# Talk:Space Launch System core stage

Found this page from the good article nomination. I noticed the first paragraph is significantly under cited. This problem does not persist throughout the article Czarking0 (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, sorry that I missed this category. I will try to find more supporting material. In the meantime, the citation stands for the whole paragraph as per MOS. Sub31k (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Space Launch System core stage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 05:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this article! I apologise if it's rough around the edges. Looking forward to working with you to correct and improve :) Sub31k (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi just wanted to let you know I will be updating this review this week Czarking0 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know! Glad to make any and all changes to improve the article. Looking forwards! Sub31k (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I have some editorial comments that I think should be addressed before deciding on GA.


### Opening Section
" it is the only stage of the rocket to be used on all three of its planned blocks: 1, 1B, and 2."
This line should not be in the opening sentences. The reader does not know what those refer to and it is not a main feature of the booster. They are not explained in this section. 
"a super-heavy lift launch vehicle intended for human spaceflight to the Moon, or Mars." It is not 100% clear if this refers to Constellation or to SLS, but I will ignore that and just say that this is the only time Mars is mentioned in this article. Since this is a pretty technical article I would prefer if mars was not mentioned or there were better sources on it actually being feasible for such a feat. I see these sources which suggest NASA plans to make it part of a Mars mission but that seems more like BS to drum up public funding than an actual statement of capability. Happy to admit that I am wrong if shown otherwise. 
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/nasa-goals-missions-sls-eyes-multi-step-mars/
https://www.planetary.org/articles/20161003-horizon-goal-part-4
You even see other sources which are careful to not actually say Mars. "Michoud is manufacturing and assembling the largest rocket stage NASA has ever constructed: the Space Launch System (SLS) core stage—the world’s most powerful rocket that will send the Orion spacecraft, astronauts and supplies on bold exploration missions to the Moon and beyond."
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/michoud/factsheet.html

You are correct, definitely as of the beginning of Artemis and the reorientation towards the Moon. I will note that the announcement of the SLS (https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html) included some words about Mars and near-earth asteroids. But since that's in a historical context, I have gotten rid of mention of goals beyond the Moon.
 Done
"the core stage was once the world's tallest rocket stage" what is the source for this?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarking0 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC) 

Sorry about this sloppiness... NASA PAO materials (will find a link later) state it is the tallest ever. However the information is superseded by the completion of the Starship booster, which is several metres taller. Unfortunately nothing combines these two facts. It is quite silly of me to write that without a citation, sorry. Because there is not solid material, is it best to discard this line altogether? Sub31k (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes discard that. I think that is all my comments. Do you think its ready for me to write the GA decision? Czarking0 (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think so. I believe there probably exist more targets for improvement... although I'm not very good at identifying them. I'd like to take the article to a high quality level before proceeding. Let me know what you think/ Sub31k (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Did you want to submit the article for peer review? I think it looks good and am willing to do the GA review. However if you submit for peer review you may get another opinion. Czarking0 (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm a little confused... but if you mean really getting into the process of the scrutinisation and improvement, then, yes, to continue with that... Sub31k (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is currently a Good_article_nominations alternatively you can submit it for Peer review they are different processes. Czarking0 (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware. I am confused - do you mean the next stage of GAN review? Because if so, continuing forward is good. I'm interpreting it not to mean conclusion of GAN. Sub31k (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Got it. I will continue to the next stage of GAN Czarking0 (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know! Sub31k (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I published my decision. Please fix the couple sentences I noted as being out of WP:MOS then I will promote to GA Czarking0 (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


### Design
"built to carry approximately 987 tonnes" The source does not say 987. Where did you get this number? Smells like OR.

I think that comes from order=flip in the convert template. The NASA page provides masses for fuel and oxidiser , which are then added to come up with a total number, which is itself converted to tonnes with the cvt template, unit order flipped. In my view this is a "routine calculation", although it might not be the case, in which the numbers can be separated.
No that makes sense keep it  Done
"After propellant tanks are structurally complete, they are moved to Building 131 of MAF to undergo finishing. Each tank is covered with anti-corrosion zinc oxide primer, robotically sprayed in Cell P of that building." Why should I care what building, or for that matter, what cell of the building these are done in?

Good question. References to building numbers and cells are gone.
 Done
"(The Artemis 1 core stage received a manual application)" Off-topic 

Removed redundant content
 Done
"the end result is a layer of foam insulation up to 1.2 inches thick." Up to is not a good characterization of what the source says. The tolerance is likely symmetrically distributed. 

Now more specific.
 Done
"For the Green Run test sequence, the Artemis 1 engine section received a unique thermal protection treatment that included a layer of reflective foil tape, designed to reduce the thermal impact of an eight-minute long test firing." Off-topic 

I will probably get rid of this. Included initially because a lot of CS images are of CS-1 before Green Run, which prominently shows the silver boattail.
I understand the context. Not sure how a reader would actually think about that. Up to you

Will change the content soon today, to place context/ increase relevance/ cut out superfluous detail.


### History
". Notably, in 2013, the decision was made to revert the core stage's structure from the 2195 aluminum-lithium alloy used on the Super Lightweight Tank, the definitive version of the Space Shuttle external tank, and the Ares 1 upper stage, to a harder 2219 alloy." 
Why?

Added context about 2195 difficulty on SLWT, as well as trade-study cost savings from 2219 switch.
 Done
"Later, welding issues encountered throughout 2016 would then cause more issues. " Sources indicate the friction welding issues were not on the critical path. Do you have another source supporting this claim? 
"This issue was resolved by reverting to the original pin design; however, it had a schedule impact of some 5 months" Yes but 5 months off the critical path is my understanding from the sources. That does not really count as a program delay IMO. 

It's possible that's what's  meant by the OIG Stages report of 2018. It's ambiguous with what it means when it writes "X issue caused Y months of delay", so I've removed the references to month numbers. I think the delays in the report are relative to stage handover, but.... better safe than sorry.
 Done

Great use of images

I found this sentence which is grammatically incorrect and should be reworked to not use notably:
"However, it differed notably in that the core stage was be identical in length and derived from the Space Shuttle External Tank, and possessed only three RS-25 engines instead of four." 
This sentence is out of the manual of style guidelines: "NASA reported that the choice would reduce payload capacity by 3 t (6,600 lb) but result in a cost savings of some $30 million per flight."
This sentence is out of the MOS because previous is not defined: "Extensive use of the lightweight 2195 alloy on the Super Lightweight Tank had previously been reduced due to difficulties with brittleness and higher cost of maintenance."
Same here: "Previously, the stage had been shown as painted white and black in a scheme reminiscent of the Saturn V."

I have rewritten the pointed out sections/sentences. Please take a look to see whether the new passages are satisfactory. Sub31k (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have extensively gone through sources and think the author did a great job. 

This article covers exactly what it should. It sometimes gives more background detail than I would suggest; however, I do not think that should hold up a GA

After removing Mars references I think it is good. I would maybe mention if this is planned for use on DST?  

It is stable
I would like the author to fix my complaints in the well written category then I will promote to GA
Czarking0 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)