Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:19, 14 July 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Space Launch System article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spaceflight Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Rocketry This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Space Launch System article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 12 months

Possible Incorrect Information about Artemis 3 on Block 1 vs Block 1B

As far as I know, NASA has only ordered 3 ICPS units, of which one is dedicated to launching Europa Clipper. Because of this, it's impossible for Artemis 3 to launch on Block 1 unless another ICPS is ordered - something that I do not believe NASA has done. In addition, Artemis 3 is pictured with an SLS Block 1B in the Artemis Mission manifest. Because of this, I believe Artemis 3 should be considered to be launching on Block 1B. Jadebenn (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It's still not settled whether Europa Clipper will fly on a SLS. So it's possible an ICPS will be available for Artemis 3. We might want to say "Block 1 or 1B", but I don't think we can just assume it will be a Block 1B. Fcrary (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't think the decision has been made either way yet. Pointing out the launch vehicle isn't clear would be an acceptable compromise in my view. - Jadebenn (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like ESD update at HEO committee today confirmed Artemis 3 would be block 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitbyte2015 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Unbalanced" Tag

@Soumya-8974: What's your reasoning behind tagging the Early SLS section with the "unbalanced" tag? What, in your mind, is unbalanced in that section? - Jadebenn (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It has a slanted point of view from NASA, who always tell gospels to us. I actually want to slap the {{POV}} in the "Early SLS", but it is only used in articles. So I slapped the {{Unbalanced}} instead. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 09:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You have still not met your burden of making "clear what the neutrality issue is" (template doc, When to remove, item 2). Exactly what point(s) of view of high-quality, reliable secondary sources, about the Early SLS, do you believe are being neglected? There is also an ample Criticism of the project section included. Just having a problem with NASA is not enough (and sarcasm about "gospels" is unwarranted). JustinTime55 (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have BOLDly removed the tag, pending an explanation of what exactly the unbalanced material is. If it's reinstated, Soumya-8974, I expect to see a clear explanation on this talk page of what material in particular you believe is unbalanced. - Jadebenn (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image changed?

Sorry if this was discussed elsewhere, but I don't understand why the artist rendering of SLS in the main infobox (this image: ) has been replaced by a core stage construction image. I would presume that a rendition of the completed rocket at the top of the article would be more informative for readers than an in-progress construction image from the gallery. It would be appreciated if someone could fill me in, thanks! Yiosie 02:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be @Soumya-8974: who made the change without discussion or consensus: Yes, would you care to explain yourself? Actual hardware (as that becomes available) is not always preferable to artwork. In this case I agree with Yiosie: it is more important to display in the infobox (which becomes the page's image) the entire vehicle on the pad. There is no good reason to change it to hardware until a complete vehicle on the pad is available. As a matter of fact, I just discovered that the hardware photo you substituted is already in the Gallery, therefore is redundant. I am reverting it. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What about the Orion spacecraft? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 09:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Dragonfly and other payloads should be noted for SLS

Dragonfly, NASA's drone mission to Titan, along with the Webb Telescope should be noted as notable SLS payloads. 9:23 AM mountain time, 10/29/2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.110.58.225 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The SLS has not been proposed for the Dragonfly mission (at $1B it would duplicate the capped cost), and the James Webb will launch on an Ariane 5. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

American English but...

A recent edit added the "this article uses American English" header. That's fine with me since it is (or will be) an American launch vehicle. But associated change description objected to "test campaign" and "launch campaign", and changed "test campaign" to "test program." I'm not sure about the testing, but the set of events leading up to a launch is frequently called a "launch campaign." In the US, by NASA and by American aerospace companies. That's not a British or Commonwealth usage. Fcrary (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Campaign" is not really common wording in the US in my experience. "Test" or "test program" are more commonly used for testing in the US. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Campaign" is commonly used in the United States. For example, election campaigns, advertising campaigns, military campaigns and (if you are a scientist) observing campaigns. It's not a word most people hear on a day-to-day basis, but many words in American English are not. When's the last time you heard someone speak the word, "flange"? As for tests, I said I wasn't sure about that one. I don't believe I've ever heard someone use the term "test campaign." But "launch campaign"? Yes, that is the term used by Americans who get a rocket ready for launch. Fcrary (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, campaign is commonly used in politics, but that's a different context altogether. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

??? Since when has NASA used "launch campaign"? According to space vehicle launch preparation, the term is used by the ESA and evidently came from Europe. It seems to be a neologistic fad by Americans who want to sound continental; it totally goes against traditional American usage. And I never heard "test campaign" until I saw it in this article.

It is not in Merriam Webster; a google search for "launch campaign" hits more conventional usage in the context of product marketing (with ambiguous use of "launch" to refer to the introduction of new product). Do you have any RS which proves it's acceptable American usage? JustinTime55 (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

If you make your Google search a little less ambiguous, you'd get a different result. Try "rocket launch campaign." The first result that gives me is a ULA web page, "ABOUT THE INTERN ROCKET PROGRAM ... The Student Rocket Launch simulates a real launch campaign so the interns can experience..." The second is an ESA web page. The third is a spaceflightnow.com story, dated November 17, 2019, titled, "ULA kicks off next Delta 4-Heavy launch campaign." The fourth is also spaceflightnow.com, August 16, 2018, "Tanking test marks resumption of Delta 2 rocket’s final launch campaign" The next is an Ars Technica story from September, 2019, which also used the term "launch campaign." And, although personal knowledge isn't citable, I worked on the Deep Space One, Juno and MAVEN missions at the time of launch. In all three cases, the launch service provider (Boeing, ULA and ULA, respectively) called the activities leading up to launch a "launch campaign."

Webster's isn't really the best place to look for technical terminology, and the simple fact that you haven't, personally, hear the term doesn't mean it's not American English. The space vehicle launch preparation article is a stub, with only one reference. And all that reference shows is that ESA uses the term (also) and that Arianespace can do two launch campaigns in parallel at Guyana. Fcrary (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Developments beyond block 2

Have there been any proposed developments beyond block 2 - eg a wider payload fairing (more than 8.4m) ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Not likely since Block 2 has been put on hold or deferred. The focus has been Block 1 and 1B to date, along with the boosters replacement/upgrade (BOLE). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that BOLE IS Block II when you do the math. They don't call it Block II to avoid being forced to meet Block II performance, so BOLE can be 1-2mT to TLI less (the Advanced Boosters may not have sufficient capacity improvements). There were proposals for a 5-engined core SLS and J-2X EUS that could improve performance further, as well as Liquid Boosters, but those are as likely as they were for the Shuttle at this point. Fredinno (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"Space launch system" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Space launch system. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Space Launch System Solid Rocket Booster" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Space Launch System Solid Rocket Booster. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

program and launch cost estimates

I'm not sure what motivated Jadebenn's undo but it if it is his position that the cost estimates I edited were unreasonable then it is worth open discussion. So the previous estimates of cost $800 to 900 million are quite low by most sources. Even parts of NASA and the OIG in particular have said that the costs per launch will exceed $2 billion. The expenditures so far are fairly clear even if nasa tried to obfuscate the total costs by removing the cost of the boosters from the program costs. If we include all of the costs for the parts of the launch vehicle that are required to get payload to orbit(boosters, engines, tanks...), then we are at approximately $19 billion so far. Program costs have exceeded 2 billion for the past 4 years but using 2 billion per year for the next decade is a reasonable conservative estimate. That gives us a lowball estimate for the program of $39 billion by 2030. Production is currently 1 per year and while efforts are being made to increase that to two per year, NASA is openly skeptical that this will happen in the next 4 years. If the production rate continues then we will have 10 launches or less by 2030. Simple math puts the amortized cost per launch at 3.9 billion across that span. As cheaper launch options from ULA, SpaceX and BO come online over the next decade, SLS will be increasingly hard to justify. If these assumptions or any of the material I'm basing them on are incorrect I would like to hear an explanation. My goal here is accurate reporting and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandowTheHeretic (talk • contribs) 17:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You can claim that NASA is attempting to obfuscate the costs, but the OIG has no motive to do as you say. In addition, the ~$900M appears on large amounts of NASA literature. The 2020 decadal projects use it when budgeting for a launch on SLS. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean that figure is straight from the NASA OIG. It's in the Europa Clipper report. SLS is $875M per launch. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

First, none of the references you list support your numbers at all. A quote from Bridenstine saying,"Honestly I don't know" makes his 800 or 900 million guess an entirely useless reference. Literally every other source says that the actual cost per rocket not including development costs is likely to be over 2 billion. Second, it was the OIG report from 3-10-20 that points out that NASA tried to hide the SLS program costs by moving the budget for the boosters off of the rest of the project cost. We know the the RS25s are around 145 million each now so 4 of them gets us to 580 million. The best estimate for the booster cost I could find is 109 million per launch without including the development. A RL-10 is 38 million so that gets us to 727 million without including ANY of the work done by Boeing who is the primary contractor. The OMB estimate from 10-23-19 puts the cost per launch at over 2 billion which clearly does not include the development costs either since then we are back to 3.9 billion. Can we agree on a range with the most optimistic and realistic total costs? If the production rate is doubled in 4 years which is the best case scenario then the to cost per launch until 2030 drops to 2.4 billion. Is a range then of 2.4 to 3.9 billion reasonable? Also, I'm willing to concede that the 19 billion includes some future spending and that 17.4 billion is a more reasonable current cost? If you object to these figure, please include sources that actually support your numbers SandowTheHeretic (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have three citations supporting that figure. You, on the other hand, are synthesizing figures from combinations of others. Not only does this violate[REDACTED] policy on original research, it's wrong. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Bridenstine says $800M to $900M, the decadal project I added has budgeted ~$600M (that is the most clear-cut launch cost you'll ever get), another decadal project estimates $500M, and the NASA OIG says $875M. Those are better sources than yours. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 21:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Bridenstine says, "In the end I think we are going to be in the $800M to $900M range. I don't know honestly." So he admits on the spot that that number has no basis in reality, so that reference is garbage. The Spaceflightnow article says, "NASA has spent more than $15 billion on developing the Space Launch System since 2011." So we know that it is a number greater than $15 billion and nothing else. The 500 million figure from the Origins doc is frankly unbelievable since you couldn't even get the RS25s for that much. This is especially true if we include the initial costs of the 16 shuttle engines which comes to $640 in unadjusted dollars. EUS needed for it also adds 114 million just in the additional RL-10s. That means that for just the engines and boosters for a block 1B, the cost is 841 million. That doesn't include the tanks, the construction, the development, the ground crew or any of the facilities. 500 million is either a typo or a deliberate underestimate. In March of 2019 Brian Dewhurst (Nasa senior budget analyst) said the SLS cost was $1,775 million not including ground services. In February of 2020 he revised that up to 2 billion going on to say that that is what they are spending per year and the expect to be able to launch one per year. The White House OMB agrees with this cost estimate and commented “At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete, the use of a commercial launch vehicle would provide over $1.5 billion in cost savings,” in regards to the Europa Clipper. So we have a member of NASA and and a White House advisor who both end up in the same ballpark on SLS launch costs which is a number vastly higher then the flat out lies you are trying to prop up as legit numbers.SandowTheHeretic (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@SandowTheHeretic: you seem to be doing a lot of your personal interpretations of the sources as well as quite a bit of synthesis. This is not allowed on[REDACTED] (see WP:OR.) And on your intepretation of what Bridenstine said, you seem to confuse not knowing everything about future cost with knowing nothing about future cost. Those are not the same thing. --McSly (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@SandowTheHeretic: To clarify, you ought to be looking at the cost per-year category if you're looking at the total programmatic costs at a certain cadence. The cost per-launch is simply the cost to build and launch a single SLS. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 21:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

@McSly and Materialscientist: I'm thinking we should request some form of page protection from the admins to put an end to these edit wars. This is getting tiring. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As for Moamem, please do not continue to edit war without attempting to find consensus on this talk page first. You may be found in violation of Misplaced Pages policy on edit warring and blocked from editing the page. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 09:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@McSly, Materialscientist, and Jadebenn: Two separate question here, Program Cost and Launch Cost :
A) Program cost :

1. Your source is a random website spaceflightnow.com, that has no more authority than anyone else. My source is the White House budget.
2. Your source says "NASA has spent more than $15 billion on developing the Space Launch System since 2011." which seems like a ballpark figure that looks suspiciously like the figure from last year from this same page. It was $15 billions in 2019, we are now in 2020.
3. The figure I gave is the exact one from the Funding History" section. So if the figure here is false, so should be the one in funding history.
4. I originally wanted to mention the nominal and actualized figures but a member thought it was "not constructive". I disagree but as a compromise I only published the nominal figure.
5. There is really no debate here, we have the exact budget to the $100k precision we do not need to go to some random source. the cost of the program until 2020 is $18647.9 million. It's a fact.

