This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
May I add that the 188 ton to LEO figure for Ares V is equally crazy. This is a figure based on a pure engine performance computation, but the primary structure of Ares V is not designed for a 188 ton payload. Ares V goal is to achieve 75 metric tons to TLI. How do I know ? I asked the question - is the 188 ton figure real - to Steve Cook himself (Manager, Ares Projects Office at Marshall) during the IAC Congress last year in Glasgow. Hektor ( talk) 09:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I cut the UR-900 from the listing. This never made it past the conceptual design stage, and if the list is to include conceptual designs, there are a lot more that should be on the list, such as the Nova (rocket), the Sea Dragon (rocket), various shuttle-derived HLLVs such as Magnum, and many others. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 15:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Could you add a "Year of first launch" column please? It would be much more useful than the actual "Status" value. Yann ( talk) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I came across a possible source for more complete info on the Delta IV, Aries I, and Atlas V-Heavy (which is missing entirely from the article). This: http://www.floridatoday.com/assets/pdf/A912809629.PDF is an article from a local Florida newspaper in which they give a comparison of the targeted specs for the Aries I versus the existing Delta IV and the Atlas V-Heavy (which doesn't, technically, exist yet but is supposed to use 95% of the existing Atlas V's hardware and could be ready in 30 moneth according to it's producer). Specifically, the article gives values for overall cost per launch and cost per kg to LEO. I'm not sure about the validity of Florida Today as a source, but they claim that the numbers come from the Government Accountability Office's and NASA's 2008 fiscal year budget. This should help in making apples-to-apples comparisons between the various systems. I'd add the info myself, but I don't have an account and don't have the time to make one. I 12.32.89.121 ( talk) 21:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The heavy configuration of Delta IV by the article's own numbers indicate its record of 2 out of 3. The other launches of the Delta IV were of the medium variety, and shouldn't be included in the "heavy" 20KG+ range. The table suggests 9 out of 10 for the heavy configuration of Delta IV which is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.55.76 ( talk) 22:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the above comment is correct. The value showing now of 9/10 probably was intended to show all Delta IV launches, but this is the "heavy lift" page, so only Delta IV Heavy should be included. While the Delta IV Heavy uses the same Common Booster Core as the non-Heavy Delta IV series, for the purposes of this "Heavy" page it should be treated as a separate vehicle. This is consistent with the main article for Delta IV.
I am changing the table to show 2/3 for launch record.
If there is disagreement, let's discuss it here before changing it back. Rebbargynnep ( talk) 20:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The manned version of Rus-M can carry only 18.8t (this will be the rocket's primary purpose.) Should we point this out in the table? Offliner ( talk) 07:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it sure that Ares V has 188mt capability? In the 2009 Augustine report it is clearly reported as 160mt and maybe the 188 number is a confusion from the Constellation missions where Ares V (160mt) and Ares I (25mt) would launch two pieces that dock in LEO for a total of ~185mt? Alinor ( talk) 13:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The Angara page mentions that Angara 7V has a maximum LEO payload capacity of 40,500 kg, this page talks about 36,000 kg. Which one is correct? 77.118.125.40 ( talk) 08:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Generally, various lanch capacities are found by citation. Yomiuri Shimbun(February 23, 2007) reported that H-IIB had about 20t / LEO 300km, which was quoted from JAXA's documentation. Clip of the newspaper's table was found in a rocket engineer's private website [1] (in Japanese). I will not actively add H-IIB to this catalogue article, but need not to remove the existing description. -- Gwano ( talk) 09:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that we should add the Ares I test launch in the table - the launch was not of the Ares I rocket, but a development/qualification test - there was no second stage (used dummy) and the first stage was not Ares I first stage (5 segment SRB), but 4 segment SRB with dummy 5th segment. So this launch was a step in the development process and not one of the final steps (like test launches of other rockets), but an early step. Alinor ( talk) 10:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The LEO capacity of Falcon 9 Heavy was 29610 until someone changed it to 32000 (both using the same source). The source itself seems contradictory (having two figures: 32000 and over-28000) - eighter "over 28000" is "32000" (possible, but not very likely) or both figures mean different things (like actual payload vs. payload+second stage transfer fuel vs. payload+fuel+full second stage mass - or similar distinctions). Alinor ( talk) 12:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Should the Proton be separated into Proton-D, Proton-K, and Proton-M? Or are these adequately similar so as to be considered as variants of the same launch system? i.e, tank size very nearly the same, fuels the same, engines basically the same. -- Aflafla1 ( talk) 04:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This List compares Launch Vehicles by their Lifting capability's, it uses manufacturer supplied maximum theoretical values.
