This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Comparison of orbital launcher families article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Just my two cents but, Families have a name, "Angara, Falcon, Delta..." Variations have alpha numeric designations, "1,2,3 X, XH, XX, I, II, III, IV... So what is presented here is really not as valuable as it could be. However the stub pages would have to be written in such a way that a family page exists between this one, and the final stub page. ie. Full List--Family--Stub, This list should really be very short when compared to the full list. Again just my two cents. 160.149.1.37 ( talk) 18:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Darren Hensley, 12:54 2 Mar 2012
This article has been recently created, as a result of a discussion and apparent consensus to do so. That is fine as far as having the new article exist.
However, per WP:V we should not be sourcing assertions merely with other Wikipedia articles, nor should we have substantive assertions that are unsourced by reliable secondary sources with inline citations. I have tagged just a few of the assertions that need cited with {{ citation needed}}. Does anyone have a good book that might cite a large amount of info on the older/historical launcher families? N2e ( talk) 14:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks FlyAkwa for finding an English translation of the Russian source that supports all the Angara launcher family claims. I had earlier today attempted to improve the original Khrunichev citation by adding standard citation metadata, but did not locate the English-language source URL that you came up with. So thanks for finding that. N2e ( talk) 22:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This article was created to attempt to redress the disagreements arising from the merger of the individual comparison articles. I have just noticed that it includes separate counts of successful and total launches in this article; this has been unilaterally restored and was not part of the compromise proposal (which was simply a table with less entries). I'd like to make it clear that I do not believe that this was a deliberate attempt to create a POV fork, but since this was a point of contention no change should have been made without discussion, and no discussion was held regarding this point. In the absence of a consensus to establish a system for determining a neutral, consistent and verifiable definition of a successful launch, which can be reliably sourced, these figures should not have been restored. I have removed them, hopefully we can discuss the issue here, and come up with a better way of presenting this data, without reopening old disputes and disagreements. -- W. D. Graham 22:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I am agnostic, for now, over how many columns the table is broken into to show various degrees of successful or partially-sucessful or unsuccessful launches. However, whatever claims about those numbers that are added to the article, each assertion must have a citation to a reliable secondary source. Most of those numbers have no such citation. Wikipedia editors do not get to make the distinction on our own, from our heads, or from claims that might, or might not, be in other Wikipedia articles.
If an editor wants an assertion to stand in the encyclopedia, then cite it. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 22:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
If the launch vehicle places the payload where it was intended to go and the payload separates (or not) as intended, the launch was a success. If the payload winds up somewhere else or fails to separate (or not) as intended, the launch was not a success, even if the payload is in orbit. Once the launch is complete, the performance of the payload does not determine the success of the launch already completed. Don't over think it. Magneticlifeform ( talk) 02:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Since man-rating is such a big deal for launch systems, and distinguishes some medium lift systems, such as the Soyuz, from larger cargo-only systems, such as the Zenit. I would think a compact way to show this would be a "Crew capability" column, containing either numbers indicating succesful vs human-killing launches (at launch - Columbia got to space mostly intact), or "cargo only" (e.g. Titan) or "proposed" (as per the Atlas V). There may be better terms, but I think this is important info for comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.56.104 ( talk) 14:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Due to extremist fussy peoples, lot of useless columns have been added, months ago.
Theses are TL, RS, OL, RO, RT...
This classification is excessively complex and unmaintainable.
Unless there is real good reasons to keep them, I will delete columns in excess to keep only "Total Launch" and "Success launch", as defined by various source sites and launch companies.
--
FlyAkwa (
talk)
09:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
FlyAkwa and Geoffrey.landis—Well, it's over six months later and I see there are really way too many columns in this table. Moreover, the chance of both 1) finding sources for all of the incredible detail claimed in the many columns, and even if a source is found, keeping track of which of many sources might support which of many claims made in the many columns, would be a Sysyphean task.