B) Launch cost :

• You have 4 sources :

1. A Youtube video where NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine says and I quote : "In the end we're gonna be in the 800 million to the 900 million dollars, I dont know honestely", This is hardly a "source".
2. An OIG report saying and I quote "NASA officials estimate the third SLS Block 1 launch vehicle’s marginal cost will be at least $876 million". The relevant word being "Marginal cost". Which is not what we're talking about here. We're talking launch cost which includes fixed cost. If you want to mention a marginal cost of "at least $900 millions" I see no issue with that. But that should be a separate line.
3. The 3rd source is simply not working, maybe a mistake?
4. The last source is an outlier, with an ridiculous $500 millions. "The launch cost ($500M for the SLS launch vehicle, as advised by NASA Headquarters) is also included". Does not seem very robust assertion with all the incentives in the world to downplay the costs to get the program funded. Even NASA is not pretending this figure is remotely credible. Should not even be considered.

To reiterate 1) I don't know. 2) Marginal cost > $900 million. 3) Nothing. 4) A source with incentives to downplay the cost being a surprising outlier.

My source is from the White House OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET : "OMB's most prominent function is to produce the President's Budget, but OMB also measures the quality of agency programs, policies, and procedures to see if they comply with the president's policies and coordinates inter-agency policy initiatives." This seems to be the most reliable and fair source short of an OIG report. Here is the exact quote " At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete"

Jadebenn please stop this ridiculous SLS apologetics all over the internet, it's tiring. - Moamem (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: The third source should work fine. I'll have to investigate that later. For reference, it's another NASA decadal project budgeting either $600M or $750M (I can't recall which) for the SLS launch cost, which is quite consistent with both the $500M cited in the other decadal project and the $875M cited in the OIG report on Europa Clipper, which is itself consistent with NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine's remarks.

So that's all four of those sources in agreement versus your one offhand mention in a policy document, which, by the way, as broken down in a NASA teleconference, was arrived at by taking the yearly costs of the entire SLS program and a launch. We have a category for that: That's the yearly cost. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: Also, third source is fixed now. Had forgotten some quotation marks. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:

1. You have absolutely not addressed the Program Cost, if you still don't I'll take it as an agreement.
2. No your numbers do absolutely not agree : 1st) "$800 mil to 900 mill, I don't know honestly" 2nd) Marginal cost over $876 millions 3rd) still not working 4th) $500 mil. How con you pretend they agree?
3. The OIG report is saying "NASA officials estimate the third SLS Block 1 launch vehicle’s marginal cost will be at least $876 million". Marginal cost is not the question here. And even this number is according to NASA estimates.
4. You do not have multiple sources. This is just one source NASA. From multiple documents.
5. OMB is a more impartial source. And no it does not include the development cost because it specifically says : "once development is complete"
6. If SLS launches once a year then the launch cost is equal the yearly cost (excluding development cost). I don't know what was said at this conference but what's your issue here?

Again I want to reiterate that Jadebenn is a famous SLS advocate all over the internet. He notably moderates SLS and Artemis program subs on Reddit. Trying to paint me as going against some sort of "consensus" is dishonest but not surprising. You are not a neutral party here. You are involved with this project. - Moamem (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A "famous" SLS advocate? That's a stretch and a half. By that token, you yourself are a "famous" SLS opponent. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:An interest is not a conflict of interest. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:Since you didn't address my first point, and that one is kind of obvious, I'm going to assume that we are in agreement here.

As for the rest I provide you with a multi hundred words, numbered argument and you respond with a one liner that does not a address any of the points. Please address every point separately.Moamem (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: Because I addressed them already. That's not launch costs. It's yearly costs. I have four estimates for launch cost, you just don't like them because you want to put a bigger number there. The current cost-per-year vs. cost-per-launch compromise came about in order to address both points. You want to essentially remove one metric entirely.

In addition, I would like to point out you committed a violation of WP:3RR. As I'm assuming good faith, it's likely you just were unaware of the policy. However, now that you are aware, I would advise you think very long and hard before making any future reverts to this page. If you continue to edit war after this point, be aware that the admins may deem that behavior grounds for a page block. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:I did not brake the rule, but good trolling you made me doubt myself. On the other hand you are one edit away from breaking the rule yourself. But this bickering is irrelevant, you did not address my points. please do!

So let's take it one at a time : The 1st reference is A Youtube video where NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine says and I quote : "In the end we're gonna be in the 800 million to the 900 million dollars, I don't know honestly", This is hardly a "source". Can we agree on that? Moamem (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: To echo McSly: "you seem to confuse not knowing everything about future cost with knowing nothing about future cost. Those are not the same thing."

It's a weak citation by itself, but I believe it's still relevant, especially when taken with the other three citations referenced. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: Your 3rd source is even less relevant, it only says : "The launch vehicle costs of $650M FY20 ($925M RY) for the SLS Block 1B and $300M FY20 ($429M RY) for the Falcon Heavy were assumed.". This number is an assumption as it says in your reference! - Moamem (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a price estimate for a future mission in the planning and formulation stage is a price estimate. That tends to be how these things work. Similarly, if this mission were to go on Delta IV, Falcon Heavy, or Atlas V, the project would contain a price estimate for those rockets. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:I wonder if you even read my comments. This not a price estimate. This is an assumption, which by definition does not have to be proven : "The launch vehicle costs of $650M FY20 ($925M RY) for the SLS Block 1B and $300M FY20 ($429M RY) for the Falcon Heavy were assumed."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moamem (talk • contribs) 01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: If I plan a mission for an Delta IV Heavy, I will assume a launch cost of roughly $400M. Until the contract's been inked and the flight's actually on the manifest, the price is an assumption. That doesn't mean it's not a good ballpark range for what it'll actually cost. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:I'll get back to this, since I want to take one reference at a time. Is it ok if I delete this branch of the conversation, or you can do it.Moamem (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: You are not supposed to delete conversations on talk pages except in extreme circumstances. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 12:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: I believe there was a misunderstanding. I reverted this edit because you included a web citation to Misplaced Pages itself. You can't do that. Your most recent edit seems fine.

I realize there's bad blood between us, but can you please attempt to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policy before assuming I'm out to get you? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 12:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References

1. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. "Letter to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee with respect to 10 of the FY 2020 annual appropriations bills" (PDF). The White House. p. 7. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
2. Town Hall with Administrator Bridenstine and NASA's New HEO Associate Administrator Douglas Loverro (YouTube). NASA. 3 December 2019. Event occurs at 25:09. Retrieved 4 December 2019. "I think at the end going to be in the 800 million to 900 million dollar range, I don't know honestly".

SLS Launch Cost

@Jadebenn:Since the above conversation has become unreadable and we seem to have come to an agreement concerning the Program Cost so far, I think starting a new section focusing only on Launch Cost is a good idea. For now I am going to delete the Lunch Cost altogether until we come to an agreement (ie you come to your senses). It's all estimates in the best of cases anyway. So you admit that the NASA administrator speech is "a weak citation by itself" and add that it should somehow be lumped with the other (weak) references to make your case. multiple anecdotal evidence do not amount to a good argument. This is a fallacy. So I'm gonna take your references one by one!

• A Youtube video where NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine says and I quote : "In the end we're gonna be in the 800 million to the 900 million dollars, I don't know honestly", is hardly a "source". Can we agree on that and move on?

@Moamem: That's not what you're supposed to do. As you're having difficulty with me, you should attempt to engage other editors in the conversation. One way you can do this is by pinging prolific editors. Another would be to post on the Wikiproject Spaceflight talk thread. Moving without consensus is frowned upon once an edit has proven controversial. I have also addressed your point in regards to this source. Please refer to our previous conversation. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:Well yeah, YOUR edit! You're the one who made the edit! As can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=929316586&oldid=929241314

I am merely putting the original an real figure back up there! I mean your level of dishonesty is incredible.

@Moamem: Yes, I made a compromise edit that was accepted, as can be seen by McSly and Materialscientist's reversions of your changes. I addressed both points by adding a new category instead of engaging in a pointless edit war. The Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle was followed. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:You did not make any compromise with anyone, you just made the edit on your own with the comment "Corrected cost information" as can be seen here : https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=929316586&oldid=929241314 . The fact that you were not immediately challenged does not mean it is the consensus positions. Actually you would be quite lonely in the camp that tries to assert that SLS launch cost (not marginal launch cost which is a different figure that can be addressed if you want, but is not the one discussed here) is anywhere near $500 millions or even 900. At this point this seems to be general knowledge among the public. - Moamem (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: I just realised how much you've been acting like you own this page, I am at least the 6th person in the last 6 months that tries to revert this figure to the real one :

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=925620594&oldid=925395840

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=925963019&oldid=925876896

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=926359702&oldid=926277355

4) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=927943530&oldid=927446682

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=955609445&oldid=955286614

and me.

Which side is the consensus on?Moamem (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Just as an FYI to everyone: "Launch cost estimate" isn't the same as "total program costs per launch" or even "program operating expenses per flight". The launch cost per flight might well be "900 million or something, we don't really know", just as NASA claims.

• Total costs per flight depends on the eventual total number of flights. This number is hard to guess based on current information, but it will likely end up between 4 and 20 billion per flight. Big range due to unknowns.
• Program operating expenses per flight depends on the flight rate. This is what the OP keeps talking about. It will probably be between 2 and 5 billion per flight, depending on whether SLS launches twice per year (basically impossible), once every year, once every two years, or even less often. The less often if flies, the higher this number gets.
• Direct launch costs depends on nothing, though it is of course affected by the economies of scale that higher flight rates bring. Estimates have ranged between 400 million and 1.5 billion, depending on who you talk to. Bridenstine is pushing 900 million. That's probably not too far off, + or - a bit.

These are three different numbers with three different uses. They are not comparable or interchangeable.

EDIT: I see that at least the difference between the launch cost and the total program cost per flight was talked about in a previous section. I'm not even sure what people are arguing about anymore here? The number ranges are all pretty cut and dry, aren't they? Are we really just arguing about whether to include a defintion of marginal cost along with NASA's (or the OIG's) estimate of that cost? — Gopher65_talk 21:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gopher65: Thanks a millions for your input. You summarized perfectly the debate here. if I might number your propositions:

1. The total cost per flight : is a total unknown and is totally dependent on the final launch count of SLS because you need to spread the development cost over the final number of launches. I don't think anyone is talking about this number.
2. The launch cost : the cost of building, testing and launching SLS. It excludes the development cost. This is what I am talking about. This is the figure my source (the White House OMB) is providing : “At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete"
3. The marginal launch cost : The cost of launching one more SLS, that excludes basically all your operational expenses and fixed expenses. It's basically the cost of building the rocket. Which is what Jadebenn seems to refer to and one of the sources he cites clearly states : "NASA officials estimate the third SLS Block 1 launch vehicle’s marginal cost will be at least $876 million"

So we should IMO first discuss which one of these should the launch cost in the page reflect. My opinion is number 2 since it's what is generally understood by cost. So if there is an agreement we can move on to the actual figure. If not I can provide my reasoning. - Moamem (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gopher65: You are correct. Before the material was removed by MoaMem, a distinction was drawn between the two. The cost per launch of an SLS as given by the NASA OIG report on Europa Clipper was $864M. The cost per launch given by Jim Bridenstine was given as $800M-$900M. Finally, the cost per launch given by the two planetary decadal projects was $500M and $750M respectively. There's a pretty consistent price range.

