Talk:Space Launch System/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia: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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=925620594&oldid=925395840

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

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

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

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=925620594&oldid=925395840

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

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

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

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia. 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, Wikipedia 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

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)

I would suggest a Table of Costs

1. 1) DDTE to complete development.
2. 2) Estimated annual support costs
3. 3) Estimated marginal costs per vehicle unit.
4. 4) Estimated flights per year (Forward looking)

That will encapsulate most of the cost figures and annual support costs is always hard to figure out, as center personnel are billed in funny ways but it's the best you have.

Then put in Estimated flights per yea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

70.70.39.1 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Ok, you know what?

I'm just going to put 1-2 billion 'depending on how it's calculated' and leave it at that. We have no idea what the actual cost is.

Fredinno (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Oh yeah, BTW, I'm 70.70.39.1 , I just forgot to log in.

People have been editing the cost per launch seemingly constantly depending on people's opinions. It's starting to get dumb.

@Fredinno: This is not how it works. This little figure has been debated for or months with hundreds of thousandths of words arguments, has been the subject of an RfC and multiple interventions for mods. This is the consensus (for now) of a lot of people. You can't just edit it the way you like it. If you do it will be considered vandalism and reported to the mods.

I highly encourage you to read the arguments form both sides that have been put forth and if you have new input I highly suggest you create a new section to debate it. But I kind of doubt it since every facet of this has been debated Ad Nauseam.

Please don't forget to log and always sign you comments - Moamem (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Fredinno (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC) But there IS no consensus. The reality is that we have no idea what it actually costs. The other dude didn't agree, he GAVE UP. Not the same thing.

In fact, the conclusion right above was: "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." I was trying to fit that. "Over 2 billion excluding development costs" is NOT accurate, even by the sources listed in the original version (neither MENTIONS development costs, you can't just assume that not mentioning development costs means not including development costs). The current version also presents no nuance.

There is no way to make everyone happy other than to list every single quoted price from the federal government (ie. 500 mil to 2 billion, with the generally quoted median from NASA being 1 billion).

I get that you're highly invested in this. I'm not trying to argue for or against, I'm just pointing out that $2 Billion with no if, and, or buts, is not accurate. Not everybody is going to read the talk page. Or hover over for a note. People are just going to take the $2 Billion and assume that's fact and that there's not a significant number of people who disagreee.

The reality is that we have no idea what it actually costs. We don't have "no idea", we have a very large number of estimates made by sources spanning the entire spectrum from reliable to unreliable for this particular figure.

In fact, the conclusion right above was: "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." I believe you may be misreading this page, or misunderstanding what consensus means (or both). That isn't a conclusion, it's just what one IP said. Please see the actual RfC here, which is closed. Please note that we cannot explain nuance in the infobox, that belongs in the article itself. Not everybody is going to read the talk page. Or hover over for a note. Yes. There is discussion of that here, and admittedly I have not made time recently to cover the cost figures in the article itself. I hope I can get to it soon, or someone else can.

There is no way to make everyone happy other than to list every single quoted price from the federal government Making everyone happy is not the goal here. The goal is to present the most accurate figure based solely on the reliable sources that we have. See WP:VNT. Leijurv (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fredinno: well I don't want to redo the whole debate but since you seam genuinely interested I'll try to give you the gist of the arguments :

1. The $500 millions was the aspirational target at the start of the program. It is but SiFi now. The Engines alone cost at least $400 millions.
2. The billion or so number is the estimated marginal cost (optimistically if I might add my opinion) of launching SLS. A lot of arguments can be made against using it but IMO the most appealing is that no other rocket on Wikipedia uses it as its launch cost.
3. The over $2 billion quote is almost a direct quote (we shortened it for convenience) from the OMB report : “At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete"

BTW the convention is signing your comments at the end and indenting them using ":" (well 2 of them in your case) when answering another contributor - Moamem (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Moamem: Yeah, I don't believe in the 500mil cost either. You may notice the original edit was 1-2 Bil. I just added 500 million because some people were saying it.

This is in the SLS Wikipedia article: "In May 2019, NASA's Office of Audits reported that the SLS Block 1's marginal cost per launch is to be at least US$876 million."

Also, I've been seeing the $876 mil number quoted as the marginal cost in the Talk page as well. I don't see anywhere where $1Bil is the marginal cost.

I've seen the RfC. I agree with the non-use of the marginal launch cost, but the $1 Billion is not mentioned anywhere as the marginal cost, only as 'the cost'.

My issue with the 2 billion is the 'excluding development costs' part, which isn't stated in that source. 'Once development is complete' doesn't necessarily mean 'excluding development costs'. 'Once development is complete' could mean 'once the vehicle is fully operational'. Ie. After the 2 test flights- costs change after the development launches as the vehicle design and production lines are optimized- this happened with the Shuttle as well (eg. There's no paint on the Shuttle ET even though it was on STS-1.)

If so, both the 1 billion and 2 billion numbers are valid- with no indication of if it includes or excludes development costs, since it's not explicitly stated.

Ok, thanks. Not used to Wikipedia.

Fredinno (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, so... can I change the cost per rocket to 1-2 Billion without mentioning development costs? As the development costs part is not fully clear, and 1 Billion is not marginal cost? Fredinno (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

'Once development is complete' doesn't necessarily mean 'excluding development costs' I disagree. Our role is to summarize information presented in reliable sources. If the cost per launch is $2B once development is completed, I do read that to mean once development is completed, and not this alternate interpretation of "once the vehicle has flown once or twice". Leijurv (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, in the future, please consider making a new section at the bottom of the talk page, as that's where people expect to find new discussions :) Leijurv (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Well, it IS kind of a continuation off the previous discussion of SLS launch costs.... I was replying to someone else on this section of the talk page, and they didn't respond.

You're not understanding what that point I'm trying to make.

There is nothing in the quote, in context, or not, referring to development costs, or indeed even how the OIG arrived at the cost number.

That is my primary concern, I don't understand where and how "excluding development costs" could have been gotten from. It gives the impression the $2 Billion estimate is the minimum potential cost, bloating the cost estimate for the SLS. If it just said "2 Billion", or "Up to 2 Billion," I would be fine with the sidebar, as it gives a more accurate representation of the varied cost estimates for the SLS.

That is my main concern.

It's a cost estimate also on the high range for quoted SLS costs from the government as well. For example, from NASA Director Jim Bridenstine, later in 2019: > NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine on Monday revealed his latest guess at how much SLS will cost each time it launches: $800 million per rocket for a bulk order and $1.6 billion if NASA purchases just one, Bridenstine, told CNN Business' Rachel Crane. That's just an estimate, Bridenstine noted, because the space agency "needs to sit down with its primary contractor, Boeing (BA), and negotiate the best solution to getting the right mix of the number of rockets and the cost per rocket." Boeing declined to comment on those negotiations and referred questions to NASA. From: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/09/tech/nasa-sls-price-cost-artemis-moon-rocket-scn/index.html

Hence, I also suggested having a cost estimate that also includes the lower cost estimates of $800 (low end cost estimate range) to 1.6-2 Billion (high-end cost estimate range)- or even "1-2 Billion" or "Up to 2 Billion" as less misleading and more fair options.

I understand that people here are probably sick of it, and that's part of the reason there's so much aversion to changing the sidebar. Fredinno (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand that people here are probably sick of it, and that's part of the reason there's so much aversion to changing the sidebar. Yes I am a little sick of it by now.

You're not understanding what that point I'm trying to make. There is nothing in the quote, in context, or not, referring to development costs, or indeed even how the OIG arrived at the cost number. I have no idea what you're talking about. The source says At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete. The article says Over $2 billion excluding development. Can you just spell this out for me because from my point of view this is just a tiny nitpick of words?? Over two billion US dollars per launch, after development. Why do you want it to say "Up to 2" or "2"? The source says "Over 2". So does the other ars technica source, which reached out to a NASA spokesperson, who did not deny that figure.

Hence, I also suggested having a cost estimate that also includes the ... Again I refer you to WP:VNT and WP:FALSEBALANCE. We do not need to give the subject the last word. Take a look at WP:MRDA which is a similar idea. It isn't a perfect analogy, but my thinking is along the lines of "WP:INDEPENDENT exists for a reason". If the head of NASA says that the program will be cheaper than independent sources indicate, I'm not so sure we should trust that. E.g. see #"first_two_flights" or #Coverage_of_Cost_in_the_Article_Itself. There's a lot of cost sketchiness here, see Space Launch System#Criticism (the sidebar image relating to the booster shenannigans), or Exploration Ground Systems which has a separately budgeted $600m/yr, but only supports SLS. If SLS launches once a year, and its launch pad costs $600m/yr to maintain, should we add that $600m to cost of launch of SLS? (well that is a rhetorical question - obviously "we", meaning "wikipedia editors" should not take it upon ourselves to do that arithmetic, but I'm making the point that all-inclusive estimates of the cost of launch of SLS are not as simple as just "how much do we pay Boeing to get one of them"). As I said earlier when you brought this up we simply do not need to list all the possible cost estimates. The infobox is not the place for nuance. Since the last time we talked about this six months ago, I have gone ahead and actually written into the article, see Space_Launch_System#Per_launch_costs. That is where we can go into depth as to who said what when about how much SLS will cost. The infobox should indeed remain with the best overall source according to WP:EDITDISC and common sense. Leijurv (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I was pointing out that the OIG is one source, and it's way out of line with other cost estimates for SLS.

Similar to how the payload for the Saturn V used to be listed as something like 140 mT to LEO- which was a vast overestimate out of line with others due to being the total mass to orbit, which is different than the total payload to orbit- and was also from 1 source. That lasted for years before it was changed.

That's my point. It's a data point that's an outlier.

Not whether the OIG says it is "over" or "under" 2 billion.

If anything, being "over" 2 Billion makes it even more of an outlier. If the OIG is getting the cost/launch by dividing the cost of the SLS program by the number of launches per year (which is the only way I can imagine you can get to over 2 Billion/launch), that's a horrifically inaccurate estimation that would bloat the cost of all similar programs.

For example, by that kind of estimation, the cost of a seat on a Dragon 2 paid to the ISS would be more like $80 Million per seat. (a 45% cost overestimation. (!!!))

We can both agree that's not true. And it's not.

Also, we use the price per launch for F9 Reusable as basically what Elon said to SpaceNews, so yes, I do think what the director of NASA says as the cost to NASA should be considered a reliable source.

...

But- even if we can disagree on the above- Can we at least remove the "excluding development costs" part? That was my original and biggest concern.

There is no part of the OIG report that even refers to development costs specifically.

I would be satisfied if we can at least resolve that aspect. Fredinno (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah. I think one part of the confusion here is that you're saying "OIG" when you mean to say "OMB" I believe. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) wrote the $2B figure in that cited letter here. The OIG is an internal NASA oversight body.

and it's way out of line with other cost estimates for SLS. I'm not so sure. This has been discussed many times on this page, but I'll get into this in the next two paragraphs.

If the OIG is getting the cost/launch by dividing the cost of the SLS program by the number of launches per year I don't think we can conclude that they did that. I realize this may appear to be getting a little bit closer to WP:OR than WP:EDITDISC, but actually we can look in the same cited source of Ars Technica here to get clarification on this. See this passage: 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," Hambleton said. What the White House cost estimate did not include, however, was development costs. Since 2011, Congress has appropriated approximately $2 billion per year for the "development" of the SLS rocket (this does not include hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually on ground systems "development" for the rocket at Kennedy Space Center). If these costs are amortized over 10 launches of the SLS vehicle during the 2020s, the per-flight cost would be approximately $4 billion per flight. So as you can see, if we take the cost and divide by the number of launches, we get a number twice as large, according to the cited source. If you look down on this page you can see there has been a lot of arguing about these specific words. Imagine SLS launches once a year, doesn't that mean the cost of one SLS launch includes the cost of paying one year of salaries to everyone who constructs SLS? Why would it not include that? If we want one more SLS, we do indeed need to pay one more year of those salaries. The same goes for Exploration Ground Systems (although the $2B number does not include EGS, I'm just using it to make a point), if the SLS launch pad (which has no other role but to launch SLS) costs $X per year to maintain, doesn't that count as a cost of launch? What about the other EGS operations, which are to assemble, integrate, prepare and launch the SLS and its payloads? NASA budgets all these things separately. Again, take a look at the image in the Criticism section of the main article relating to how NASA has very inventively moved this budget around.

That's just a long winded way of saying: $2 billion is not really an outlier. The other numbers that we see are mostly internal NASA figures. The OMB is an all encompassing cost to the taxpayer of one more versus one less SLS launch (because it is explicitly comparing "Europa Clipper launches on SLS" versus "Europa Clipper launches on a commercial provider"). For example, specifically, if NASA has to pay Boeing $800 million to get one more SLS core stage constructed, that is not the cost of launch of SLS. Boeing doesn't even build the RS-25 engines (that's Aerojet Rocketdyne), nor the boosters (that's Northrop Grumman). Boeing doesn't assemble, integrate, prepare and launch the SLS, that's EGS (which, again, has a separate budget).

A lot of the numbers that you're comparing the $2B figure to are an apples-to-oranges comparison, in my analysis. If you look at the Per launch costs section of the main article you can see a walkthrough of all of those. For example, if a concept study report for a space telescope was advised by NASA HQ in 2019 to budget US$500 million for an SLS launch in 2035, that absolutely does not mean we can pull out that $500M number as the cost of launch of SLS. Believe it or not, that source was cited as the lower range of what the cost of launch figure used to say (it used to be $500M to $2B, citing that for the lower range). I hope we can both agree that that is absurd. It's been discussed many times on this page how much of an impossibility that is.

We can both agree that's not true. And it's not. Well hold on there. Taking the total cost of a program divided by how many times it launches isn't, like, "lying". It isn't "untruthful". It's just a different metric. Average total cost versus marginal cost are just two different economic metrics you can calculate. But again as I said earlier, this $2B figure is not an average total cost, as it is stated to be after development in the original source, and the Ars Technica article explains further exactly what is and isn't included. And I want to make sure to point out that that Ars Technica article is not just Eric Berger's personal interpretation of the OMB number, it actually includes quotes that he got from reaching out to a NASA spokesperson on the topic, so it actually is new information and not just a restatement of the OMB letter.

Also, we use the price per launch for F9 Reusable as basically what Elon said to SpaceNews, so yes, I do think what the director of NASA says as the cost to NASA should be considered a reliable source. SpaceX is a private company. The US Government is a higher authority over NASA that provides its funding. It isn't really comparable. Additionally, SpaceX has no real reason to distort budgeting. (referring only to internal costs, not to external statements, those have an incentive to be low). SpaceX has customers, NASA does not. NASA doesn't even need to figure out how much SLS costs because it's going to happen regardless, SpaceX needs to present to its customers a number which is how much they need to pay for a launch, then SpaceX has to honor that contractually. NASA has nothing like that for SLS (yet?). But anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and such. We have a better source which is a specific estimate for the marginal cost of a SLS launch, which is clearly superior to an offhand / informal statement from an administrator on how much he imagines he can negotiate the cost down to in the future, followed up by an "I don't know, honestly" and an explanation of his obligation to get the cost as low as possible.

There is no part of the OIG report that even refers to development costs specifically. What? I'm going to paste in exactly what the source says, yet again: At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete. Estimated cost ... once development is complete. It does talk about cost, and it does say that the number is after development. Looking back at your explanation you wrote 7 months ago, you wrote My issue with the 2 billion is the 'excluding development costs' part, which isn't stated in that source. 'Once development is complete' doesn't necessarily mean 'excluding development costs'. 'Once development is complete' could mean 'once the vehicle is fully operational'. Ie. After the 2 test flights- costs change after the development launches as the vehicle design and production lines are optimized. I think this is a little silly. You're assuming that "development" means "the first 2 flights". Why? I thought the first flight was uncrewed testing and the second flight was crewed operational? You're assuming that development costs will still be included, but only after some development is complete? So you interpret once development is complete to mean "still including development, but only development that occurs chronogically after the first two flights". Why? See my response from 6 months ago: If the cost per launch is $2B once development is completed, I do read that to mean once development is completed, and not this alternate interpretation of "once the vehicle has flown once or twice".

And anyway, all of that disagreement is moot. Because we have a secondary source, Ars Technica, which reached out to a NASA spokesperson for clarification on what that figure means, what it includes and doesn't include, etc (see previous paragraphs).

(also it makes it easier to read the thread of the conversation if you indent your response using :, adding one more per level, so :: in response to this) Leijurv (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"Once development is complete" does not mean "excluding development costs."

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.

Fredinno (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I reached that conclusion initially based on common sense understanding of English, and secondly on confirmation provided by reading the reliable secondary source, Ars Technica (WP:RSPSRC, Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles.), here, that synthesized and explained what that cost number means, with the article being based upon, and sharing quotes from, comment and explanation given by a NASA spokesperson in response to the author's questions asking for clarification about that OMB primary source document. Quote from the article: What the White House cost estimate did not include, however, was development costs. Leijurv (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Except that article also says the cost per launch including development costs would be $4 Billion, which is factually untrue.

The cost for the $20 Billion development cost number includes Orion (as also noted in the SLS Wikipedia article itself), which bloats the total cost of development per launch.

SLS does not require Orion to launch (Clipper was manifested for it at one point), and thus including the costs for Orion in the costs for 1 SLS launch is at best misleading. At worst, a complete lie.

So, no, I think this might be an exception to Ars being reliable. Especially reliable enough to state that without any reference to any original or secondary source- considering it can be proven it contains fake/misleading data to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredinno (talk • contribs)

Except that article also says the cost per launch including development costs would be $4 Billion, which is factually untrue. The cost for the $20 Billion development cost number includes Orion (as also noted in the SLS Wikipedia article itself), which bloats the total cost of development per launch. SLS does not require Orion to launch (Clipper was manifested for it at one point), and thus including the costs for Orion in the costs for 1 SLS launch is at best misleading. At worst, a complete lie. What are you talking about? I'm finding it harder and harder to WP:AGF on this, as it seems like you're not really reading the article / the sources / what I've written. But I'll go for it yet again. In this case, you have completely misread the article. It actually says the literal opposite of what you claim. Please go to the Funding history section of the main article, and read the text underneath the table. The table says a total cost of 20.314 billion dollars, and the text underneath says: On top of this, the costs to assemble, integrate, prepare and launch the SLS and its payloads are funded separately under Exploration Ground Systems,[97] currently about US$600 million[98] per year. Excluded from the above SLS costs are: •Costs of payloads for the SLS (such as Orion crew capsule) (emphasis added). You can also look at the funding section of the Orion article to see that the funding amounts per year are completely different. If we add them together we get 20,314+21,477 = forty one billion dollars, which is not twenty. So your tirade about how "$20 billion" supposedly includes Orion, therefore meaning that Ars Technica is an unreliable source, is completely unfounded. You yourself wrote as also noted in the SLS Wikipedia article itself while it says the exact opposite so I'm really not sure what to make of this. I have now written >2500 words of explaining this just to you, no one else, on assumption that we are both acting in good faith, so do you see why this is frustrating? Especially reliable enough to state that without any reference to any original or secondary source Secondary sources can cite primary sources, but don't have to. That is what it means to be a reliable secondary source: if Eric Berger learns information from a direct interview or other communication with a NASA spokesperson, we just have to trust that he has correctly quoted, summarized, contextualized, etc that interaction he had with NASA. This is something that cannot be cited or "proven", if you suspect he is making complete lies and fabrications. We trust in "the institution" of Ars Technica - so if Eric Berger tweets something, we don't care, but if it's a published Ars Technica article, it has gone through editors, if it were proven wrong they would publish a correction, if he consistently wrote incorrect things he would be fired, etc. This is what journalistic reliability is. See WP:RSEDITORIAL, which Ars Technica meets, according to current consensus on WP:RSPSRC. Leijurv (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect unit conversion

The unit conversions are wrong in the lift capacity of the Block 2 version. This is the only place where Tonnes and Long Tones have the same value. And, it a large value, so it can't be a rounding issue if the others are to be believd. "130 tonnes (130 long tons; 140 short tons)" I would correct, but I'm not sure which value is authoritative and which are the conversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.45.106 (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)