Case in point, I just endeavored to support the citation needed tag on the Falcon 1. Did a little research, found an article that supported total launches and total successful launches. (Note: source articles like this are less common than you might think; they can be very hard to find for many of these rockets.). Seemed hopeless to find all the sources required to support each of the many other claims. So I left that row only partially sourced, and left the citation needed tags by many of the specific claims that are yet unsourced. BTW, I did not explicitly invite WD Graham as I am aware that WDGraham has retired from editing Wikipedia.
I will endeavor to start a discussion on column reduction soon. Not sure if a one step or two step process of proposal/consensus is best, as I don't know how far apart the editors working this article would be on which columns are essential in a Wikipedia summary table. Let me know if you have any input. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 00:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Please use more distinctable colors. Active and Development are rarely distinguishable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.22.116.119 ( talk) 07:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 v1.1 are technically the same rocket family. v1.1 launched successfully two times, it's time to merge the data. Any objections? Dvasilev ( talk) 22:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The acronyms in the column headings were awkward. The columns are wide, and the heading is three rows high, so I saw no reason not to spell out the acronyms- it didn't make the table any longer. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 15:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
In general, the same references are used in all the columns. It only makes the table larger to put a separate reference or citation needed on every single figure, rather than one set of citations for each rocket family. So I am consolidating the references into a column. This actually compresses the table width a bit, since multiple "citation needed" are compressed into one, and will make it easier to follow. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 18:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
There were only two vehicles in this listing for which entries in the "total launches" and "orbital launches" columns were not identical. And one of those was Saturn 1, for which the numbers were only there since I put them in earlier this afternoon (it had six suborbital tests). Given that this article is about orbital launchers, I propose merging these columns into one, listing only orbital launch attempts, making the fact that the list does not include suborbital launches clear in the discussions, and putting suborbital launches (for those vehicles which had suborbital launches) in the notes section. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 02:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
--OK, I have now consolidated the columns into 1 (and in the process, found a couple of spots where the data was outdated). This brings the table into a little clearer focus.... and also brings out the fact that much of the data haven't been filled out. For many of the vehicles, the data only lists the total number of launches, with no success data at all, much less the detailed parsing of success called for in the three columns. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 04:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Please add Ariane 6. -- Kizar ( talk) 18:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
, ... and here we are, a few weeks later, and there is yet another rocket to add: Vulcan (rocket) has been unveiled by United Launch Alliance. It too will be added when some volunteer editor cares to take the time to do so, with citation(s). N2e ( talk) 07:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't Blue Origin be on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmodood ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The payload columns and cost columns need ranges to cater for most families, or perhaps columns here should be limited to those (eg stats) that apply to the entire family ? Comparison of orbital launch systems says this families list is intended to be simpler than that one. Before deleting, eg cost, column we should add that column to Comparison of orbital launch systems ? - Rod57 ( talk) 08:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Anybody know where to find a source giving trans-lunar injection payload capabilities for the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy? With the potential of Orion launching on a commercial rocket this seems needed. They must exists somewhere. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 00:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This list is currently a useful but messy mix of rocket families, types, and configurations. Since there is another more detailed list comparing orbital systems it seems to me this list needs to be standardized to include only families, the highest level of categorization, so that fair comparisons can be made. Items listed should link to the rocket (family) page. I would be willing to undertake this, but would like some input before beginning such a task. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 18:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The article is a mishmash of mixed figures and inconsistencies. Cost is generally different than price. The cost is the total cost, or average cost, or marginal cost (all different) to the manufacture to make the rocket, and launch it operationally. The price is what the buyer (launch service user who contracts for a launch) pays.
The column heading says "Cost". But the top of the article says "Cost: Price for a launch at this time, in millions of US$" confusing the issue.
This should be clarified. Moreover, we only rarely know the "cost" to the manufacturer/launch service provider. We often don't know. Such info is often proprietary.
And although we can know it more often than cost, we oftentimes do not know the "price" of a launch either. It is often times only known in the (proprietary) launch contract between the launch service provider and the buyer of the launch.
Sometimes, we get published (standard, or "catalog") prices on the web. SpaceX began this practice circa 2010 with the Falcon 9, and continued it with the Falcon Heavy. United Launch Alliance began to publish their Atlas V catalog prices in circa 2017 or so. But most orbital launcher families do not do that. Moreover, even then, LSPs contract for special prices with particular buyers, even for a "standard" launch service offering. E.g., the initial launches of Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy were cheaper, and the initial/early launches of Ariane, BFR, Angara, etc. will likely be so as well.
In short, a single column of numbers on a mismash of cost or price info from a variety of sources are, quite simply, not comparable. We mislead the Wikipedia reader by showing them in a column the way we do right now, as if they are comparable. N2e ( talk) 14:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Some families (eg Atlas V or Delta IV) have such different configurations that price needs to be a wide range here. It might better to have price information against each configuration in the other systems list. Prices are easier to source for specific launches or specific configurations. - Rod57 ( talk) 13:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Since this article is families why don't we merge Falcon 9 with Falcon Heavy, or should we split out Delta IV Heavy ? If there is a rational reason for having both the families and systems lists (not just a POV fork) then can we make the criteria clear? I'd like to merge Falcon Heavy into Falcon 9, but would we loose any data that is not in the systems list ? As I said in another comment - many numeric columns (eg payloads) need ranges for families. - Rod57 ( talk) 13:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
When sorting by total launches Falcon 9 with 82 is put at the zero end instead of in the correct place. Attempting to investigate, it seems the 82 comes from {{Falcon rocket statistics|F9launch}} which I don't know how to fix. I've tried to ask mfb on Template_talk:Falcon_rocket_statistics. - Rod57 ( talk) 13:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Please consider refraining of using a thousand separator.
Recommendation of ISO 31-0 accepts both comma and dot, point as a decimal separator. therefore it recommends no character, or space for lasrge digits.
Numbers consisting of long sequences of digits can be made more readable by separating them into groups, preferably groups of three, separated by a small space. For this reason, ISO 31-0 specifies that such groups of digits should never be separated by a comma or point, as these are reserved for use as the decimal sign. For example, one million (1000000) may be written as 1 000 000.
Regards, G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.13.64 ( talk) 19:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Should the cost line be adjusted for inflation, or similar measure? Seems like it'd be helpful given the time frames involved. Ends up looking like a shuttle launch was several times the cost of a Saturn V for example
When sorting by 'Total launches' I noticed an abnormality.
Three launch families (Jielong 1, Zuljanah, and Hyperbola-1) have either 1 launch in the case of the first two or 2 launches in the case of the last one. However when sorting by number of total launches these appear in the middle of several launch vehicle families that have yet to have a single launch attempt.
Since I am uncertain on how to fix the issue, I decided to just post this note. I suspect that at least some of launch families in development might have the potential for the same issue once they make an launch attempt. AmigaClone ( talk) 10:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this was due to the sorting tags for carriers under development; I've eliminated these tags for such future launch vehicles, but there may be other sorting issues (which will have to wait for another day.)
cheers, Spotty's Friend ( talk) 20:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Retired entries will not change. Active and underdevelopment entries do change. I propose a second section to this article for "retired orbital launchers" so the primary section can focus on orbital launchers that are active and under development. It would allow for easier sorting.
user:mnw2000 11:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Care to do the honors?
Spotty's Friend ( talk) 20:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's a new one: a privately-developed liquid-propellant rocket from Chinese company Space Pioneer: Tianlong-1 Have only located a high-level description of the launch vehicle so far, but the sources I've found are in the Space Pioneer article. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 11:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Clearly many people who have edited this has not much knowledge of what a family of launch vehicles actually is and so I see rockets like titan IV and atlas V which are not separate launch vehicle families but are specific launch vehicles, anyone who sees this, please try to fix this disappointing article. 109.78.223.172 ( talk) 16:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Comparison of orbital launcher families article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Just my two cents but, Families have a name, "Angara, Falcon, Delta..." Variations have alpha numeric designations, "1,2,3 X, XH, XX, I, II, III, IV... So what is presented here is really not as valuable as it could be. However the stub pages would have to be written in such a way that a family page exists between this one, and the final stub page. ie. Full List--Family--Stub, This list should really be very short when compared to the full list. Again just my two cents. 160.149.1.37 ( talk) 18:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Darren Hensley, 12:54 2 Mar 2012
This article has been recently created, as a result of a discussion and apparent consensus to do so. That is fine as far as having the new article exist.
However, per WP:V we should not be sourcing assertions merely with other Wikipedia articles, nor should we have substantive assertions that are unsourced by reliable secondary sources with inline citations. I have tagged just a few of the assertions that need cited with {{ citation needed}}. Does anyone have a good book that might cite a large amount of info on the older/historical launcher families? N2e ( talk) 14:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks FlyAkwa for finding an English translation of the Russian source that supports all the Angara launcher family claims. I had earlier today attempted to improve the original Khrunichev citation by adding standard citation metadata, but did not locate the English-language source URL that you came up with. So thanks for finding that. N2e ( talk) 22:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This article was created to attempt to redress the disagreements arising from the merger of the individual comparison articles. I have just noticed that it includes separate counts of successful and total launches in this article; this has been unilaterally restored and was not part of the compromise proposal (which was simply a table with less entries). I'd like to make it clear that I do not believe that this was a deliberate attempt to create a POV fork, but since this was a point of contention no change should have been made without discussion, and no discussion was held regarding this point. In the absence of a consensus to establish a system for determining a neutral, consistent and verifiable definition of a successful launch, which can be reliably sourced, these figures should not have been restored. I have removed them, hopefully we can discuss the issue here, and come up with a better way of presenting this data, without reopening old disputes and disagreements. -- W. D. Graham 22:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I am agnostic, for now, over how many columns the table is broken into to show various degrees of successful or partially-sucessful or unsuccessful launches. However, whatever claims about those numbers that are added to the article, each assertion must have a citation to a reliable secondary source. Most of those numbers have no such citation. Wikipedia editors do not get to make the distinction on our own, from our heads, or from claims that might, or might not, be in other Wikipedia articles.
If an editor wants an assertion to stand in the encyclopedia, then cite it. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 22:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
If the launch vehicle places the payload where it was intended to go and the payload separates (or not) as intended, the launch was a success. If the payload winds up somewhere else or fails to separate (or not) as intended, the launch was not a success, even if the payload is in orbit. Once the launch is complete, the performance of the payload does not determine the success of the launch already completed. Don't over think it. Magneticlifeform ( talk) 02:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Since man-rating is such a big deal for launch systems, and distinguishes some medium lift systems, such as the Soyuz, from larger cargo-only systems, such as the Zenit. I would think a compact way to show this would be a "Crew capability" column, containing either numbers indicating succesful vs human-killing launches (at launch - Columbia got to space mostly intact), or "cargo only" (e.g. Titan) or "proposed" (as per the Atlas V). There may be better terms, but I think this is important info for comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.56.104 ( talk) 14:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Due to extremist fussy peoples, lot of useless columns have been added, months ago.
Theses are TL, RS, OL, RO, RT...
This classification is excessively complex and unmaintainable.
Unless there is real good reasons to keep them, I will delete columns in excess to keep only "Total Launch" and "Success launch", as defined by various source sites and launch companies.
--
FlyAkwa (
talk)
09:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
FlyAkwa and Geoffrey.landis—Well, it's over six months later and I see there are really way too many columns in this table. Moreover, the chance of both 1) finding sources for all of the incredible detail claimed in the many columns, and even if a source is found, keeping track of which of many sources might support which of many claims made in the many columns, would be a Sysyphean task.