MoaMem's issue appears to be that he's taking the $2B SLS program line-item that appears on NASA's budget, seeing there's only one launch per-year, and going "Oh, that's the cost of one launch." Such an analysis neglects that there are a lot of items unrelated to a launch in there. For example, EUS development costs will be in that figure. That's not launch costs. It's important metric, which is why I created a "cost per year" figure in the infobox and placed said $2B cost there, but it's emphatically not the cost to launch an SLS. It's an entirely different financial metric. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 01:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: The $876 millions OIG figure (not $864 m) is the MARGINAL COST as it says in the report : "NASA officials estimate the third SLS Block 1 launch vehicle’s marginal cost will be at least $876 million" . The marginal launch cost is the cost of launching one more SLS in a given period. It excludes fixed cost by definition. It is a different metric. I have no issue if you want to quote it too. But it needs to be labeled "Marginal launch cost" not "Launch cost". Brindenstine is quoting this same figure and even he admits that he "doesn't know". Understandable since even this figure is not very realistic ($400m for the RS-25's. $400m for SRB's. $150m for the upper stage. That's $950 before main tank, integration, tests, launch... How do you even get to this number?). But since the Marginal of anything that is not mass produced like an Iphone is very speculative, I don't see a big issue with quoting this figure.

The reference I gave from the White House OMB specifically excludes development cost, which your EUS example would fall into : " At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete" . If we are going to have a discussion you need to stop being dishonest - Moamem (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"The marginal launch cost is the cost of launching one more SLS in a given period." Yes! That is the launch cost.

"I have no issue if you want to quote it too. But it needs to be labeled "Marginal launch cost" not "Launch cost." Then we have no figure for "launch cost." Your $2B per year is not the launch cost. That includes 'many' costs unrelated to launching an SLS. EUS development is part of that $2B cost. That's not launch cost. RS-25E development is part of that $2B cost. That's not launch cost. SLS development will be complete when it first launches on Artemis I. That doesn't mean there won't be ongoing development programs. In fact, the contrary is true. Think of BOLE, EUS, RS-25E... that's three programs mixed into that pool of money that are totally unrelated to launch cost.

" Understandable since even this figure is not very realistic ($400m for the RS-25's. $400m for SRB's. $150m for the upper stage. That's $950 before main tank, integration, tests, launch..." Because that's not how much it costs to buy those things. There is a difference between the price to develop something over spread over a certain amount of units and the actual amount something costs NASA to buy on a launch.

"If we are going to have a discussion you need to stop being dishonest" And if you want to have a discussion you need to stop peppering your dialogue with personal attacks. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 05:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

1. "Yes! That is the launch cost." : No it isn't! Marginal cost excludes all fixed cost, Maintaining facilities? Expansive NASA Staff? This is the heart of the disagreement. You do not understand what marginal cost is and how is differs from the actual cost of something! or you're somehow claiming that all the fixed cost of a launch should not be counted? You should go look at what Marginal Cost means : https://en.wikipedia.org/Marginal_cost
2. "EUS development is part of that $2B cost." : Stop saying this. You are wrong, my figure specifically excludes ANY development cost as it says in the QUOTE : " At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete"
3. "Because that's not how much it costs to buy those things." : No this is the price to buy those thing. For example for RS-25's, I specifically quoted the last production contract that does not include the "restart of production" and "modernization" contract, just production $100 million per engine ($1.79 b /18 engines) : "The follow-on contract to produce 18 engines is valued at $1.79 billion. This includes labor to build and test the engines, produce tooling and support SLS flights powered by the engines" . The price including modernization and restart of production of RS-25 is $146 million - Moamem (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That "marginal cost" figure is the only launch cost we have. Again, SLS development will be complete the second SLS leaves the pad, just as Shuttle development was complete the second it left the pad. There are still many unrelated costs to launch. BOLE will be part of that $2B/year until the 8th launch for example. The RS-25E and EUS until its fourth. Things like eCryo also recieve funding from the SLS program. The cost to develop those technologies is totally separate from how much money it takes NASA to buy an SLS rocket and launch it. It's a similar situation with that "$100M/year" RS-25 cost. The unit price of an engine will be lower than that, exactly because that figure includes things like personnel costs and R&D. As Gopher65 said, there's a difference between program cost per launch and the cost of something itself. If SLS cadence increases to twice per year, for instance, the launch cost will remain roughly the same, but the program cost per launch will decrease significantly. Thus, using it as the "cost per launch" metric is misleading at best.

However, we seem to have once again reached an impasse. To break this stalemate, I suggest we solicit a third opinion from a neutral observer. Would you agree to abide by their decision if I will? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 18:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think I understand where the confusion is coming from. You think that the actual yearly budget for SLS (more or less $2b) is the same as the launch cost the White House is quoting simply because they are similar figures. This is not the case. SLS budget = Development cost + some cost for future launches. Launch cost = all cost related to SLS excluding Development costs but including fixed cost. It's just a coincidance that they are in the same bull park (well actually it's probably a consequence of how NASA is funded with a flat budget, but it's beside the point). The NASA engineer that is working on the launch, maintaining NASA facilities related to SLS, the cost of mowing the lawn. All part of the launch cost but not included in your Marginal cost.
• Now if you are arguing that lawn mowing (to give an example) directly a consequence to an SLS launch should not be counted because that's a fixed cost that NASA would have paid anyway, and therefore should not be counted for the launch cost. Well I just disagree. That is not how people generally understand cost. This is why the Marginal cost exists.
• You last sentence is totally right : If we increase launch cadence the program cost and the launch cost would both decrease but the marginal cost would stay the same. Because in the first case fixed costs gets spread over more launches but in the last one fixed costs gets taken out of the equation. You're making my point. Are you suggesting that launch cost should not decrease if launch cadence increases?. I don't think anyone would remotely agree with that!
• I would certainly accept consensus if it's coming from a non biased contributors I myself contacted 11 different people to that end as you know. - Moamem (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: "You think that the actual yearly budget for SLS (more or less $2b) is the same as the launch cost the White House is quoting simply because they are similar figures. This is not the case."

It is though. The Senior Budget Analyst of NASA, Brian Dewhurst, says as much in this recording of a NASA teleconference (apologies for the unconventional source; only recording I know of). It's a slightly different figure he's breaking down, but it shows where the OMB got $2B from.

As for the latter part of your post, I'm afraid that's just a fundamental disagreement. You understand the differences between the different figures at least, but you don't seem to understand the issue with lumping in the entire program's fixed costs (which again include a fair bit of things that are only very tangentially-related to SLS) into the figure.

I think if all those fixed costs were directly traceable to things needed to launch SLS, you'd have a stronger argument, but they're not. As previously mentioned, it's not just the guy that mows the lawn of the VAB or the salaries of the flight controllers at launch control, but general R&D programs like eCryo that have applications beyond SLS, or refurbishment of multi-user infrastructure such as an engine test stand, etc.

To give a real example I've heard from someone who works at MSFC, the SLS program pays for technicians to provide machine shop services. When SLS doesn't need them, other NASA programs are allowed to make use of their services. Now that the SLS program is considering cutting those services, the other programs are scrambling to pick up the tab or find other alternatives. That's a minor example, but I think it illustrates the point I'm making quite well: SLS program costs pay for more than just SLS. You can't use that figure for "launch cost."

I'll hold off on requesting a third opinion until I see if we can reach a conclusion from Eggsaladsandwich's proposal – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 21:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: Your example perfectly illustrate where we disagree. Yes SLS might just occasionally use this machine shop but pays for the bulk if its expenses. That does not mean this shop should not be counted as SLS expense. It just means SLS needs to be more efficient and once it stops paying for this shop, you would be right in not counting it for SLS cost. But not a second sooner. Your way of pricing SLS discounts all the inefficiencies that makes this program unsustainable. If we price anything your way there would be no difference between Cost + and Fixed cost contracts. Fixed cost are the bulk of expenses in government programs. If we calculated your way the F35 would be a very cheap airplane. - Moamem (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How's this for a compromise, set the cost per launch in the infobox to $500 million - $2 billion with a link to a note that explains total program cost vs. program operating cost per flight vs. marginal cost of adding a flight to the manifest? Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Eggsaladsandwich: I think that'd be a better outcome than the current figure, but I also feel like that's essentially just mashing two entirely different figures together for the sake of compromise. See my remarks to Moamem above if you'd like to understand my primary objection to the figure he's using.

To use an analogy, I feel it's like if there was an argument over whether the GDP of Mexico should be measured in dollars or pesos, and deciding to list the GDP with a dollar sign but with a range between the value in pesos and the value in dollars; It's misleading. One half of the range is a different metric that's being listed as something it's not.

I also think a lot of the dispute comes down to the difference in the way a commercial rocket's price is calculated and the way NASA calculates SLS price. Moamem is not wrong to say that a rocket like Falcon 9 or Atlas V includes fixed costs in its launch pricing. However:

• One, those rockets have many missions per year, so the fixed costs are minimized in a way that SLS's are not.
• Two, SLS is not a commercial rocket, NASA does not need to recoup its costs.
• Three, even if you still ultimately believe the same accounting scheme should be used, there remains the issue that we do not have an actual figure for pure SLS launch costs that both includes SLS fixed costs but excludes items unrelated to launch. This is the previously mentioned BOLE/EUS/RS-25E/eCryo problem. In terms of sheer practicality, that $500M to $900M is the closest thing to the actual launch cost we've got.

I'm not opposed to some sort of compromise, but I don't think that's the best way to go about it. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 21:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: I reiterate my proposition of adding a new "Marginal Lunch Cost : $876 millions" that I made at the beginning of our argument.

Well I don't think your example is accurate. Let me try to give one and see if you accept it. You have a space launch company called SpaceY that launches its rocket Eagle 8 . After years of R&D, Eagle 8 launches reliably once a year and does not require anymore development work. Production lines are up and running.... It has $1 billion in fixed costs per year and $1 billion in marginal launch costs per launch. Question : What is the launch cost if Eagle 8 launches once a year? Twice? N times a year? This is almost exactly the situation we're talking about.

