# Talk:Space Launch System

@Hal Nordmann: You call the vibration story a "common misconception" or "myth" in these edits 1 2 3. Note that I have not reverted. Your initial edit cited this source for it being a myth, but that source does not appear to mention vibration. It does mention a potential torsional loading issue if the Europa Clipper spacecraft was launched on SLS. This source does mention vibrations. @RickyCourtney: has reverted this in the past (diff). What should the article say about Europa Clipper / SLS compatibility? Leijurv (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hal Nordmann: You're citing a quote, perhaps an opinion, from one person: Robert Stough of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). It's been well established that MSFC is not exactly a "neutral" party here. Funding for jobs at MSFC, and perhaps MSFC itself, relies on the existence of the SLS program. I'm okay with presenting this quote as a counterbalance to the point in the Berger article (which is a reliable source in this case, IMHO), but we should be presenting both opinions.
Here's how I would propose rewriting that sentence:
Efforts have been made to expand the usage of SLS to launch NASA's robotic space probes and observatories. A significant challenge to this effort is that the large solid-rocket boosters produce significant vibrations, and when NASA performed wind-tunnel testing on SLS, the torsional load values (a measurement of twisting and vibration) were nearly double the program's initial estimates. These vibrations can damage delicate scientific instruments. Although program officials later acknowledged the issue, they expressed confidence in their ability to mitigate it.

--RickyCourtney (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
For the paragraph in Usage beyond Artemis, I believe there is also a WP:CONFLICTING issue. We have the SpaceNews source, which is reprinting Robert Stough's quote, that it's a non-issue. However, the edit discarded a citation to Ars, here, which quoted another NASA official: Accommodating for this launch stress, NASA officials told Ars, would have required an additional $1 billion in modifications to make the spacecraft more robust. I don't think this is explained by the timeline either - the Ars article was July 23, 2021, while SpaceNews was July 8, 2021. (If the SpaceNews article was much later, we could say "they previously thought it was a $1b problem, and later realized it was a nonissue", but that's not the case). How should we weigh these against each other? They seem to be in severe conflict.
More generally, this phrasing the SLS's large solid-rocket boosters have proven to be incompatible with many scientific payloads due to the excessive vibration they generate was removed, and it does seem to me like this is a bit of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR - particularly the "many scientific payloads" line. I don't have a problem with the "nonissue at the end of the day" quote, but it should be attributed, and the conflicting perspective probably shown too? And I see no reason to discard the line about $1b of expenses to redesign. Leijurv (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Another source to cite: [3] Leijurv (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I don’t see them as inherently conflicting. When Stough said it was a non-issue that could have been corrected, perhaps he meant that it would have only "required an additional $1 billion in modifications." That seems about right for this project.
Sarcasm aside, I do agree that the prior sentence that “the SLS's large solid-rocket boosters have proven to be incompatible with many scientific payloads due to the excessive vibration they generate” was too strong, however I do think there is ample discussion around the Europa Clipper launch that NASA had concerns about the vibratory environment damaging the instruments aboard the spacecraft. I’m open to finding a better way of phrasing this.
Overall, this feels like an academic discussion. With Richard Shelby gone and the other membership changes in Congress, the wind came out of the sails years ago when it comes to finding non-Artemis uses for SLS. With a new administration on the horizon, I’m not sure we’ll ever see an SLS beyond Block 1A. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
The current edit already reflects vibrations non-issue issue. There's already plenty of cancellation parts on the page without the need to recourse to information that named NASA official said was not the current understanding from an editorial piece that doesn't name its source. The page is already too long as it is and a lot more has still to happen and will need to be added. And if SLS gets cancelled we'll cross that bridge when we'll get there Hal Nordmann (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
@Hal Nordmann We have one source that says the vibrations were a non-issue, and this is the important part that has been left out, because they could have been corrected, while a source from the exact same time period said the vibrations were an issue and required an additional $1 billion in modifications. We can’t read that and simply pass it off as the vibrations were a non-issue without mentioning the $1 billion in modifications that would’ve been required to make it so. Also the Ars reference wasn’t an editorial piece, it was a news article from Eric Berger, one of the most well known space journalists. Unnamed sources are a core part of how journalists hold the powerful accountable. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Berger might be "well known", but that doesn't mean "good reference". Just linking a website that says something shouldn't really mean anything unless they are either an actual authoritative source or reference authoritative sources (or other sources that eventually reach an authoritative source) - in this case, the source would be people working on on or with the SLS program. Anonymous sources are not reliable enough for Wikipedia work, even if you think they might be accurate. Hal Nordmann (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
It’s already been established by the wider Wikipedia community that Berger is reliable when reporting in a published source. Please cite the Wikipedia policy that states that anonymous sources are not allowed within reliable sources. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The inclusion of cost per year is potentially confusing since the cost every year is different based on NASA's budget, and it implies that the cost per launch is added on top of the cost per year when SLS launches, which is misleading. Other articles on NASA launch vehicles like the Saturn V and Space Shuttle do not have this figure, as well as articles on Artemis elements like Orion, European Service Module, and Lunar Gateway Jomads (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Cost per year is interesting. I think the better comparison would be that Saturn V's infobox has a total project cost and a cost per launch. Same for Space Shuttle. SLS has this too, but, the difference is that SLS is ongoing. If SLS were historical, we could go to just total project cost and cost per launch. But, since it is ongoing, I believe the ongoing yearly cost is relevant. I don't see the implication that the cost per launch is added to the yearly cost. Leijurv (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
How about we put in just the per-year cost, and leave out the per-launch cost? The former is certain, the latter depends on how it is counted. Hal Nordmann (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I think it implies, or at least could imply cost per year is added on top of cost per launch because they're shown as 2 separate figures. Theres also still the issue that the cost per year is not a fixed number, any number given is inherently wrong even if only slightly because it will only reflect a single arbitrary year Jomads (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. In my opinion, programs like SLS are why we have a cost per year parameter. We are attempting to show the reader, at a glance: the all-in cost of the program so far, the cost per launch, and the cost of the program in the most recent budget year. Those are different things, but each important.
-----
In regards to the cost per launch figures, I think these concerns are overblown. Yes, NASA refuses to provide an official estimate. However, our figure comes from the NASA Inspector General, who has access to NASA’s internal documents to arrive at their estimate. In many ways, the IG’s estimate could be considered superior to an official estimate, because unlike agency leadership, the IG is a neutral party and not concerned with “spinning” the narrative and presenting the numbers in a particular context. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
i think you misunderstood, i was not referring to the cost per launch being uncertain or thinking about narrative pushing. But rather that its potentially implied the cost per launch is a separate cost from the cost per year which could mislead readers, and the inclusion of which doesn't have a precedent in any other space article even for NASA launchers which have had similar significant issues Jomads (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
It could also potentially be implied that the cost per launch is a separate cost from the program cost. If you feel it's a problem, the solution would be an explanatory note, not to remove the information. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Like 3 different articles will need to have some serious changes made after this news but I'm just the messenger, editing is a problem for the actual Wikipedia users. The statement is also unclear on the future status of the Artemis program as a whole but generally suggests that private partners will overtake operations (as planned for later missions)
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/president-trumps-fy26-budget-revitalizes-human-space-exploration/ 76.159.142.150 (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)