I would suggest a column displaying the greatest actually achieved "mass to orbit".
Since that should be the most meaningful Value in this comparison.
There are Vehicles that will never achieve their maximum theoretical values.
I don't know how difficult it would be to gather this data, since there are a number of military launches that may not publish much data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xylf ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
From the Atlas V article it is not clear if the 30 month period for the HLV version includes development and first item manufacturing, or the development is already made and this is only the manufacturing time. (the other statements on the page were in the sense that HLV will not be developed at all). Alinor ( talk) 14:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
N2e, you have added such flags to many entries in the tables (not only here, but in the other launch vehicle lists too) and even removed some numbers that were without citation. For example recently you added "citation needed" on Long March 2A launch record ( [2]), but after opening its article I found the information and also this link where it was present too. So, while I could understand adding "citation needed" flags to any data without citation - I think it is better to first look if it is not present in the relevant launcher article (sometimes these articles contain list of launch attempts and you have to count the appearance of the particular launcher there).
In any case removing data (especially if present in the relevant article) is too much. If you don't want to look in the articles/count from the lists/copy the references - please, put a citation-needed flag, but please don't delete the content (as the Titan records here).
The case is similar with Operational vs. Retired status - there are few "official announcements" of retirement, especially for the older rockets (that are much more unlikely to be still operational/available), so while it could be dubious that some rocket is still operational/already retired (Sputnik?, Ariane 5GS?) and so a "citation needed" flag is required - deleting the status will be an overreaction. The problem that I see with so many citation needed flags is that the whole column could get deleted "after xxx time passed" and that would not do any good. Alinor ( talk) 09:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
"I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar." —Jimbo Wales, July 19, 2006
N2e, I see that the sourced data in the Long March 2A entry (where you added a 'citation needed' tag without checking the launcher article - see 09:38, 21 September 2010 comment above) is deleted. I see that the 'citation needed' tag on the Saturn IB sourced information (see 15:21, 22 September 2010 comment above) still remains. I see that you continue to add these tags and delete data. I assume that there are other cases (than the two examples I mention above) where you does this on sourced information. Do you agree that you should first check for sources in the launcher articles before adding these tags or you continue to insist on deleting all information from these lists here by playing the 'add citation tag without checking - wait - delete' game? Alinor ( talk) 15:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
N2e, as you said above that you don't want to discuss this editing process any further I asked for external opinions here. Alinor ( talk) 09:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"Alinor, I have given an extraordinarily deep explanation of what I am doing and why I have done it. It really is quite beyond me why you aren't able to understand. See above, in detail. Having said that, I will offer no more explanation to you about how I choose to prioritize my volunteer time as a Wikipedia editor, as this is not to be determined by you or any other editor. However, I will be happy to discuss article content. Bottom line, if article content makes claims that are unsourced, I will from time to time challenge some content and ask for sources. If no source is provided for the claim—in some reasonable period of time, typically six weeks or more—I may temporarily remove the assertion until an editor chooses to add it back in with a source. N2e ( talk) 05:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)"
I can't say I've read in detail all of the above discussion, but I generally agree with what N2e is saying. Namely that each article should contain it's own sources, and not rely on other articles' sources; that the burden is on the editor who wants to include material, not the editor who wants to remove it; and that the discussion should be about the article content, and not about a particular editor's editing style. Mlm42 ( talk) 06:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The following sections are being moved here, to Talk:Comparison of heavy lift launch systems, from User:N2e's talk page. The topic of the article and who should add the citations ought to be here, not on my Talk page. N2e ( talk) 05:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::N2e, I don't agree with the allusion you make above "improving the article, not about the editor." - I have not discussed "N2e, the person", but only "N2e editing process" in the light of your tagging/deleting of data pieces that are backed by external sources (albeit not inline, but at wikilinked article). And that is the reason I continued to pursue this issue - you have not commented on these examples I gave, you have not corrected your wrong deletion/tagging (or objected that the examples I gave are incorrect) - for months! You don't even agree to first check for sources at the wikilinked articles before tagging/deleting. I can assume that a good-faith editor wants to improve verifiability, even going somewhat over-the-edge (IMHO) with generous tagging/deleting - but why doesn't he revert these when presented with examples that they are wrong?
:::The combination of A] ignoring examples of your mistakes (by neither objecting nor correcting) and B] refusal to "first check, then tag/delete" - this is what bothers me. Do you want these articles deprived of all information (and eventually deleted)? If so, please be frank and just file an AfD proposal.