To answer your 3 points:

1. Commercial rocket prices also include R&D (which should be counted toward the SLS cost too. But since it's an unknown I reluctantly agree that is should be put aside... For now). But more importantly, as you say : "those rockets have many missions per year, so the fixed costs are minimized in a way that SLS's are not" This is exactly the point.You're trying to somehow eliminate the huge price due to low launch cadence. But this is exactly what should not be done! We're not in a class where everyone should have fair chances. You're trying to bring fairness by excluding the inherent advantage a commercial program has over something like SLS. No, that's not how it works. If Banana makes a 1000 Jphones at $1000 apiece and Apple makes a million Iphones at $100 apiece. You do not get to say that Jphone has the same cost as Iphone because they have the same marginal cost and that it's unfair to say otherwise because Apple is unjustly benefiting from economies of scale. Well yeah, that's exactly why it's cheaper. Discarding it would go against the actual utility of calculating cost.
2. Yes I went trough this a million times development cost or even investment to setup production are not counted. The figure I gave is definitely a forward looking one. Worst it even excludes future development costs : " At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete"
3. Yes we do. The figure I gave excludes development cost which includes all the items you mentioned : " At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete" - Moamem (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eggsaladsandwich: I have no problem with this idea. But putting it that way (as a range) is very confusing. What I proposed at the beginning of this disagreement is to add a new line called "Marginal Launch cost : $876 million". That way we would circumvent any ambiguity. - Moamem (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll take the fact that neither one of you likes it to mean that it's a good compromise. Doing what I suggest would bring this article in line with the Space Shuttle article. The infobox on that article lists a very wide range for "Cost per launch": $540 million to $1.5 billion. It's remarkably similar to the "cost per launch" of the SLS even though the Shuttle program ended nine years ago. The average person coming to this page looking for how much it costs to launch the SLS is not going to be educated in or care about the subtleties of NASA budget wizardry. The best answer is that the cost depends on what you mean, but that's not very satisfying or informative in an infobox. Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eggsaladsandwich: If it's like that on the Space Shuttle page (and maybe we add a footnote explaining the difference), I guess I can't really complain. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eggsaladsandwich: As I said I don't see a problem citing both figures, all I said was that it seamed clearer to separate them in their own entries. But if that's what's needed for consensus, it's ok for me. - Moamem (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've edited the infobox to reflect this compromise. Hopefully the text now is acceptable. Please let me know if it's not. Do you want me to write the note explaining the different accounting methods for per-launch costs? I'm happy to come up with a draft, but y'all are much more current on the details than I am, and I'm wary of doing original research. Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Moamem Are you OK with removing the "(2019 estimate)" from the cost per launch item in the infobox? The timing of the estimate is reflected in the reference. Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eggsaladsandwich: Thanks for the mediation, even if you got here due to my "Mass Off-Site Canvassing". Don't see a problem with removing it. I'm more concerned about the $500 million figure, which seems disconnected from reality. I thought even NASA stopped quoting it. - Moamem (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I, too, have come over here as a result of an invitation on my Talk page. I have read through the above comments in this section, from 28 Mar to early June. Do you feel you all reached consensus and the article now reflects that consensus? If not, I'd be happy to provide some input to what seems to be a complicated discussion. Pinging Moamem, Eggsaladsandwich, Jadebenn. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@N2e: I believe a consensus was reached. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@N2e::Hey, as I said the $500 million figure is very concerning to me, it was an aspirational figure that is and never will be achievable since the engines alone cost $400 million excluding development and production restart costs. I just got tired of bickering alone with jadebenn, if that's considered consensus, I don't know... Would love to hear your opinion tho.Moamem (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@N2e:I think we've reached a workable compromise solution. Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it does seem that the $500 million per launch figure on the low-end is utter fiction, and probably should not be in the article misrepresenting cost to the US taxpayers of the SLS. Much data supports that the total cost, and few launches, that the cost is much higher, and the broad range currently presented just misleads. SLS seems to me on the path to become another stunning example of the sort of government-funded program where massive funds are expended with quite inefficient results. And Misplaced Pages should definitely explicate that to global readers. But all the complexity of the many interwoven questions and discussion in this section make it unlikely that THIS particular dialogue on cost per launch can resolve it. N2e (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@N2e: : Oh god, finally someone making some sense! While the $900 Million is a very misleading figure that represents a hypothetical marginal cost which as I explained before doesn't mean anything! The $500 million is as you said "utter fiction". It's the projected cost NASA tried to sell to congress when SLS was in the planning phase and NO ONE today thinks that this is a real figure including NASA! I'm wondering if anyone is actually suggesting that the $500m is a possible price tag for an SLS launch? Pinging Eggsaladsandwich, Jadebenn. Moamem (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: For goodness' sake. I highly doubt anyone involved in the previous debate would like to reopen this discussion barely a month after a new consensus was reached. But I'm going to make the mistake of taking your bait: If you're going to quote such a dubious figure as the $2B per launch estimate, then you have no ground to stand on to complain that the $500M estimate is "unrealistic." Either we scrutinize the figures (in which case I believe the ~$900M figure is the most up-to-date one supported by numerous government sources), or we unbiasedly show the entire range of estimates, from lowest to highest, and let the reader decide. Since no agreement could be found in the former, the latter was the only possible compromise. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 01:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: Yeah you're right, the only reason we got to a consensus is because I got sick and tired of arguing with you! I gave reservation about the $500 million right away. The problem with the $500m is not that we're giving the whole range of estimates, it's that's it's not even an estimate! It's an aspirational goal at the start of the program that has been abandoned by even NASA quite some times ago and that doesn't make any sense even mathematically! How the hell does anyone get to $500m? How much are the rs-25's? The SRB's? the Core Stage? the Upper Stage? the interstage? We're not even talking about operations! it's literally impossible to get to that figure! Pinging Eggsaladsandwich, N2e Moamem (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@N2e: "But all the complexity of the many interwoven questions and discussion in this section make it unlikely that THIS particular dialogue on cost per launch can resolve it." Exactly. Funding the SLS is a political process. Interested parties will come up with estimates that make it look unreasonably expensive, others will tout estimates that make it look unrealistically cheap, and they'll all look like reliable sources. We're not going to determine what the truth is here. It would be original research if we did, and whatever assumptions we used to come up with our number could be reasonably challenged as just reflecting our particular biases. The best we can do is show the large range of estimates that are available and let the reader make up their own mind. This is exactly what happened with Shuttle costs. Shuttle killers wanted to make it look really expensive, and Shuttle huggers wanted to make it look unrealistically cheap. The truth lay somewhere in between. Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@N2e: I'm sorry, but while I can admit that everyone has it's own biases, not all biases are created equal. In this case even the $2 billions is probably underestimating SLS launch cost at least for the next decade (the OMB is getting it form NASA after all which has almost a perfect record in underestimating rocket launch costs)! $500 million is, as N2e said, "utter fiction".

As for your argument that precise estimates are beyond our reach therefore every estimate no matter how unsubstantiated should be shown :

1. If A is saying 1+1=2 and B saying 1+1=3 the consensus answer is not 1+1=2.5 or 1+1={2 to 3}. I'm not saying that it is as clear cut. but at least in the case of the $500 million it's just a wrong number plain and simple. At least for the $900 million we're just talking about a different thing which is a more subtle difference. Jadebenn doesn't even try to defend the $500 million figure!
2. I'm not arguing that I can personally calculate a cost estimate. On the other hand we can add known contracts (like the $100m per RS-25, the $200 million per SRB, the $130m per ICPS,...). This would give us a lower bound for the launch cost estimate. And it's waaaay above $500 million. These contract are known, already signed and often already paid for. Basically we can't know the real number but we damn sure can know if a number is wrong!
3. The $500 million has a single very weak source : The only source that gives this $500 million figure is very weak since it's only tangentially related to the vehicle and very biased (they need to get a low cost estimate for the mission to get initial funding)
4. The $2B has the best source by far : The source for the "over $2 billion once development is complete" which is the OMB of the white house is the best source by far since it's a neutral/unbiased one while all the others have a vested interest in lowering the cost estimates, it's also an organ that is supposed to "oversee" NASA. The wording is also the most precise "over $2 billion once development is complete" compared to "In the end we're gonna be in the 800 million to the 900 million dollars, I don't know honestly"

To conclude, while the $900 million is a subtle (but important) difference in notions that should be debated, the $500 millions is just plain wrong for any and all observers and should be removed.

Do actually think that the $500 million is anywhere near being close to a realistic figure? Moamem (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: Yeah, not interested in restarting this debate. You got the figure changed. I'm sorry you're not happy with what it's been changed to. I'm not very happy about it either, but I know a dead horse when I see one. It's very clear that the editors don't think we should be picking and choosing which figure we think is "reasonable," so that means I don't get my $900M, but it also means that you have to deal with that $500M. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't asking for your permission. It's not about what you or I want, it's about what is true. N2e is on my count the 7th person to say that your figures are wrong and that the actual cost is "over $2 billions" in less than 9 months:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=925620594&oldid=925395840

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=925963019&oldid=925876896

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=926359702&oldid=926277355

4) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=927943530&oldid=927446682

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=955609445&oldid=955286614

6) Me

7) N2e

You're the only one defending this position and you obviously are not a neutral party here. I'm just waiting for N2e or another contributor's OK to make the actual change.

By the way since you're r/SpaceLaunchSystem's main moderator on Reddit which is probably the biggest SLS community on the internet and you blocked me for no other reason than I'm "not a good fit the the subreddit" (your words). And since not that many people seem to be interested in this issue on Misplaced Pages. Why don't you make a post on the sub, maybe we can get more input and information from your own redditors? Otherwise I can make a post on r/space or r/nasa if you want... Moamem (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: Please review WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:USTHEM. In addition, Misplaced Pages is not a vote, and it's certainly not a forum for off-site grievances you have against me. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 05:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

N2e Regarding your comment on the Habex Final Report. The cost analysis is actually documented in Chapter 9 of that report. Appendix G contains the results of an additional independent cost estimate study. The PDF states that appendix is withheld "due to U.S. Export Regulations". It is unlikely that appendix will ever be publicly available. FWIW, the version in the article is identical to the document available here: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/habex/pdf/HabEx-Final-Report-Public-Release.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggsaladsandwich (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Eggsaladsandwich. I'll take a look at chapter 9 then and see what I can find. N2e (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

References

1. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. "Letter to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee with respect to 10 of the FY 2020 annual appropriations bills" (PDF). The White House. p. 7. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
2. "Management of NASA's Europa Mission" (PDF). oig.nasa.gov. NASA Office of Inspector General. 29 May 2019. IG-19-019. Retrieved 5 December 2019. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
3. "Management of NASA's Europa Mission" (PDF). oig.nasa.gov. NASA Office of Inspector General. 29 May 2019. IG-19-019. Retrieved 5 December 2019. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
4. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. "Letter to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee with respect to 10 of the FY 2020 annual appropriations bills" (PDF). The White House. p. 7. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
5. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. "Letter to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee with respect to 10 of the FY 2020 annual appropriations bills" (PDF). The White House. p. 7. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
6. "NASA Commits to Future Artemis Missions with More SLS Rocket Engines". nasa.com. Retrieved 31 May 2020. The follow-on contract to produce 18 engines is valued at $1.79 billion. This includes labor to build and test the engines, produce tooling and support SLS flights powered by the engines
7. "NASA will pay a staggering $146 million for each SLS rocket engine". arstechnica.com. Retrieved 31 May 2020. So, according to the space agency, NASA has spent $3.5 billion for a total of 24 rocket engines. That comes to $146 million per engine.
8. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. "Letter to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee with respect to 10 of the FY 2020 annual appropriations bills" (PDF). The White House. p. 7. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
9. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. "Letter to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee with respect to 10 of the FY 2020 annual appropriations bills" (PDF). The White House. p. 7. Retrieved 26 May 2020.

WRT Launch cost...

The problem you are running into is that there are three different ways of calculating launch cost. There is the commercial concept - how much it would cost to launch a specific payload if you contracted with a commercial provider? NASA has no analog in their costing structure, so if you are trying to find something like that, I think you are destined to run into issues. Note that trying to compare NASA programs to commercial costs is a bit problematic as a NASA program on a commercial provider has many costs outside of launch costs because of NASA overhead.

The "per launch" price that NASA quotes is what is most useful for their budgetary planning; the incremental price of launching one more or one fewer times during a year. At the end of the shuttle, that number was $450 million, but the only number of this type for SLS was an aspirational number early in the program, back when they though things would be cheaper and were planning on launching twice a year. NASA has chosen not to provide an updated estimate of this type; it can be argued that that is a good thing as SLS is a bit weird in that the earlier launches that reused hardware leftover from shuttle are likely to be much cheaper than later flights. There's also the issue that NASA hasn't known main engine costs until recently.

Which leads us to what I call "yearly program-based cost", which is simply looking at the per-year program cost and dividing it by the launch rate. This is my preferred way of looking at program cost as the number is easy to get and hard to fudge (it's very hard to try to do costing from component program costs) and the number includes NASA overhead. It's a bit unfair to SLS as there are MSF assets in NASA that have been there for years that get charged to SLS because that's the only place they fit. On the other hand, there are ground support facilities (VAB, crawlers, launch pads) that are *not* in the SLS budget but are still part of the program cost.

