the more accurate figure.
In any case, we need to clear up exactly what payload capacity to LEO the Block IB SLS will have - [which is presently a vehicle architecture with the Exploration Upper Stage 2nd stage combined with the core stage's four RS-25 engines and dual 5(or 5.5) grain segment shuttle derived SRB's] - will really be capable of.
Thoughts? 178.167.254.30 ( talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
"The SLS will launch the Orion Crew and Service Module and may support trips to the International Space Station if necessary. " Really? I haven't read any mention of plans to lift modules to ISS, although I suppose it's possible. Certainly it's many times too large for crew. Can someone cite justification for the second half of this sentence? Voronwae ( talk) 03:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Really confusing having 'metric ton' and 't' used in the same article - would be better if one form were used consistently. As this is a US project, unfortunately it would seem that the SI 'tonne' may not be an acceptable form to use, however clear it might be. I would suggest that perhaps the first instance is written as xx metric tons (tonnes, t) so that more readers will grasp the units used, then subsequently use 't' for brevity. My feeling is that 't' is perhaps not a commonly known/used unit in Europe - I had to look it up (in Wikipedia of course). I wonder what NASA uses in its documents.
Also, have "...produce 1,800,000 lbf (8.0 MN) of thrust..." - imperial then metric. And "...propellant load of up to 285,000 lb (129,000 kg)..." - again imperial them metric. I'm sure it's best to be consistently and primarily metric throughout, and use imperial in parentheses for clarity for US readers. Taliska ( talk) 02:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
To me it looks more like it was derived from the Saturn instead of the Shuttle. It looks a lot like a Saturn with two boosters strapped on. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Space Launch System/Archive 1. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Space Launch System/Archive 1 at the Reference desk. |
SkywalkerPL ( talk) 09:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Block IB's second stage, scheduled to debut on Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2), will use the 8.4 meter Exploration Upper Stage (EUS), previously named the Dual Use Upper Stage (DUUS), powered by four RL10 engines.
The conceptual design does use the RL10C-1 as a baseline, but the contracts for the EUS engines haven't been awarded yet, and NASA is still evaluating options. So, while it's certain they will have to be similar to the RL10, no engines have been selected as far as I know. - Daydreamers ( talk) 15:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
As reference [24] indicates that nothing from the proposed vehicle is recovered during the launch, perhaps it is appropriate to add the term 'expendable' in the opening paragraph, and remove any reference about reusability in the article. 217.239.14.72 ( talk) 00:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
My least favorite part of the criticism section is the propellant depot idea. First of all, any propellant depot in low Earth orbit would experience orbital decay and eventually fall back to Earth. Second, with the announcement of EmDrive it appears that spacecraft propulsion may not need any propellant at all once the spacecraft arrives at low Earth orbit assuming it has sufficient solar power. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 02:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Here is the SLS Block I Launch Manifest, published on 25 May 2015: [1]; Launch date is July 2018. It will fly 11 CubeSats as secondary payloads; some were selected already. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 19:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of non-NASA sources stating the above, however during my two edits as the Irish IP user 178.167.154.99 & this new IP number my service provided has just assigned to me, I have included two pieces of data on the Saturn V, one of which was made available by the stellar work of User:Alogrin over on the Talk:Saturn_V page, who has determined that the previously cited "118 metric ton" capability of the Saturn V was incorrect and based on shoddy references. It was in fact closer to 140 metric tons according to the references they uncovered. 92.251.136.96 ( talk) 03:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, There are 2 errors in references right now:
Regards, Yann ( talk) 10:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Why are the Europa Multiple-Flyby Mission and Uranus orbiter and probe elevated to the top of this section when they belong in the 'Other proposed missions' section? And now the Tactical timeframe DRMs from the NASA roadmap are gone too? Why are 1) 'BEO Uncrewed Lunar Fly-by – Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1), and 2)BEO Crewed Lunar Orbit – Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2) deleted from the article? Doyna Yar ( talk) 23:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
How can this possibly be accurate? NASA's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget request for Exploration Systems Development was $2.7 Billion. This included development of SLS, Orion and the ground systems. I would expect costs to go down after the first flight... not up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.76.102 ( talk) 08:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if the payload mass could be sort-able. Doyna Yar ( talk) 16:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)