:::If you really want to improve them - would you agree to employ slightly different process: instead of "tag-wait-delete" use "tag-wait-check-delete"? (and if the "check" step reveals that the information is backed by external sources at the wikilinked article - then "copy" or "don't delete/continue wait") Alinor ( talk) 09:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
::::N2e, When I showed you the places where the claim is sourced you've just ignored these. That's part of the problem here. The other part is that it's pretty easy and straightforward to click on the wikilink and check for sources there. Even if current policy doesn't require that editors do this. Why do you continue to object to check? Alinor ( talk) 09:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Alinor. Discussing my editing process is exactly what I told you, on the article Talk page, that I would no longer talk with you about, since you have ignored my previous extensive discussion of it with you (also, on that Talk page). Discussing article content is great, as I've said. The content will be whatever is left after either 1) appropriate sourcing BY THE EDITOR WHO WANTS THE MATERIAL RETAINED or 2) if it is removed until such time as a source is added. But that also should be done on the article Talk page. So I'll be moving this continuation of that discussion to that page shortly, and deleting it from my user talk page. N2e ( talk) 05:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, a few final words on this, since you have continued, once again, making statements that reflect your heartfelt concern about what items I ought, in your opinion, to spend my editing time concerned about.
Those are the answers to your questions, to the best of my ability to answer them.
So here, once again, is a summary of my view on improving Wikipedia with respect to unsourced claims:
And as Forrest Gump said, that is all I have to say about that.
I hope we can continue to work on improving the encyclopedia on articles where we work together from time to time. But as for sourcing policy, and for who should do the work of finding and adding citations for unsourced claims added by other editors who apparently did not care enough to source their claims when initially added, I think it is fair to say that you and I ought to just agree to disagree, and move on. Good luck, and best wishes for your continued work with Wikipedia. N2e ( talk) 01:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't readers expect to find the Saturn V in the table of heavy lift launch systems as a retired launcher? Zebulin ( talk) 20:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
There have been 135 space launches (according to the List of space shuttle missions article), not 132.
There have been 1 launch failure (STS-51-L).
STS-107 failed to land, but the launch and satellite insertion into orbit was successful.
Should the numbers be 134/135. Why the difference in the number for this article? user:mnw2000 18:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The number of launch failures for the space shuttle should be listed as one, as of today's date. STS-51L is the only mission to sustain a launch failure, as Columbia's last mission, STS-107, was a failure at reentry, not at launch. Since the table explicitly says "launch history" and not "total mission success", it should be left as it is. The fact that the shuttle orbiter is reusable does not mean it should be held to a different standard when calculating launch failures. That could be considered original research, or even opinion, since the definition of a rocket launch has not changed since the space age began. If you disagree with this assessment, please state your case before editing. Jparenti ( talk) 09:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
When sorting by the number fields, the LEO number were not working. I started to replace the number with the nts tag so that the field would sort properly. user:mnw2000 01:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Did we miss something in the merge? No Soyuz? user:mnw2000 21:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I said it before and I will say it again, this page is being swamped in minor variants, in fact it should be renamed page of retired delta configurations... Seriously one entry for each main series rocket, we dont need a seperate entry for every possible combination of strap on boosters and upper stages that flew a single time. WatcherZero ( talk) 22:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
why was there a merger of all the Launch Vehicles?? now the page is impossible to navigate, and there is no way of telling which class the Launch vehicle belongs to. I say we go back to the old format, where there were different pages for different types of launch vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The main problem is there is simply too much junk in the table, and since not all the entries have values, it doesn't really sort well. I will suggest two improvements:
Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 20:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
user:mnw2000 23:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The above grouping sounds reasonable. We should try to preserve the variety of capabilities within the families in the individual columns - e.g., For Ariane 4, we should list the mass-to-LEO as "4600 - 7000", to accommodate the capacities of the various configurations. It might also make sense to move the original portions of the tables were going to merge, into the main articles for each booster family, so that there are readily-accessible tables in those articles with the information that will be glossed over here. I'd still like to see Operational in a different table than Retired or in Development, rather than just merely color-coded. For the purposes of what's available as launch systems, the obsolete and in development rockets are simply noise. If this sounds reasonable to other editors, I'll volunteer to do the grunt work. Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 22:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup, this merger is a real clusterf&$k. It was much more navigable as 5 separate launch weight classes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Weight classes are OR. The unified list is an improvement, even when under construction. A better distinction in my opinion would be to remove the retired and cancelled launchers to their own list. One reason: that list grows without limit. The current and development launch systems naturally will stay a manageable size, since the world's launch demand at any given time is finite. -- IanOsgood ( talk) 16:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I have previously looked for a reliable secondary source for the lift classifications that are widely used in Wikipedia for "small-lift", "medium-lift", "mid-heavy lift", and "heavy lift". I was unsuccessful. I did find a workable reliable source for "super-heavy lift" in the Augustine Commission report, and have previousl placed that source in several of the applicable articles.