And I guess there's a cost estimate that includes development costs, but that is problematic as that's not the way NASA thinks about things.

My best advice WRT cost is that the article should deal with the nuance and present the different costing models and let the reader decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.132.243 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Mass Off-Site Canvassing

@PhilipTerryGraham, CRS-20, Gopher65, JustinTime55, LoganBlade, and McSly: It appears Moamem has been canvassing since May 28th over on (Redacted). At this time, the thread has 1547 views and 18 replies. I'm fairly sure that's a violation of the stealth canvassing policy, but I have no idea what to do in this situation. Advice? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ban him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 06:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Or, if this the only instance that has been brought up in regards to this editor, point out "Hey, don't do that, please. (Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#How_to_respond_to_canvassing)" There's probably some template that could be put on this talkpage, as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: "I could really use someone to help making this contributor see reason!" ...yep, this is straight-up textbook canvassing. I'm not an admin, but the least I can do is slap a warning on Moamem's talk page, which is what I've gone ahead and done. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 11:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Hi, I was not aware of this anti canvasing rule but I know anti brigading rules on other platform. And I tried to stay away from that. I posted not on some anti-SLS platform but on the (Redacted) which is to my knowledge the biggest platform for space enthusiasts on the internet of which Jadebenn is also a very prolific member (I actually expected him to participate in this debate). My presentation was very fair IMO tho in a subsequent message ONE sentence was poorly phrased I admit. I present His arguments (fairly) and my arguments and my conclusion was as follows : "I am interested in arguments and references for the SLS launch cost (either way). I know that we do not have (and probably never will) a precise cost for SLS but I think we can have a better approximation than the one on Misplaced Pages : Adding the contracts already signed, Government estimates from the IOG or the OMB...".

I would like to add That I did also solicit 11 contributors active is space articles to participate to the debate with no results :

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Soumya-8974

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Yul_B._Allwright
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:CRS-20
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:JHunterJ
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ionmars10
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:PhilipTerryGraham
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Sovxx
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jarrod_Baniqued
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Blainster
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:LoganBlade
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:N2e

Frustrated with the lack of interest and the dismissive attitude Jadebenn that considered his position as a defacto baseline for this article, some not so kind words might have slipped my fingertips. I don't think its fair to call it "MASS Off-Site Canvassing". It was one post on the biggest forum on the subject that was quite fair with one out of line phrase over maybe 40 or 50.

I do admit my error tho and will try to avoid it next time. But just to be clear is the problem getting input from outside platforms or my (single) poorly worded phrase? - Moamem (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: It's the poorly worded phrasing, mostly. When requesting for input from others, always be neutral and don't call upon people to specifically support you. We'd highly encourage phrasing such as "Well you can also participate on the SLS Wiki Talk page here", which is what you wrote earlier in the thread, and highly discourage phrasing such as "I could really use someone to help making this contributor see reason!", which is what we took issue with. I mentioned this on your talk page, but I think it would be better if I said it to the both of you here... Moamem, you should be talking less about Jadebenn, and Jadebenn, you should be talking less about Moamem, and you both should be talking more about the cost of SLS and how it should be represented in this article. A civil debate cannot take place if you people are more interested in being angry at each other than actually discussing the issue at hand. I don't care of one of you is being more uncivil than the other, one of you at least has to be the better participant and not stoop down to the other's level. You both had been slapped with a warning by an administrator, and there's a reason for that. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I've been trying to take that advice since I got slapped down after the edit warring debacle. I know we don't interact much, but I believe you've seen me working fairly often on space articles in this section (I remember you from some previous discussions), so I hope you understand this is not my usual behavior. I've never quite had to deal with a situation like this, and it's been getting to me.

I'm currently attempting to follow WP:DISENGAGE and take a longer-term view of the situation, as my issue with the edit war was that my actions inflamed the situation and caused it to turn into a battle of "he started it!"

Anyway, I believe we've both decided to accept Eggsaladsandwich's compromise proposal in the section above, so if you'd like to make the appropriate edit I'd greatly appreciate it. I really don't want to touch that figure and risk somehow causing another conflict. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I saw Moamem's post on nasaspaceflight.com. It reminded me of similar discussions about the Shuttle's cost per launch, and that's why I came to this page. Hopefully I've done more good than harm. Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: You were warned to not conduct off-site canvassing last month. Could you please explain (Redacted) – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: No, I was told that posting on other platforms was totally fine. The problem was with a single phrase I used that was deemed charged. I tried to be as neutral as possible in my wording. I literally pinged you on my posts so there is no sneaking around on my part. If you think any wording is inappropriate I'm open to changing it. I went off site because not that many people seem interested in our conversation on Misplaced Pages so going to other platforms for input seemed appropriate. It seems that you don't want people to actually participate in this conversation, otherwise what is your problem? - Moamem (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I could use your advice here. Not sure what should be done in the case of repeated off-site canvassing. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC) – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:What is you problem with going offsite for input? It's allowed! - Moamem (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham, CRS-20, Gopher65, JustinTime55, LoganBlade, and McSly: Okay, it's worse than I thought. Moamem didn't make one post on (Redacted), he made five.

• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)
• (Redacted)

Already we're having IPs change the figure while bypassing the RfC and consensus-building process. As Moamem was warned against off-site canvassing last month, I find it hard to believe this was done in good faith. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:I specifically asked PhilipTerryGraham if I was not allowed to request input offsite and his answer was "It's the poorly worded phrasing, mostly. When requesting for input from others, always be neutral and don't call upon people to specifically support you.". Now unless you have an issue with the wording (where I'm open to accommodate you) please quit whining and trying to play the referee! - Moamem (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Like on (Redacted) you're acting like a dictator. You don't want people to participate in this conversation because you know your position is untenable. I'm glad Moamem made his post so we're aware of what you're doing here. The posts were very fair and informative like he used to do on the sub before you unjustly banned him agains our whiches. This is not cool Zegfred (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Zegfred, but it's not relevant to my belief that Moamem has committed a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Canvassing. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zegfred:Thanks man! Moamem (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

The post he made was balanced. What are you complaining about? That you're not controlling what is been said? If you had an once of impartiality you would have posted about this on the SLS sub a long time ago. A lot of us would be interested in this discussion. But you only interested in making SLS look good as usual. Zegfred (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC for SLS Launch Cost

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the "cost per launch" figure in the article infobox be changed? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Eggsaladsandwich, N2e, and Moamem:. Would like to lay this issue to rest for good. I personally am satisfied with the current compromise, but would like to get a broader subset of the community involved. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The cost estimates for the SLS cannot be summarized in an infobox. The best we can do is show the large range of available estimates, and hope that the interested reader will dive into the details and make up their own minds. Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

1. I totally agree, this is why the “At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete" is the most accurate. Because while we don't know how much an SLS launch will cost, we damn sure know that it's gonna be more than $2 billions!
2. I don't see why we can't just put the $900 million as "Marginal launch cost", which is what it is! It's more precise and doesn't confuse the two concepts (cost and marginal cost) which are two different things! I'm ready to even accept this confusion (because I'm sick and tired of this nonsensical debate), but I'm sure some one else in less than a month is gonna bring it up again because it's such an evident issue!
3. The $500 million figure is just "utter fiction" as N2e put it. I don't think there is even a debate here! This figure was the target price when SLS started but is not even in the ballpark of today's estimates. Pinging @Eggsaladsandwich, N2e, and Jadebenn: Moamem (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a wise thought Eggsaladsandwich. Perhaps the biggest problem is that infoboxes should, per wiki guideline I believe, restate info that is already well explicated, and well sourced, in the prose in the article body. It seems that this article, as it currently stands today, is trying to do all the heavy lifting in the Infobox itself.

If someone doesn't get to it first, I'll try to write up a few encyclopedic statements of prose that are supported by the various cost per launch citations I'm seeing given in the infobox. Will do it such that each statement says no more than the source supports, with adequate context, without undue emphasis on any one of the many cost estimates that exist, maintaining neutral point of view. Then, the infobox can simply summarize the range of launch costs that is supported in the article prose. N2e (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@N2e: This confusion is not innocent some people with vested interest are trying to make this program look good no matter the truth and this is not limited to Misplaced Pages. IMO the best way to dissipate any confusion is to separate the different figures and be as precise as possible :

1. Launch cost : Over $2 billion once development is complete (est.)
2. Marginal launch cost : $900 million (est.)
3. Launch cost target : $500 million per launch (objective in 2011)

We could lose N°3 IMO because it's not in current plans. If we don't want to leave any confusion that's the way to do it.

I've see the exact false figure "$500 to $2 billion" cited in serious publications. This stuff drive policies and should not be allowed to stand just to please one user or another. Moamem (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@N2e: Thank you for your kind words and your offer to do the heavy lifting on this. I skimmed the references, and some of them get into complexities about "Real Year" costs, projected inflation, etc. Trying to come up with a summary was more work than I was willing to do. Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggsaladsandwich and N2e: Keeping the range in the infobox and having a section that goes into deeper detail about the various estimates sounds like a good idea. I support it. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 21:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support keeping the range per Jadebenn. This is what I want in the cpl parameter of the infobox: "$900 million–$2 billion (est.)". --Soumya-8974 _contribs 05:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Soumya-8974:One of the decadals cites $500M as the cost and the other cites $750M. I really think we shouldn't be picking and choosing. Defeats the whole point of it being a range if we do. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Jadebenn: One cites $500 million with nothing to back it up, the other cites $650 million (not 750) saying it's an "assumption". We'e not picking and choosing, not all sources are created equal that's all. I can find sources citing over $4 billion, should we include those too? Moamem (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Moamem: If "not all sources are created equal" then your $2B wouldn't be there either, because the only things that claim it are a policy document and a journalist who explicitly identifies as an opponent of SLS. It's a package deal, mate. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Jadebenn: A policy document? It's the OMB warning congress that their funding is not going to be sufficent. May I remind everyone that "The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is the largest office within the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP). OMB's most prominent function is to produce the President's Budget, but OMB also measures the quality of agency programs, policies, and procedures to see if they comply with the president's policies and coordinates inter-agency policy initiatives." That's the office overseeing pretty much all the executive branches budgets and programs! It's a neutral party! It is by far the strongest source of the bunch! Besides the OIG said that NASA would save $1.5 billions if they choose to launch Europa Clipper on Falcon Heavy instead of SLS. How is it possible to save that much if SLS cost $500 million or even 900!??? Please square that circle. Moamem (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Please do not bring you irrational hatred of Eric Berger into this conversation. He was just been proven right when you were claiming the opposite.