Case in point, I just endeavored to support the citation needed tag on the Falcon 1. Did a little research, found an article that supported total launches and total successful launches. (Note: source articles like this are less common than you might think; they can be very hard to find for many of these rockets.). Seemed hopeless to find all the sources required to support each of the many other claims. So I left that row only partially sourced, and left the citation needed tags by many of the specific claims that are yet unsourced. BTW, I did not explicitly invite WD Graham as I am aware that WDGraham has retired from editing Wikipedia.
I will endeavor to start a discussion on column reduction soon. Not sure if a one step or two step process of proposal/consensus is best, as I don't know how far apart the editors working this article would be on which columns are essential in a Wikipedia summary table. Let me know if you have any input. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 00:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Please use more distinctable colors. Active and Development are rarely distinguishable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.22.116.119 ( talk) 07:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 v1.1 are technically the same rocket family. v1.1 launched successfully two times, it's time to merge the data. Any objections? Dvasilev ( talk) 22:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The acronyms in the column headings were awkward. The columns are wide, and the heading is three rows high, so I saw no reason not to spell out the acronyms- it didn't make the table any longer. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 15:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
In general, the same references are used in all the columns. It only makes the table larger to put a separate reference or citation needed on every single figure, rather than one set of citations for each rocket family. So I am consolidating the references into a column. This actually compresses the table width a bit, since multiple "citation needed" are compressed into one, and will make it easier to follow. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 18:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
There were only two vehicles in this listing for which entries in the "total launches" and "orbital launches" columns were not identical. And one of those was Saturn 1, for which the numbers were only there since I put them in earlier this afternoon (it had six suborbital tests). Given that this article is about orbital launchers, I propose merging these columns into one, listing only orbital launch attempts, making the fact that the list does not include suborbital launches clear in the discussions, and putting suborbital launches (for those vehicles which had suborbital launches) in the notes section. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 02:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
--OK, I have now consolidated the columns into 1 (and in the process, found a couple of spots where the data was outdated). This brings the table into a little clearer focus.... and also brings out the fact that much of the data haven't been filled out. For many of the vehicles, the data only lists the total number of launches, with no success data at all, much less the detailed parsing of success called for in the three columns. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 04:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Please add Ariane 6. -- Kizar ( talk) 18:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
, ... and here we are, a few weeks later, and there is yet another rocket to add: Vulcan (rocket) has been unveiled by United Launch Alliance. It too will be added when some volunteer editor cares to take the time to do so, with citation(s). N2e ( talk) 07:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't Blue Origin be on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmodood ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The payload columns and cost columns need ranges to cater for most families, or perhaps columns here should be limited to those (eg stats) that apply to the entire family ? Comparison of orbital launch systems says this families list is intended to be simpler than that one. Before deleting, eg cost, column we should add that column to Comparison of orbital launch systems ? - Rod57 ( talk) 08:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Anybody know where to find a source giving trans-lunar injection payload capabilities for the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy? With the potential of Orion launching on a commercial rocket this seems needed. They must exists somewhere. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 00:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This list is currently a useful but messy mix of rocket families, types, and configurations. Since there is another more detailed list comparing orbital systems it seems to me this list needs to be standardized to include only families, the highest level of categorization, so that fair comparisons can be made. Items listed should link to the rocket (family) page. I would be willing to undertake this, but would like some input before beginning such a task. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 18:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The article is a mishmash of mixed figures and inconsistencies. Cost is generally different than price. The cost is the total cost, or average cost, or marginal cost (all different) to the manufacture to make the rocket, and launch it operationally. The price is what the buyer (launch service user who contracts for a launch) pays.
The column heading says "Cost". But the top of the article says "Cost: Price for a launch at this time, in millions of US$" confusing the issue.
This should be clarified. Moreover, we only rarely know the "cost" to the manufacturer/launch service provider. We often don't know. Such info is often proprietary.
And although we can know it more often than cost, we oftentimes do not know the "price" of a launch either. It is often times only known in the (proprietary) launch contract between the launch service provider and the buyer of the launch.
Sometimes, we get published (standard, or "catalog") prices on the web. SpaceX began this practice circa 2010 with the Falcon 9, and continued it with the Falcon Heavy. United Launch Alliance began to publish their Atlas V catalog prices in circa 2017 or so. But most orbital launcher families do not do that. Moreover, even then, LSPs contract for special prices with particular buyers, even for a "standard" launch service offering. E.g., the initial launches of Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy were cheaper, and the initial/early launches of Ariane, BFR, Angara, etc. will likely be so as well.
In short, a single column of numbers on a mismash of cost or price info from a variety of sources are, quite simply, not comparable. We mislead the Wikipedia reader by showing them in a column the way we do right now, as if they are comparable. N2e ( talk) 14:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Some families (eg Atlas V or Delta IV) have such different configurations that price needs to be a wide range here. It might better to have price information against each configuration in the other systems list. Prices are easier to source for specific launches or specific configurations. - Rod57 ( talk) 13:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Since this article is families why don't we merge Falcon 9 with Falcon Heavy, or should we split out Delta IV Heavy ? If there is a rational reason for having both the families and systems lists (not just a POV fork) then can we make the criteria clear? I'd like to merge Falcon Heavy into Falcon 9, but would we loose any data that is not in the systems list ? As I said in another comment - many numeric columns (eg payloads) need ranges for families. - Rod57 ( talk) 13:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
When sorting by total launches Falcon 9 with 82 is put at the zero end instead of in the correct place. Attempting to investigate, it seems the 82 comes from {{Falcon rocket statistics|F9launch}} which I don't know how to fix. I've tried to ask mfb on Template_talk:Falcon_rocket_statistics. - Rod57 ( talk) 13:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Please consider refraining of using a thousand separator.
Recommendation of ISO 31-0 accepts both comma and dot, point as a decimal separator. therefore it recommends no character, or space for lasrge digits.
Numbers consisting of long sequences of digits can be made more readable by separating them into groups, preferably groups of three, separated by a small space. For this reason, ISO 31-0 specifies that such groups of digits should never be separated by a comma or point, as these are reserved for use as the decimal sign. For example, one million (1000000) may be written as 1 000 000.
Regards, G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.13.64 ( talk) 19:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Should the cost line be adjusted for inflation, or similar measure? Seems like it'd be helpful given the time frames involved. Ends up looking like a shuttle launch was several times the cost of a Saturn V for example
When sorting by 'Total launches' I noticed an abnormality.
Three launch families (Jielong 1, Zuljanah, and Hyperbola-1) have either 1 launch in the case of the first two or 2 launches in the case of the last one. However when sorting by number of total launches these appear in the middle of several launch vehicle families that have yet to have a single launch attempt.
Since I am uncertain on how to fix the issue, I decided to just post this note. I suspect that at least some of launch families in development might have the potential for the same issue once they make an launch attempt. AmigaClone ( talk) 10:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this was due to the sorting tags for carriers under development; I've eliminated these tags for such future launch vehicles, but there may be other sorting issues (which will have to wait for another day.)
cheers, Spotty's Friend ( talk) 20:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Retired entries will not change. Active and underdevelopment entries do change. I propose a second section to this article for "retired orbital launchers" so the primary section can focus on orbital launchers that are active and under development. It would allow for easier sorting.
user:mnw2000 11:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Care to do the honors?
Spotty's Friend ( talk) 20:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's a new one: a privately-developed liquid-propellant rocket from Chinese company Space Pioneer: Tianlong-1 Have only located a high-level description of the launch vehicle so far, but the sources I've found are in the Space Pioneer article. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 11:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Clearly many people who have edited this has not much knowledge of what a family of launch vehicles actually is and so I see rockets like titan IV and atlas V which are not separate launch vehicle families but are specific launch vehicles, anyone who sees this, please try to fix this disappointing article. 109.78.223.172 ( talk) 16:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)