Does anyone have a good source for the upper and lower weight/mass classification of all of these rocket classes? Since these are terms that are used in the industry, we ought to use the same weight ranges for any WP articles using the terms. But since this is Wikipedia, they ought to be sourced as well. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 17:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw [3], [4], [5] and [6] edits (by IP, no comment on edit-line). You know that I'm against indiscriminate adding of 'citation needed' tags and especially about the indiscriminate deletion of material (if it follows the adding of tags). Also, for the divisions of the list articles, I'm not sure that 'citation needed' is the right tag to put after "This is a list of launch vehicles capable of lifting between X and Y to LEO" - but I understand the request to have X-es and Y-es mentioned in outside sources. As explained above this is not so easily achievable for multiple reasons. But anyway, the edits I mention here go in the opposite direction (too far, IMHO) - they copy the heavy/super-heavy source (the only one that we have so far) to all other X-es and Y-es. I can't find on the pages mentioned in this references or even in the whole Augustine report any other of the X-es and Y-es besides the heavy/super-heavy. So, maybe these should be reverted (but be careful, the last one contains other edits, unrelated to this issue). Alinor ( talk) 12:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
As discussed above, the current arrangement of these articles is based on numbers which have been pulled out of thin air, and original research. Having the list split has also led to several other issues, with users asking why a specific launch system is not included (or attempting to add one) when it is listed under a different category. It has also led to disputes over the categorisation of systems which can place heavy-class payloads to higher orbits, but only intermediate-class payloads to low Earth orbit due to structural constraints. Finally, discrepancies between the formats have led to some contradictions developing: for example the Ariane 5G/GS is included both here (where all Ariane 5 variants are counted together), and in the Mid-Heavy list (where they are counted separately). Energia-Buran is similarly counted twice.
Merging the articles would primarily allow the spurious class definitions to be eliminated. It would also allow greater standardisation to occur, and force the same format to be maintained. I would also suggest that some thought be given to merging Comparison of solid-fuelled orbital launch systems into the final article as well, as it seems to be serving little useful purpose. A "Fuel type" column could be added to the combined list if necessary. -- G W … 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems clear that there is consensus to merge, and since WP:MERGE allows the nominator to close discussion after a week where there is unanimous support for the merger, I have done so and will proceed with the merger. Several issues were raised with the format of the article, specifically whether the list should be split within the single article, and on exactly which columns should be present. No consensus has emerged on these issues, and since eliminating the payload classifications was the primary objective of the merger I will leave everything in one table for now unless a strong consensus to do otherwise emerges. Either way, discussion should continue regarding the format of the article. -- G W … 20:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The most useful criteria for division of launch vehicles is their lift capability. This is how the articles were created in the first place and this is how the aerospace community looks at them. Just google "Small Lift", "Medium Lift", "Heavy Lift", "Super Heavy Lift" and you will see how often these terms are utilized. It's inappropriate to merge the articles as bureaucratic solution to the problem that nobody found a source for the classification values. Here it is:
NASA Space Technology Roadmaps - Launch Propulsion Systems, p.11
There you see a table showing:
As you can see actual Medium category covers both "mid-heavy" and "medium" articles - so these two should be merged, but not the rest. I will add the source to the launcher comparison articles and to the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.87.244.157 ( talk) 19:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Should the above merger proposal be successful, there are several differences between the lists which would need to be standardised, as well as some issues with other arbitrary and misleading information which should be replaced.