  @Soumya-8974: This was also the compromise I proposed. Even tho the $900 million is the "Marginal launch cost" not the "launch cost" and we could just add this figure separately for more clarity...Moamem (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Moamem: That was how things were before. Then you insisted that the entire yearly program costs needed to be included (and you claimed that was "launch cost" because there just happens to be one launch in a year), and a compromise was put forward to placate your concerns. I also strongly recommend you review WP:USTHEM before commenting further. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 01:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Jadebenn: Finally! Thank you for admitting that you were talking about Marginal cost all this time, you could just have said so in the beginning and could have had a whole different conversation but I guess muddying the waters was a feature not a bug! I'm creating a new section debating whatever of not "launch cost" should be equal to "marginal launch cost"

  Soumya-8974 is definitely not suggesting to go back to the figures you forced despite now 8 people saying otherwise. All that he said is that the $500 million is fiction. that's it! Moamem (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Moamem: I am male, not female. Please use "he" or "they" to refer to me. --Soumya-8974 _contribs 04:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Soumya-8974 One of my female friend has the same name Soumya, so I just supposed... Sorry. Corrected.Moamem (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham, CRS-20, Gopher65, JustinTime55, LoganBlade, and McSly: Pinging participants from previous discussions. Sorry about this, but Moamem made it clear he was not satisfied with the current compromise, so it appears we need to reopen the issue. I know this discussion is a bit of a mess, but please weigh in. Nothing's going to get done if it's just the two of us going back and forth over and over. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: As stated, moving this back to the RfC. While I can answer your question, I believe you're still missing the point. The compromise we arrived at gave us both figures we disagreed with. The $500M figure is just as well-sourced as your $2B one, and the report it's in explicitly calls it launch cost. You may feel that there is some sort of significant difference between the so-called "marginal launch cost" and proper launch cost, but that's just it, your point of view. Misplaced Pages is explicitly supposed to advocate a neutral point of view, see WP:NPOV. Rehashing the debate we had a month ago is fruitless, as we covered these same points before. I believe it'd be more productive to accept the solution eggsaladsandwich are offering, which is to have a section that breaks down how each is calculated, and keep the existing range in the infobox. You may personally feel that the $500M figure is unrealistic, just as I feel the $2B figure is, but that's the point of compromise. If there are reputable sources for both, and there's no consensus on which to pick and choose, than the only option is to show them all. And yes, that means that if you could find reputable sources for an even higher high-end estimate, it would go there too. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: Agree. The budgetary arcana around the different kinds of launch costs cannot be meaningfully explained in a single infobox line. The budget section of Space Shuttle entry has more than 400 words in it, and "(t)he exact breakdown into non-recurring and recurring costs is not available..." even though that program ended 9 years ago. We should move on from this arid discussion about the infobox and get to arguing interesting questions like should Shuttle development costs be included in the SLS development cost. Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: I don't see what's complicated about adding "Marginal Launch cost" in the info box unless there is an agenda to make this program seem less expensive that what it is!

The $500 million is a different issue since that number is obviously false as 8 different people have pointed out in less than 9 months (and no $500m and $2b figures are not equally unrealistic, I can give you a detail breakdown of this figure. Can you get close to doing the same?). I unwillingly accept to keep this "fictional" $500 million figure if we can add the $4 billion figure that is actually quite realistic : https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-does-not-deny-the-over-2-billion-cost-of-a-single-sls-launch/ Moamem (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Therefore, we should use "$500 million–$4 billion (est.)" on the infobox, right?​​ --Soumya-8974 _contribs 09:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• If there's a credible source that has $4B as the launch cost (regardless of how dubious I personally find that figure), I guess so. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:I gave a source in the line above That's what Soumya-8974 was referencing - Moamem (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Objectively SLS is going to cost a lot more than 4 billion. But nasa can't say so. Zegfred (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

My take is this: The ONLY relevant launch cost number for NASA, Congress, the American Taxpayers and indeed all other relevant partners is the total launch cost, that is the total program cost divided by the number of launches. This is the case since it is the cost that NASA chose to incur INSTEAD of deciding to launch their satellites and humans on commercial launch vehicles. So far, the SLS has cost 20,3 billion dollars with 0 launches. We will only know the cost per launch when the program finishes, but we can make fairly good predictions (+- 30%) as of now. If SLS funding continues until 2030 @ 2B a year with a total of 10 launches, the cost per launch will be 4 billion dollars. Fewer launches mean more per launch, more launches mean less per launch, but it is very safe to say that the cost per launch will be between 3,5B and 5,5B. TheSkalman (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@TheSkalman: Hey man. Finally some fresh meat! While I personally agree with you that the launch cost should include all costs. We agreed that since the final dev costs and the number of launches would not be known until the end of the program we will exclude them in our launch cost calculations!

In my opinion :

• The launch cost of an SLS rocket is “Over $2 billion once development is complete” as the White House OMB (a neutral party overseeing almost all budgets and is therefore the best source provided) has said and that we already knew for some time just doing basic arithmetic.
• The $900 million figure is the Marginal Cost which is a totally different thing and is completely ignoring the fixed costs which are most of the costs associates with government programs in general. Should be discarded or explicitly described as Marginal Launch Cost.
• The $500 million is the aspirational figure that was touted at the beginning of the program but we know today is a complete fiction. Should not even be debated, the engines alone cost $400 million for god’s sake!

Which I think are all reasonable opinions but Jadebenn thinks that marginal cost is the same as actual launch cost and that $500 million per launch is an acceptable figure because some source said so and all source being created equal we can not qualify the reliability of a specific source and its biases.

So what is your opinion on the launch cost excluding Dev costs and the use of marginal cost as the SLS launch cost? - Moamem (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to cite the marginal cost because it makes SLS seem cheaper just call it marginal cost. but it's not the launch cost. Zegfred (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the launch cost should be changed. Especially having a number of $500 million in there just makes no sense, considering that one RS-25 engine alone costs $146 million (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-staggering-146-million-for-each-sls-rocket-engine/), and the SLS needs 4 of them, leading to an engine cost of $584 million. Having this Misplaced Pages page say that SLS might be as cheap as $500 million per launch is just incorrect.

In general, I have to say that this is a discussion that shows shortcomings of how Misplaced Pages works. If I come to Misplaced Pages, I want to get neutral information, not information that is cherry picked by people who try to make something look better than it really is. It seems one user here (Jadebenn) has a lot of influence on preventing a higher, more correct launch cost from being mentioned. That user is not neutral though. He is the most active admin of the SLS group on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/), where he only allows positive articles to be posted, while even light criticism is only allowed in a special "Paintball" thread meant for criticism, and some of the people who often express criticism about certain aspects of SLS he just banned. The SLS subreddit has over 6000 subscribers, and when reading through the comments, it looks like a lot of the people active there are employed working on SLS, and that obviously gives them a strong incentive to not look at SLS neutrally. I don't know if Jadebenn himself also is employed working on SLS, but he seems to have some strong incentive to spend a lot of time on the internet with trying to suppress criticism about SLS. Someone like him should not have any influence on the Misplaced Pages page about SLS, it's not good that he currently seems to have a lot of influence here. Skytie (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

After weeks of debate Jadebenn finally admitted that the figures he's presenting are the marginal cost while I was always talking about the "normal" cost :

That was how things were before. Then you insisted that the entire yearly program costs needed to be included (and you claimed that was "launch cost" because there just happens to be one launch in a year), and a compromise was put forward to placate your concerns. I also strongly recommend you review WP:USTHEM before commenting further.
— Jadebenn

I think this is the gist of the disagreement, and solving this would definitely close this issue. So first let's get some definitions :

Marginal cost is the change in the total cost that arises when the quantity produced is incremented by one unit; that is, it is the cost of producing one more unit of a good. Intuitively, marginal cost at each level of production includes the cost of any additional inputs required to produce the next unit. At each level of production and time period being considered, marginal costs include all costs that vary with the level of production, whereas other costs that do not vary with production are fixed and thus have no marginal cost.

So basically it's the cost of building one more unit in an already functional production line. This completely ignores fixed costs and any savings provided by economies of scale. Basically if you produce a billion units or one the marginal cost is the same.

I gave an example earlier : If Banana makes 10 Jphones at $1000000 apiece and Apple makes a million Iphones at $1000 apiece. You do not get to say that they cost the same because they have the same marginal cost! No one thinks like that for any other thing!

So bringing it back to the matter at hand, what Jadebenn proposes is not only ignore all the fixed costs of an SLS launch (Ginormous NASA personnel, Installation, maintenance, support...) but he also want us to treat a low volume (well one!) production as if it was mass produced!

Talking about Falcon 9 and Atlas V he said:

One, those rockets have many missions per year, so the fixed costs are minimized in a way that SLS's are not.
— Jadebenn

He thinks that it's somehow unfair for SLS to be compared apple to apple to commercial rockets (or any other thing ever produced by the way) because it does not benefit from economies of scale. therefore any cost advantage given by mass production should be totally ignored. This is wrong on so many levels that I don't think it's necessary for me to explain them.

For me and for everyone IMO cost is cost, and that include fixed costs... It just seems evident...

Pinging Soumya-8974, Eggsaladsandwich, Jadebenn, N2e - Moamem (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem:There's an RfC currently open where any of your concerns should be placed, preferably while assuming good faith and without personal attacks. I would once again recommend you please review WP:USTHEM and stop seeing this as a "battle" between you and me. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition, you really shouldn't be dragging in off-site statements I've made, especially ones taken out of context. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop patronizing me. There are no personal attacks in the comment above. All the quotes I gave are from this exact page, where do you see off-site comments? Please address the arguments instead of me of the form they take.

I created a new section because YOU admitting to using marginal cost and not real cost changes this debate from one about sources and figures to one about semantics. It's way easier to debate semantics! - Moamem (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry you see it as patronizing, but it feels like you're unfamiliar with the code of conduct, and I'm trying to point out what I see as consistently uncivil behavior.

As I've made abundantly clear before: I see no difference between "marginal launch cost" and launch cost. To me, launch cost is what NASA pays to add another flight to the launch manifest. But you're missing the point, which is that we both agreed to do a range of estimates, as is done on the Space Shuttle article, since we were unable to come to an agreement on this matter.

I will not comment on this matter further outside of the RfC, where this discussion belongs. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 16:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:Let me highlight this quote of yours:

As I've made abundantly clear before: I see no difference between "marginal launch cost" and launch cost. To me, launch cost is what NASA pays to add another flight to the launch manifest.
— Jadebenn

No you were not "abundantly clear". But thanks for finally doing so. The talk about estimates and references is irrelevant if they estimate and reference different things. So I won't be participating in the discussion about those until we come to an agreement about what we're actually talking about. Marginal Launch Cost? Launch Cost? Any of them? My opinion is that they could not be more different from each other :

1. Marginal cost is the cost of making one more unit.
2. Cost is Fixed cost + variable cost / number of units
3. No one thinks that cost do not include fixed costs. Does anyone think that besides you?
4. Marginal cost could be irreverent if we only launch once a year which seems to be the case for SLS at least for the next decade!

For example if the SLS program excluding development cost $2 billion a year for one launch a year. And the marginal cost of adding one more launch is $900 million. What is the launch cost if you launch once a year? Twice? N times?

• For me the cost of launching once a year is $2 billion. Twice is 2+0.9/2 = $1.45 billions. N times is (2+(N-1)*0.9)/N billion dollars.
• For you, it cost as much to launch SLS once a year than a million, which in my opinion is ludicrous. In your world view economies of scale do not exist or at least are not related to cost at all. - Moamem (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

As previously stated, further discussion should take place in the RfC. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. 500 million is sifi. marginal cost is nothing like total cost. 2 billion a launch is probably a nasa lowball estimate. I will read the whole post and give my full opinion later,Zegfred (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, as an outsider, it looks like the debate is around the meaning of cost and how to ensure that is relevant to various scenarios.

The reality is SLS is run by NASA so cost means something different there than if they are purchasing the service from a third party. However, you may want to compare those costs to what a third party charges.

In my opinion, both marginal and total cost should be used. Why? Marginal cost gives insight into costs if the program were scaled up to 2, 3, 4 or more launches per year. Total cost gives insight into what it cost to provide the service and capability.

The way I have seen this done is to map out planned launches by year, break out fixed and per launch costs and give a total planned cost for that year.

I think the goal here should be to provide the maximum amount of information and trust the consumer of that information to parse it as appropriate. Timlograsso (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timlograsso: Hi, and thank you for your input. I see no issue with citing Marginal launch cost along with the normal launch cost. But these to numbers should be separated. What Jadebenn is doing is trying to equate these 2 numbers like if they were the same thing. If we merge them (jadebenn considers them to actually be the EXACT SAME THING) it's not being exhaustive but being confusing (on purpose IMO). Do you agree that while both figures should be cited, they should be in 2 different entries? - Moamem (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Soumya-8974, Eggsaladsandwich, Jadebenn, N2e, TheSkalman, Timlograsso , Zegfred, I think we're reaching a consensus here : keep both Launch cost and Marginal launch cost but on 2 separate lines. Something like the following :

Launch Cost : Over $2 billion once development is complete (est.)

