User talk:Wrwhiteal

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Wrwhiteal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Space Launch System, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Fnlayson (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Saturn V. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX reusable launch system development program

Regarding your recent addition to SpaceX reusable launch system development program, you did not leave a source for that statement. A citation is needed for the newly added statement as the 27 Nov source with the mission plan cannot source what actually happened on the 3 Dec flight. Note here: you may be quite right, as I think I heard that from one of my sources. But Wikipedia will need a source for that claim in order for it to stay in the encyclopedia over the long term.

On this particular article, since we are aiming to get it to WP:GOODARTICLE status by late January, it will need a source sooner rather than later. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of orbital launch systems

I reverted your edit to Comparison of orbital launch systems. The Forbes article you used is a hatchet job to make a point, so doesn't directly compare with other figures used in the table. I reverted to the common reference. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Wikipedia page 'Space Shuttle Program', 'Budget' section, you find the text: Per-launch costs can be measured by dividing the total cost over the life of the program (including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc.) by the number of launches. With 134 missions, and the total cost of US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars), this gives approximately $1.5 billion per launch over the life of the program.[16] With a link to: ^ Pielke Jr., Roger; Radford Byerly (7 April 2011). Shuttle programme lifetime cost 472 (7341). Nature. Bibcode:2011Natur.472...38P. doi:10.1038/472038d. Retrieved July 14, 2011. There are many additional links such as: http://www.space.com/12166-space-shuttle-program-cost-promises-209-billion.html Which prove a final Shuttle program cost of $220 billion.. This table is supposed to fairly/equitably compare commercial/private costs to Govt launcher costs.. Any private enterprise/business MUST cover all costs (e.g. development, staffing, overhead, etc) in their unit product/service costs, or go bankrupt. They can't just subset costs to look good.. Numbers such as the $300 million ignore development costs, KSC costs (13,100 employees $2 billion/year), etc. Final/comprehensive Nasa official Shuttle Program costs numbers are over $210 billion, $1.6 billion/launch... and are over a decade later than the 'Futron' 1990-2000 numbers...also the Futron report STATES IT USES THE NASA PROVIDED NUMBER (incremental costs only) from the 1990s... obsolete.. Furthermore, the provided 2009 shuttle cost link is obsolete/invalid, compared to the later and total end of program costs.. The only fair/valid/equitable method is total program costs / # of flights... even this excludes the 'cost of money' which a commercial effort must add.. The $300 million number is invalid, misleading, obsolete. Also, since when is Forbes less trusted source than 'Futron'

It's not that Forbes is less trusted, it's that the table shows incremental costs for launches of other rockets. Changing the shuttle launch cost to include the full cost of the program puts it out of kilter with other rockets it is comparing against. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted again, please continue this discussion on the article talk page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarl: I've got references from the Wall Street Journal, Forbes,Space.com, which cite Nasa itself as the source of the $210 billion shuttle program cost figures... IMHO the $1.6 billion/launch is understated, as it fails to include time weighted 'cost of money' and/or opportunity costs that a private enterprise would pay... basic cost accounting... I agree that shuttle launch costs are 'out of kilter' with other rockets... THAT'S THE POINT... they are 'out of kilter' because of inherent Shuttle/Nasa massive inefficiency/waste, not because of unfair, improper or misleading accounting.... Just because they are 'out of kilter', far higher than others, or just because some folks don't like the fair cost, doesn't make it wrong... if you want to compare launch system costs with any meaning, IMHO you must compare program costs / # flights... a commercial/private provider MUST cover ALL it's costs..including development/fixed costs prorated over launches...otherwise they go bankrupt... e.g. SpaceX Falcon costs must cover all the Falcon program.... ALL these costs are in the launch pricess. they have to be... they can't just ignore development costs/overhead/staffing/etc..... Govt should be held to fair cost accounting also... otherwise, any Govt could subsidize costs, play accounting tricks, ignore development/overhead costs, ignore fixed costs, and offer the launch for free.... there were 13,100 folks at KSC alone launching shuttles... tens of thousands more at MFC... 'astronaut support'.. thousands more at suppliers... People will use this list to judge/compare the relative merits, inefficiencies, value of private vs Nasa provided launch vehicles... we should use strict basic, strict accounting principles.. not ignore costs/subsidies and produce misleading results. Each shuttle flight did cost taxpayers $1.6 billion...