The resolution of these issues would simplify the proposed merger of the articles. -- G W … 22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Another option which I am starting to favour might be to have several articles covering the same launch systems. With several other comparison articles across the site, multiple tables are presented, displaying different specifications. In this case the article would be too long for multiple tables, so each table could have its own article. Comparison of orbital launch systems could show basic data such as manufacturer, name, etc. We could then set up Comparison of orbital launch systems by payload capacity, Comparison of orbital launch systems by technical specifications, and so forth. This would allow more data to be presented than could be easily displayed by a single line table. This proposal does not have to be implemented at the same time as the merger; the combined article could be split later. All launch systems would appear in all lists. -- G W … 16:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
May I add that the 188 ton to LEO figure for Ares V is equally crazy. This is a figure based on a pure engine performance computation, but the primary structure of Ares V is not designed for a 188 ton payload. Ares V goal is to achieve 75 metric tons to TLI. How do I know ? I asked the question - is the 188 ton figure real - to Steve Cook himself (Manager, Ares Projects Office at Marshall) during the IAC Congress last year in Glasgow. Hektor ( talk) 09:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I cut the UR-900 from the listing. This never made it past the conceptual design stage, and if the list is to include conceptual designs, there are a lot more that should be on the list, such as the Nova (rocket), the Sea Dragon (rocket), various shuttle-derived HLLVs such as Magnum, and many others. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 15:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Could you add a "Year of first launch" column please? It would be much more useful than the actual "Status" value. Yann ( talk) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I came across a possible source for more complete info on the Delta IV, Aries I, and Atlas V-Heavy (which is missing entirely from the article). This: http://www.floridatoday.com/assets/pdf/A912809629.PDF is an article from a local Florida newspaper in which they give a comparison of the targeted specs for the Aries I versus the existing Delta IV and the Atlas V-Heavy (which doesn't, technically, exist yet but is supposed to use 95% of the existing Atlas V's hardware and could be ready in 30 moneth according to it's producer). Specifically, the article gives values for overall cost per launch and cost per kg to LEO. I'm not sure about the validity of Florida Today as a source, but they claim that the numbers come from the Government Accountability Office's and NASA's 2008 fiscal year budget. This should help in making apples-to-apples comparisons between the various systems. I'd add the info myself, but I don't have an account and don't have the time to make one. I 12.32.89.121 ( talk) 21:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The heavy configuration of Delta IV by the article's own numbers indicate its record of 2 out of 3. The other launches of the Delta IV were of the medium variety, and shouldn't be included in the "heavy" 20KG+ range. The table suggests 9 out of 10 for the heavy configuration of Delta IV which is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.55.76 ( talk) 22:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the above comment is correct. The value showing now of 9/10 probably was intended to show all Delta IV launches, but this is the "heavy lift" page, so only Delta IV Heavy should be included. While the Delta IV Heavy uses the same Common Booster Core as the non-Heavy Delta IV series, for the purposes of this "Heavy" page it should be treated as a separate vehicle. This is consistent with the main article for Delta IV.
I am changing the table to show 2/3 for launch record.
If there is disagreement, let's discuss it here before changing it back. Rebbargynnep ( talk) 20:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The manned version of Rus-M can carry only 18.8t (this will be the rocket's primary purpose.) Should we point this out in the table? Offliner ( talk) 07:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it sure that Ares V has 188mt capability? In the 2009 Augustine report it is clearly reported as 160mt and maybe the 188 number is a confusion from the Constellation missions where Ares V (160mt) and Ares I (25mt) would launch two pieces that dock in LEO for a total of ~185mt? Alinor ( talk) 13:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The Angara page mentions that Angara 7V has a maximum LEO payload capacity of 40,500 kg, this page talks about 36,000 kg. Which one is correct? 77.118.125.40 ( talk) 08:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Generally, various lanch capacities are found by citation. Yomiuri Shimbun(February 23, 2007) reported that H-IIB had about 20t / LEO 300km, which was quoted from JAXA's documentation. Clip of the newspaper's table was found in a rocket engineer's private website [1] (in Japanese). I will not actively add H-IIB to this catalogue article, but need not to remove the existing description. -- Gwano ( talk) 09:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that we should add the Ares I test launch in the table - the launch was not of the Ares I rocket, but a development/qualification test - there was no second stage (used dummy) and the first stage was not Ares I first stage (5 segment SRB), but 4 segment SRB with dummy 5th segment. So this launch was a step in the development process and not one of the final steps (like test launches of other rockets), but an early step. Alinor ( talk) 10:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The LEO capacity of Falcon 9 Heavy was 29610 until someone changed it to 32000 (both using the same source). The source itself seems contradictory (having two figures: 32000 and over-28000) - eighter "over 28000" is "32000" (possible, but not very likely) or both figures mean different things (like actual payload vs. payload+second stage transfer fuel vs. payload+fuel+full second stage mass - or similar distinctions). Alinor ( talk) 12:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Should the Proton be separated into Proton-D, Proton-K, and Proton-M? Or are these adequately similar so as to be considered as variants of the same launch system? i.e, tank size very nearly the same, fuels the same, engines basically the same. -- Aflafla1 ( talk) 04:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This List compares Launch Vehicles by their Lifting capability's, it uses manufacturer supplied maximum theoretical values.
I would suggest a column displaying the greatest actually achieved "mass to orbit".
Since that should be the most meaningful Value in this comparison.
There are Vehicles that will never achieve their maximum theoretical values.
I don't know how difficult it would be to gather this data, since there are a number of military launches that may not publish much data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xylf ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
From the Atlas V article it is not clear if the 30 month period for the HLV version includes development and first item manufacturing, or the development is already made and this is only the manufacturing time. (the other statements on the page were in the sense that HLV will not be developed at all). Alinor ( talk) 14:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
N2e, you have added such flags to many entries in the tables (not only here, but in the other launch vehicle lists too) and even removed some numbers that were without citation. For example recently you added "citation needed" on Long March 2A launch record ( [2]), but after opening its article I found the information and also this link where it was present too. So, while I could understand adding "citation needed" flags to any data without citation - I think it is better to first look if it is not present in the relevant launcher article (sometimes these articles contain list of launch attempts and you have to count the appearance of the particular launcher there).
In any case removing data (especially if present in the relevant article) is too much. If you don't want to look in the articles/count from the lists/copy the references - please, put a citation-needed flag, but please don't delete the content (as the Titan records here).
The case is similar with Operational vs. Retired status - there are few "official announcements" of retirement, especially for the older rockets (that are much more unlikely to be still operational/available), so while it could be dubious that some rocket is still operational/already retired (Sputnik?, Ariane 5GS?) and so a "citation needed" flag is required - deleting the status will be an overreaction. The problem that I see with so many citation needed flags is that the whole column could get deleted "after xxx time passed" and that would not do any good. Alinor ( talk) 09:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
"I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar." —Jimbo Wales, July 19, 2006
N2e, I see that the sourced data in the Long March 2A entry (where you added a 'citation needed' tag without checking the launcher article - see 09:38, 21 September 2010 comment above) is deleted. I see that the 'citation needed' tag on the Saturn IB sourced information (see 15:21, 22 September 2010 comment above) still remains. I see that you continue to add these tags and delete data. I assume that there are other cases (than the two examples I mention above) where you does this on sourced information. Do you agree that you should first check for sources in the launcher articles before adding these tags or you continue to insist on deleting all information from these lists here by playing the 'add citation tag without checking - wait - delete' game? Alinor ( talk) 15:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
N2e, as you said above that you don't want to discuss this editing process any further I asked for external opinions here. Alinor ( talk) 09:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"Alinor, I have given an extraordinarily deep explanation of what I am doing and why I have done it. It really is quite beyond me why you aren't able to understand. See above, in detail. Having said that, I will offer no more explanation to you about how I choose to prioritize my volunteer time as a Wikipedia editor, as this is not to be determined by you or any other editor. However, I will be happy to discuss article content. Bottom line, if article content makes claims that are unsourced, I will from time to time challenge some content and ask for sources. If no source is provided for the claim—in some reasonable period of time, typically six weeks or more—I may temporarily remove the assertion until an editor chooses to add it back in with a source. N2e ( talk) 05:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)"
I can't say I've read in detail all of the above discussion, but I generally agree with what N2e is saying. Namely that each article should contain it's own sources, and not rely on other articles' sources; that the burden is on the editor who wants to include material, not the editor who wants to remove it; and that the discussion should be about the article content, and not about a particular editor's editing style. Mlm42 ( talk) 06:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The following sections are being moved here, to Talk:Comparison of heavy lift launch systems, from User:N2e's talk page. The topic of the article and who should add the citations ought to be here, not on my Talk page. N2e ( talk) 05:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::N2e, I don't agree with the allusion you make above "improving the article, not about the editor." - I have not discussed "N2e, the person", but only "N2e editing process" in the light of your tagging/deleting of data pieces that are backed by external sources (albeit not inline, but at wikilinked article). And that is the reason I continued to pursue this issue - you have not commented on these examples I gave, you have not corrected your wrong deletion/tagging (or objected that the examples I gave are incorrect) - for months! You don't even agree to first check for sources at the wikilinked articles before tagging/deleting. I can assume that a good-faith editor wants to improve verifiability, even going somewhat over-the-edge (IMHO) with generous tagging/deleting - but why doesn't he revert these when presented with examples that they are wrong?
:::The combination of A] ignoring examples of your mistakes (by neither objecting nor correcting) and B] refusal to "first check, then tag/delete" - this is what bothers me. Do you want these articles deprived of all information (and eventually deleted)? If so, please be frank and just file an AfD proposal.
:::If you really want to improve them - would you agree to employ slightly different process: instead of "tag-wait-delete" use "tag-wait-check-delete"? (and if the "check" step reveals that the information is backed by external sources at the wikilinked article - then "copy" or "don't delete/continue wait") Alinor ( talk) 09:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
::::N2e, When I showed you the places where the claim is sourced you've just ignored these. That's part of the problem here. The other part is that it's pretty easy and straightforward to click on the wikilink and check for sources there. Even if current policy doesn't require that editors do this. Why do you continue to object to check? Alinor ( talk) 09:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Alinor. Discussing my editing process is exactly what I told you, on the article Talk page, that I would no longer talk with you about, since you have ignored my previous extensive discussion of it with you (also, on that Talk page). Discussing article content is great, as I've said. The content will be whatever is left after either 1) appropriate sourcing BY THE EDITOR WHO WANTS THE MATERIAL RETAINED or 2) if it is removed until such time as a source is added. But that also should be done on the article Talk page. So I'll be moving this continuation of that discussion to that page shortly, and deleting it from my user talk page. N2e ( talk) 05:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, a few final words on this, since you have continued, once again, making statements that reflect your heartfelt concern about what items I ought, in your opinion, to spend my editing time concerned about.
Those are the answers to your questions, to the best of my ability to answer them.
So here, once again, is a summary of my view on improving Wikipedia with respect to unsourced claims:
And as Forrest Gump said, that is all I have to say about that.
I hope we can continue to work on improving the encyclopedia on articles where we work together from time to time. But as for sourcing policy, and for who should do the work of finding and adding citations for unsourced claims added by other editors who apparently did not care enough to source their claims when initially added, I think it is fair to say that you and I ought to just agree to disagree, and move on. Good luck, and best wishes for your continued work with Wikipedia. N2e ( talk) 01:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't readers expect to find the Saturn V in the table of heavy lift launch systems as a retired launcher? Zebulin ( talk) 20:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
There have been 135 space launches (according to the List of space shuttle missions article), not 132.
There have been 1 launch failure (STS-51-L).
STS-107 failed to land, but the launch and satellite insertion into orbit was successful.
Should the numbers be 134/135. Why the difference in the number for this article? user:mnw2000 18:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The number of launch failures for the space shuttle should be listed as one, as of today's date. STS-51L is the only mission to sustain a launch failure, as Columbia's last mission, STS-107, was a failure at reentry, not at launch. Since the table explicitly says "launch history" and not "total mission success", it should be left as it is. The fact that the shuttle orbiter is reusable does not mean it should be held to a different standard when calculating launch failures. That could be considered original research, or even opinion, since the definition of a rocket launch has not changed since the space age began. If you disagree with this assessment, please state your case before editing. Jparenti ( talk) 09:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
When sorting by the number fields, the LEO number were not working. I started to replace the number with the nts tag so that the field would sort properly. user:mnw2000 01:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Did we miss something in the merge? No Soyuz? user:mnw2000 21:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I said it before and I will say it again, this page is being swamped in minor variants, in fact it should be renamed page of retired delta configurations... Seriously one entry for each main series rocket, we dont need a seperate entry for every possible combination of strap on boosters and upper stages that flew a single time. WatcherZero ( talk) 22:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
why was there a merger of all the Launch Vehicles?? now the page is impossible to navigate, and there is no way of telling which class the Launch vehicle belongs to. I say we go back to the old format, where there were different pages for different types of launch vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The main problem is there is simply too much junk in the table, and since not all the entries have values, it doesn't really sort well. I will suggest two improvements:
Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 20:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
user:mnw2000 23:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The above grouping sounds reasonable. We should try to preserve the variety of capabilities within the families in the individual columns - e.g., For Ariane 4, we should list the mass-to-LEO as "4600 - 7000", to accommodate the capacities of the various configurations. It might also make sense to move the original portions of the tables were going to merge, into the main articles for each booster family, so that there are readily-accessible tables in those articles with the information that will be glossed over here. I'd still like to see Operational in a different table than Retired or in Development, rather than just merely color-coded. For the purposes of what's available as launch systems, the obsolete and in development rockets are simply noise. If this sounds reasonable to other editors, I'll volunteer to do the grunt work. Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 22:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup, this merger is a real clusterf&$k. It was much more navigable as 5 separate launch weight classes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Weight classes are OR. The unified list is an improvement, even when under construction. A better distinction in my opinion would be to remove the retired and cancelled launchers to their own list. One reason: that list grows without limit. The current and development launch systems naturally will stay a manageable size, since the world's launch demand at any given time is finite. -- IanOsgood ( talk) 16:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I have previously looked for a reliable secondary source for the lift classifications that are widely used in Wikipedia for "small-lift", "medium-lift", "mid-heavy lift", and "heavy lift". I was unsuccessful. I did find a workable reliable source for "super-heavy lift" in the Augustine Commission report, and have previousl placed that source in several of the applicable articles.
Does anyone have a good source for the upper and lower weight/mass classification of all of these rocket classes? Since these are terms that are used in the industry, we ought to use the same weight ranges for any WP articles using the terms. But since this is Wikipedia, they ought to be sourced as well. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 17:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw [3], [4], [5] and [6] edits (by IP, no comment on edit-line). You know that I'm against indiscriminate adding of 'citation needed' tags and especially about the indiscriminate deletion of material (if it follows the adding of tags). Also, for the divisions of the list articles, I'm not sure that 'citation needed' is the right tag to put after "This is a list of launch vehicles capable of lifting between X and Y to LEO" - but I understand the request to have X-es and Y-es mentioned in outside sources. As explained above this is not so easily achievable for multiple reasons. But anyway, the edits I mention here go in the opposite direction (too far, IMHO) - they copy the heavy/super-heavy source (the only one that we have so far) to all other X-es and Y-es. I can't find on the pages mentioned in this references or even in the whole Augustine report any other of the X-es and Y-es besides the heavy/super-heavy. So, maybe these should be reverted (but be careful, the last one contains other edits, unrelated to this issue). Alinor ( talk) 12:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
As discussed above, the current arrangement of these articles is based on numbers which have been pulled out of thin air, and original research. Having the list split has also led to several other issues, with users asking why a specific launch system is not included (or attempting to add one) when it is listed under a different category. It has also led to disputes over the categorisation of systems which can place heavy-class payloads to higher orbits, but only intermediate-class payloads to low Earth orbit due to structural constraints. Finally, discrepancies between the formats have led to some contradictions developing: for example the Ariane 5G/GS is included both here (where all Ariane 5 variants are counted together), and in the Mid-Heavy list (where they are counted separately). Energia-Buran is similarly counted twice.
Merging the articles would primarily allow the spurious class definitions to be eliminated. It would also allow greater standardisation to occur, and force the same format to be maintained. I would also suggest that some thought be given to merging Comparison of solid-fuelled orbital launch systems into the final article as well, as it seems to be serving little useful purpose. A "Fuel type" column could be added to the combined list if necessary. -- G W … 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems clear that there is consensus to merge, and since WP:MERGE allows the nominator to close discussion after a week where there is unanimous support for the merger, I have done so and will proceed with the merger. Several issues were raised with the format of the article, specifically whether the list should be split within the single article, and on exactly which columns should be present. No consensus has emerged on these issues, and since eliminating the payload classifications was the primary objective of the merger I will leave everything in one table for now unless a strong consensus to do otherwise emerges. Either way, discussion should continue regarding the format of the article. -- G W … 20:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The most useful criteria for division of launch vehicles is their lift capability. This is how the articles were created in the first place and this is how the aerospace community looks at them. Just google "Small Lift", "Medium Lift", "Heavy Lift", "Super Heavy Lift" and you will see how often these terms are utilized. It's inappropriate to merge the articles as bureaucratic solution to the problem that nobody found a source for the classification values. Here it is:
NASA Space Technology Roadmaps - Launch Propulsion Systems, p.11
There you see a table showing:
As you can see actual Medium category covers both "mid-heavy" and "medium" articles - so these two should be merged, but not the rest. I will add the source to the launcher comparison articles and to the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.87.244.157 ( talk) 19:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Should the above merger proposal be successful, there are several differences between the lists which would need to be standardised, as well as some issues with other arbitrary and misleading information which should be replaced.
The resolution of these issues would simplify the proposed merger of the articles. -- G W … 22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Another option which I am starting to favour might be to have several articles covering the same launch systems. With several other comparison articles across the site, multiple tables are presented, displaying different specifications. In this case the article would be too long for multiple tables, so each table could have its own article. Comparison of orbital launch systems could show basic data such as manufacturer, name, etc. We could then set up Comparison of orbital launch systems by payload capacity, Comparison of orbital launch systems by technical specifications, and so forth. This would allow more data to be presented than could be easily displayed by a single line table. This proposal does not have to be implemented at the same time as the merger; the combined article could be split later. All launch systems would appear in all lists. -- G W … 16:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)