Marginal Launch cost : $900 million (est.)

How does that sound? - Moamem (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. The marginal launch cost is worth mentioning, since SLS may (or may not) be used of the Europa Clipper mission and has been suggested for other planetary missions. For those applications, the total launch cost (fixed per year cost plus per flight cost) isn't relevant, since NASA is making the decision to pay the fixed costs for other reasons. For the planetary missions, it really is a "since human spaceflight is already paying for the fixed costs, could we have an extra launch for our robotic spacecraft? issue. But for human spaceflight and Artemis, the decision to accept the fixed costs was all about those programs, so the total cost is more relevant for them. Giving both numbers covers both of those applications. Fcrary (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fcrary: Please move the discussion to the RfC. This fragmentation complicates things. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: Sorry man, I'm not going to bury this in your section. I know that this tactic worked on Reddit, but enough is enough. If you want to participate in this conversation your welcome. Otherwise since editors seem to unanimously agree with this format, I'm going to wait for one last comment and go ahead with the changes. - Moamem (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: It's not "my" section. An RfC is a dispute-resolution method, added to a list of other RfCs that are accessible to neutral, 3rd-party, editors who wish to participate. I'm sorry you're impatient with how long the process is taking, but RfCs, as a rule, aren't very quick. There's no set time limit - they go on until an agreement is evident to all editors involved. Usually it takes about 30 days in my experience. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

Anyway, you can't just circumvent the RfC and claim "consensus" because one or two people said something that's vaguely supportive of your statements. That's bypassing the whole dispute resolution process. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 00:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: It's not one or two! It's everyone except you, I'm counting a dozen at least, you're the only one defending this position! And they are not "vaguely supporting my position", most are saying to leave the $900m out altogether or that even putting the cost at 4 o 5.5 billions. This is a very consensual position! Now that it's obvious that you're unreasonable or trying to push an agenda you're trying to accuse me of canvassing or even publishing your personal info (like I don't even have any! I don't know you personally!). Sorry but this has been dragging on for months! Enough is enough! The consensus is obvious you do not have veto power here! A single Editor can't block a sensible position (even an optimistic one) that garnered consensus! One more contributor and that's it! Don't worry I'll quote those supporting my position before making the change! You're welcome to do as much.- Moamem (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: You keep trying to paint me as some rogue contributor, but it is emphatically not just me who has reservations about this. Eggsaladsandwich and Soumya-8974 both made statements supporting a different solution than the one you're offering, to give an example. You're ignoring them entirely.

It's also not acceptable to steamroll through changes because you think something's "taken long enough already." That's tendentious editing, and a good-faith assumption of unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages policies and customs can only go so far when you've had at least a month to familiarize yourself with them. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 00:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: Also, I never once accused you of publishing personal info. I have no idea where you got that from. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 00:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Look, it's clear to me that some people involved in this discussion have strong personal feelings about the subject. One is getting very picky and lawyer-like about the process for a RfC. Let's not get that way. First, I don't see a good reason to be so formal about this. Second, if you do have strong personal opinions about the subject, you should drop out of the discussion and recuse yourselves. A strong personal opinion on the subject of an article means you are not unbiased, and should not be involved with editing the article or debating how it should be edited on the talk page. Fcrary (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but fragmentation discussions are a pain for everyone. I reply to a comment under the section that comment was posted in. That's my way of dealing with fragmented discussions. If you don't like that, then get other people to stop posting comments in sections you consider inappropriate. Fcrary (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fcrary: Yeah, I also see how it could be useful. I just don't want it to be confusing. Thanks. One more opinion maybe? - Moamem (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion: Is there a way to accurately divide the cost of SLS into these three buckets: Program cost per year, Development cost, Marginal cost per launch? Perhaps with those three values, a reader could get a more accurate sense of what "cost" means for something like this. While three different numbers is a little complicated, with proper copy and citing, it might be the clearest and most neutral way to present it. Currently the three numbers are Project cost, Cost per launch, and Cost per year. That's pretty unclear. For example, on reading that sidebar for the first time just now, I don't know how much of the "Project cost" is the "Cost per year" of previous years, I don't know if the "Cost per year" includes the cost of each launch, I don't know if the "Project cost" is a total to date or a project total for the entire duration of the program, I don't know when the "Cost per year" starts, etc. If we have a "total cost to date" number, let's call a spade a spade and write out those words, instead of a vague "Program cost". Same goes for "total cost (lifetime) (estimated)" and such. Leijurv (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the best and clearest way to divide the costs would be: 1) Cost to develop the SLS launch vehicle, 2) the fixed cost per year to build and launch the SLS, regardless of the the number launcher per year and 3) the additional (marginal) cost of adding an additional SLS flight. In other words the total cost for the entire SLS program could be written as:

Cost = Development_Cost + Annual_Fixed_Cost_per_year * number_of_years + Marginal_Cost_per_launch * number_of_launches. But extracting referenceable numbers for those costs may not be possible. I think the current suggestion is to list Annual_Fixed_Cost_per_year/number_of_launches_per_year + Marginal_Cost_per_launch as the total cost per launch and also list the marginal cost per launch. Fcrary (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

number_of_years since which year? When does/did the clock start? Leijurv (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I really don't know, since SLS has heritage from the older Ares design work. But I think we're talking about the operational costs. So once SLS has been developed, that's either Annual_Fixed_Cost_per_year/number_of_launches_per_year + Marginal_Cost_per_launch as the total cost per launch and/or the marginal cost per launch. And, yes, I am ignoring things like the development of the new upper stage, which would be in development in parallel with the first SLS Block 1 flights. NASA accounting is, as I said, murky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs)

Then could we have Development cost to date, Fixed operating cost per year, and Marginal cost per launch, no? Is this upper stage a part of SLS, or is it a payload of SLS? I think the current suggestion is to list Annual_Fixed_Cost_per_year/number_of_launches_per_year + Marginal_Cost_per_launch as the total cost per launch Can you explain how this is accurate? Shot in the dark, but is the idea that SLS can only be produced at a certain rate (given that annual fixed cost) therefore it's correct to include it as manufacturing cost? Leijurv (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My 2 cents: IMHO it should be done consistently with all other launchers. In which case Marginal Launch Cost would be the one you are looking for (usually it's done this way due to lack of other information, though consistency is the key anyway). Stuff like development costs, fixed costs, infrastructure maintenance, etc. absolutely should not be included in the launch cost field as it isn't in any other launcher. I would find it ridiculous to target SLS specifically with an aim to give it as high value of the field as possible when it obviously departs from the way it's handled everywhere else. SkywalkerPL (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@SkywalkerP: Thanks for your input. I'm curious about this assertion that all Launchers have Marginal cost as their launch cost. Which launcher are we talking about exactly? Space Shuttle? Saturn V? Falcon 9? Atlas V? Delta IV? Coz as far as I know NONE of them has Marginal Launch cost as their launch cost, most include dev cost in their launch cost (STS) and some even profits and investments in future products! (commercial launchers) Can you provide some examples of what you mean? Cheers - Moamem (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Support After spending a few hours reading through the sources (see my lengthy comment below), I now agree with this. I support Launch Cost of $2 billion (I am neutral on the "Over" and support "once development is complete" as there are no launches currently and there will be more development costs before the first launch), and I support Marginal Launch Cost $900M (my figure of $1B marginal was a rounding, $900M is also a valid rounding to one more significant figure). Leijurv (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I consider myself an SLS fangirl. Jade I don't think you should try to support SLS based on price. Yes the Space Launch System is going to cost around two billions a launch and that's fine. Space is expensive, going to the moon is even more expensive, and that's OK because it is worth it. I don't see an issue with what momem is proposing you just need to highlight the unique capabilities that SLS provides. Until a commercial alternative eventually materializes, SLS is the only concrete vehicle to reach to MoonSLSgal (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@SLSgal: With all due respect, this isn't a question of being a "fan" or not of SLS. This is a content dispute over a figure in the info box. One that would've probably not escalated so far if appropriate Misplaced Pages policies had been followed by all users involved. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 00:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@174.251.160.98: Can you please explain why you keep attempting to change the disputed figure while an RfC is in progress? The status quo should be maintained until a course of action is agreed upon. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 00:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

High level clarifying question: Regarding this range of costs, what is the situation? In other words, why are we presenting a range? Do we have conflicting sources ranging from 0.5B to 2B? Is this a value that has changed over time? Are these external estimates? Those are the questions I have coming in, as to why we can't find the most accurate number. Looking into the sources now, I see:

• The NASA Administrator saying I do not agree with the $2B number, it is far less than that. I would also say that the number comes way down when you buy more than one or two. And so I think at the end we're going to be in the $800M to $900M range - I don't know, honestly. We've recently just begun negotiations on what number three through whatever - we don't have to buy any quite frankly, but we intend to. But we're looking at what we could negotiate to get the best price for the American taxpayper, which is my obligation as the head of NASA. I do not see this as clearly supporting either end of this range. I also think that the And so I think at the end can't be discounted here, especially right after a comment on increased volume decreasing cost beyond the first few. It comes across to me as speaking off the cuff / speculating on what the price could be after these negotiations take place. In my opinion, I don't think this should be cited as any form of upper bound, but it is a good source as a lower bound, implying that each SLS costs at least that much today, and likely more.
• The Europa report in May 2019. This seems quite clear. I see NASA officials estimate the third SLS Block 1 launch vehicle’s marginal cost will be at least $876 million. There is further discussion of alternatives, and the tradeoffs due to SLS offering a faster transit time, but that is irrelevant here. This is, however, 1. an estimate 2. a projection to the third launch 3. a marginal cost. This is fine however, as it would be the cost to the Europa mission of choosing this option (I believe). I could see this being cited, however I would ideally prefer the NASA officials estimate directly.
• The Habitable Exoplanet report, section 9-11 9.4.1 basis of estimate, (which is page 281) (found here). I see The launch vehicle costs of $650M FY20 ($925M RY) for the SLS Block 1B and $300M FY20 ($429M RY) for the Falcon Heavy were assumed. I also see The SLS block 1B was assumed to cost $650M and the other launch vehicles were assumed to cost $300M based on NASA guidance. Technology development costs were not included in the estimates for this architecture tradespace sensitivity study a little later on page 297. The only entry in Appendix J - References that I could see that might be related was NASA. 2018. Space Launch System (SLS) Mission Planner’s Guide. Exploration Systems Development (ESD). which I believe can be found here, however, I do not see the $650M number there. Regardless, the number appears to be an estimate from 2018. (while the document was initially released in 2017, it states in the header that it was completely rewritten in 2018, and the citation in habex does say 2018). Assuming the source data is from 2018, I believe this source could be outdated compared to some of the newer ones below. Additionally, the executive summary states The Habitable Exoplanet Observatory, or HabEx, has been designed to be the Great Observatory of the 2030s, a successor to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) with enhanced capabilities and community involvement through a competed and funded Guest Observer (GO) program., from which it appears this is planned to launch a ways in the future. As well as Between now and the expected launch of HabEx in the mid-2030s (page 49), I conclude that this figure is for the far future.
• The Origins report. The launch cost ($500M for the SLS launch vehicle, as advised by NASA Headquarters) is also included. NASA GSFC’s Resource Analysis Office (RAO) independently estimated the mission cost using different methodology. RAO and CEMA are firewalled from each other, but they both referred to the same MEL and mission schedule. Looking at the bottom of page 13 of the report, I see that launch is scheduled for 2035. I believe this could be another aspirational number for that reason. I also could not find where this advised cost is coming from.
• An Ars Technica article by Eric Berger. It appears to cite the next source which says NASA Europa Mission. The bill requires that NASA use the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to launch the Europa Clipper mission. The Administration is deeply concerned that this mandate would slow the lunar exploration program, which requires every SLS rocket available. Unlike the human exploration program, which requires use of the SLS, the Europa mission could be launched by a commercial rocket. At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete, the use of a commercial launch vehicle would provide over $1.5 billion in cost savings. The Administration urges the Congress to provide NASA the flexibility called for by the NASA Inspector General and consistent with the FY 2020 Budget request. The Ars Technica article adds on top of this: The White House number appears to include both the "marginal" cost of building a single SLS rocket as well as the "fixed" costs of maintaining a standing army of thousands of employees and hundreds of suppliers across the country. Building a second SLS rocket each year would make the per-unit cost "significantly less." This was said by Kathryn Hambleton, a spokesperson of NASA, in response to Ars Technica's inquiry. This is interesting to me... why would the launch cost not include the wages of the employees and suppliers who build the rocket? I may be misunderstanding something, but it seems to me as if the statement is "If we could make twice as many rockets employing the same people, the per unit cost would be less". The article itself goes on to describe the development costs to date, and calculates a figure that divides the development cost among the launches of the rocket. I discount this because we already have a separated development cost figure in the infobox, and it seems natural to separate that from operations. So, discounting the article itself and just looking at the appropriations letter and the NASA spokesperson's response, I see that there is some tension between what cost deserves to be considered part of the rocket, and what is a fixed cost. The reason is that (it appears) the NASA employees and suppliers would exist regardless, therefore increasing the cadence of construction would result in a lower unit cost. I am not too convinced by this hypothetical brought up by the spokesperson, and the reason is how far the schedule has slipped already. (from the article itself: The first flight of SLS has slipped multiple times: first to 2019, then to June 2020, then to April 2021, and most recently to November 2021.) I think the spokesperson is being diplomatic and stating essentially "if it were cheaper it would be cheaper". I don't think we can ignore the cost of labor involved in constructing this rocket. If the labor became more efficient in the future, the cost would go down, but has this happened?
• Appropriations letter itself: previous bullet point
• The SpaceNews article, found here. It says NASA has been reticent to provide cost estimates for a single SLS launch, although ballpark figures have been around $1 billion. NASA, in its fiscal year 2020 budget request, said launching the mission on a commercial rocket, such as a Delta 4 Heavy or Falcon Heavy, “is estimated to result in over $700 million in savings compared to use of an SLS rocket.” This provides some explanation, but does not say why NASA has been reticent. Why is it the case that in order to find a cost for this launch vehicle, so much digging has to take place?? A NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report in May played down the cost savings between SLS and commercial alternatives largely because it offered a much lower cost estimate for the SLS. That report estimated an SLS launch at $876 million, versus $450 million for commercial alternatives. However, in a follow-up letter in August, OIG said NASA could save up to $1 billion by launching Europa Clipper on a commercial vehicle versus the SLS, adding that NASA needed to decide how to launch the mission in the next few months in order to procure a launch vehicle in time to support a potential 2023 launch.. This is interesting at first glance, but looking at the actual follow-up letter, it appears that the $1B figure is an all-inclusive figure that also takes into account the cost of storing the spacecraft (at least 2 years at a cost of $3 to $5 million per month until an SLS becomes available), so it is not quite the case that SLS would cost $1B more on its own. 2 years times 3 to 5 million per month arrives at $72M to $120M. This is likely a part of: NASA recently added $250 million in Headquarters-held reserves to the project to address these storage and related personnel costs. So, of the $1B, $250M is this, leaving $750M for SLS versus an alternative. This is still significantly greater than the $876M versus $450M (difference of $426M) figure from the earlier OIG report, but still roughly in line with the FY2020 budget request which said that there would be a $700M savings by switching away from SLS. Looking a little later in the letter on pages 4 and 5, I see Our May 2019 report highlighted three main differences between launching the Europa mission on an SLS versus a commercial rocket: cost, transit time to Europa, and availability for a 2023 launch. The SLS is the most expensive launch vehicle option by a factor of three. In fact, the JCL analysis conducted by the SRB for Clipper showed the SLS would cost about $700 million more than a commercial vehicle option. Off-setting a small part of the higher cost is the fact that the SLS is powerful enough to carry Clipper directly to Europa in about 2.4 years whereas a commercial vehicle will need to use a planetary gravity assist trajectory for a transit time of at least 5.9 years. Bit of arithmetic, but if SLS costs $700M more than the alternative, and is 3x as expensive, this means that the alternative is $350M and SLS is $1.05B.
• Finally, the budget request for 2020, which allocates $2.5B to SLS for this year.

In summary. I put the most weight on what a NASA spokesperson said directly, in reply to the inquiry from Ars Technica, relating to the cost of labor. Drawing on the spacenews article, seems to me as if NASA is providing a sticker price aspirationally, in a manner that doesn't include fixed cost of maintaining its employees. This is supported by the NASA spokesperson's quoted statements. But all the labor that goes into building the rocket does count as a cost, even if it isn't "billed" to the projects that want to launch such as Europa and Origins etc. The accounting seems murky here and all based on estimates of varying age, but the clearest figure that cuts through the noise (without including development costs) does appear to be $2B per launch, which includes cost of labor to build the rocket (why wouldn't it?). We also see marginal costs (not including fixed salaries etc) in a fairly tight range: $800M to $900M as a lower bound aspirational figure from the administrator, and $876M to $1B from Europa. I discount the two estimates for what SLS might cost for a launch in 2035. In summary, I see these sources as supporting, with all development costs left aside, a $2.5B annual cost, a $1B marginal cost of launch, and a $2B cost per launch. Leijurv (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Leijurv: WOW! What an effort! I agree with almost everything you said! But man, wow! - Moamem (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Leijurv: One thing I'd like to clarify is where the ultimate source of this $2B figure is, anyway. Does Ars Technica ever describe where they get it from? Is it an estimate? Or is it based on yearly programmatic budget? If it's the latter, I have some points I'd like to make in contention, but I'd like to hear your interpretation first. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe I said that, didn't I? As I said, I don't agree with some of the later conclusions of the Ars Technica article (it's too speculative), however it is the source on the NASA spokesperson's statements to the author, so we can at least use those parts. Let me copy/paste the start of my fifth bullet point:

• An Ars Technica article by Eric Berger. It appears to cite the next source which says NASA Europa Mission. The bill requires that NASA use the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to launch the Europa Clipper mission. The Administration is deeply concerned that this mandate would slow the lunar exploration program, which requires every SLS rocket available. Unlike the human exploration program, which requires use of the SLS, the Europa mission could be launched by a commercial rocket. At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete, the use of a commercial launch vehicle would provide over $1.5 billion in cost savings. The Administration urges the Congress to provide NASA the flexibility called for by the NASA Inspector General and consistent with the FY 2020 Budget request.

So, as I wrote, Ars Technica is citing the next source that we also cite, which is this. The relevant passage is At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete, the use of a commercial launch vehicle would provide over $1.5 billion in cost savings. We already say this in the text of the article proper: A letter from the White House to the Senate Appropriations Committee revealed that the SLS's cost per launch is estimated at "over US$2 billion" after development.. I see no justification to consider this number to have been based on yearly programmatic budget, I don't know where that's coming from. It is a cost per launch figure for SLS, after development. As I say in the above comment, this includes the cost of labor to build the rocket (why wouldn't it?). This is, again, supported by the NASA spokesperson quoted statements. I suspect you disagree, if so I'm all ears, why shouldn't those aspects be included? (referring to the costs of maintaining a standing army of thousands of employees and hundreds of suppliers across the country. This is very clearly to me a part of how much it costs to build SLS. Again, if they could build more rockets using the same labor force, the cost of labor per rocket would be cheaper. But that's a hypothetical that is not actually happening. The whole idea of the "marginal" cost is, to my eyes, a giant hypothetical because while we can imagine "well WHAT IF they built just one more" it doesn't arrive at an accurate conclusion because it (by design) doesn't scale up the fixed costs. If up to two SLS rockets can get built a year with these fixed cost facilities, factories, suppliers, and employees, then the marginal cost of one more SLS is sure going to include 6 months of those fixed costs, plus the cost of procurement of materials. This isn't like some car factory that can just as easily build 1 more or 1 fewer car on any given day with no change in labor costs. Each one here is a massive undertaking, and the analysis of a marginal cost by its very nature assumes fixed costs remain fixed. They don't. Simple test: if we wanted 100 SLS rockets, what would actually happen? We can't wait some half century at the current "fixed" cost per year of salaries and suppliers. To acheive this in, say, 5 years, there would need to be 10x more factories and facilities... and that fixed cost suddenly becomes less fixed. But again, that's another hypothetical. We have a letter to Congress that rests upon an analysis of these costs, and a NASA spokesperson tried to damage control by explaining that in a hypothetical that they could make more with less, more would be made with less. Leijurv (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You can actually see in my first comment on this talk page yesterday that I thought that SLS could be split out into "program cost per year" and "marginal cost per launch", but it truly cannot due to the limitations of the construction of SLS: everything that's a so called "fixed" cost, such as factories, salaries, and suppliers, is actually a cost that will scale up with the rate of production (as was betrayed by the NASA spokesperson's comments). Keep in mind that the NASA spokesperson did not dispute the $2B figure, but instead explained the hypothetical of labor making more rockets while being paid the same resulting in cheaper rockets... Want to build twice as many a year? You need a second factory and workforce. Want to build twice as many with the same fixed costs per year? It'll take twice as many years. These are marginal costs in fixed costs' clothing. The only thing that I'd put in a "fixed cost" bucket is the development cost prior to the first one. Leijurv (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Moamem, that's not how RfCs work. WP:NOTAVOTE. You're also mis-ascribing editors' positions.

Can you please actually let discussion continue? You do something disruptive every time an editor vaguely supports your position, and it completely throws off the debate. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Jadebenn I am beyond furious at your unacceptable behavior! You do not have the right to delete my comments from the talk page! As I said on your talk page this is not a reason to delete my comment. Here are the very specific circumstance under which you can delete other's comments : Editing others' comments. Not liking them ain't one of them! This is unacceptable! - Moamem (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion of the RfC for the SLS Launch cost

Hi everyone, After months of debates I think a clear consensus has emerged. I went trough the different opinions given in the last 9 months (since November 2020) and tried to compile them in a manner useful for the dilemma at hand :

1) Keeping the $500 million launch cost figure :

For : Jadebenn

Against : Leijurv, Maomem, 174.251.160.98, SLSgal, Fcrary, Soumya-8974, N2e, Timlograsso, Zegfred, Skytie, TheSkalman, 2001:56a:7797:e800:acd7:1c51:cba5:6365, RundownPear, NguyenVy1993, Beaucouplusneutre, Sun Creator, SandowTheHeretic

Unclear : SkywalkerP

2) Separating Marginal Launch Cost ($900 million) and Launch Cost ($2 billion) - Votes for eliminating the marginal cost completely will be considered as a vote for separating them :

For : Leijurv, Maomem, 174.251.160.98, SLSgal, Fcrary, N2e, Timlograsso, Zegfred, Skytie, TheSkalman, 2001:56a:7797:e800:acd7:1c51:cba5:6365, RundownPear, NguyenVy1993, Beaucouplusneutre, Sun Creator, SandowTheHeretic

Against : SkywalkerP, Jadebenn

Unclear : Soumya-8974

If you spot a mistake or you have been inadvertently miscategorized please say so and I will correct accordingly.

If you want your username added please state the proposition (1 or 2) and you position (for or against).

If a clear consensus persists I will make the changes in 24h.

Please do not debate here!!!! This is specifically for the tally. Any debate should take place in the sections above! Thanks! - Moamem (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class spaceflight articles
• Mid-importance spaceflight articles
• WikiProject Spaceflight articles
• C-Class Rocketry articles
• Unknown-importance Rocketry articles
• WikiProject Rocketry articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment