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 |
Can anyone explain in this article what the advantages of air-launch are as opposed to ground launch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.181.251.10 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone verify the launch cost quoted? it seems way too high to me. An example press release from Orbital: http://www.orbital.com/Template.php?Section=News&NavMenuID=32&template=PressReleaseDisplay.php&PressReleaseID=560 seems to suggest that the price in the wiki page is exaggerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.73.103.23 ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I was glancing through the Encyclopedia Astronautica and they show about a factor of three less flights (only 11 total) than Wikipedia does. It's clearly the same vehicle. And there's other weirdness. They list one flight in 2004, while Wikipedia lists none for that year. What is up? -- KarlHallowell 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have read the article and I understand that it is an article about a rocket that is launched from an aircraft while airborne. However, I have still to understand what the point of the rocket is? I mean: what does it do? Perhaps this should be clarified in the article? Preferably in the beginning. -- Law Lord ( talk) 08:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Quoting this article: "Bad weather is still a factor during takeoff, ascent, and the transit to the staging point."
The meaning in our article Staging Area is "A staging area (or staging point) is a location where organisms, people, vehicles, equipment or material are assembled before use."
In this article, does "staging point" mean the airfield from which the airplane and rocket take off, or the place aloft where the stages begin to separate? Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This line confuses me. Isn't Pegasus the only operational air-launch-to-orbit system in history? If so, how could any other system be cheaper when there aren't any? Rob ( talk) 20:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The sections “ Launch profile” and “ Carrier aircraft” don't seem to cite any sources. Could someone please add sources?-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 03:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The charts used here can be hard to interpret for people with color vision deficiency AKA colorblindness. This means at least 5% of the readers will have difficulty with the charts (more if the readers are mostly male. For a severely red-green colorblind person like myself they are totally incomprehensible. Could someone familiar with this type of accessibility please correct them. Because not all colorblindness is the same I am not able to do it myself. RMoribayashi ( talk) 18:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
OBV (Orbital Boost Vehicle) is a wingless Pegasus launch from the ground (see http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/obv.htm). Should this be listed under Related projects or a version of the Pegasus? Mattise135 ( talk) 18:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I just added a WP:OR cleanup tag to the article. It seems that there is a good bit of WP:SYN synthesis in the claims that relate to the fully private nature of the development of this rocket. For example, this one:
All of the sources seem to be company published or company-written/company-articulated. So the view is a valid view; it's just a view and a position taken by the companies involved. Originally this was Orbital Sciences Corporation and Hercules Aerospace; today it is the successor after various mergers and acquisitions since the late-1980s/1990s: Northrop Grumman
At a minimum, we need better sources, and sources not directly tied to the company ( primary sources), to establish the veracity of the claims being made about the magnitude of the "private development" of this technology. For example: the single paragraph in the source (Pegasus First Mission Flight Results, a paper presented via the AIAA by Mosier, Harris, Richards, Rovner, and Carroll) that discusses project funding says the company joint venture was privately funded, and that the jt. venture funded vehicle development; but is also quite explicit that the US government funded much of the non-recurring and recurring costs for Pegasus rocket testing and flight missions. Moreover, that is a company-authored paper, as all five of the authors are from the two companies; it is a good paper, but it is not a peer-reviewed journal article, and is not a WP:SECONDARY source. N2e ( talk) 03:35, 4 May 2021 (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 |
Can anyone explain in this article what the advantages of air-launch are as opposed to ground launch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.181.251.10 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone verify the launch cost quoted? it seems way too high to me. An example press release from Orbital: http://www.orbital.com/Template.php?Section=News&NavMenuID=32&template=PressReleaseDisplay.php&PressReleaseID=560 seems to suggest that the price in the wiki page is exaggerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.73.103.23 ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I was glancing through the Encyclopedia Astronautica and they show about a factor of three less flights (only 11 total) than Wikipedia does. It's clearly the same vehicle. And there's other weirdness. They list one flight in 2004, while Wikipedia lists none for that year. What is up? -- KarlHallowell 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have read the article and I understand that it is an article about a rocket that is launched from an aircraft while airborne. However, I have still to understand what the point of the rocket is? I mean: what does it do? Perhaps this should be clarified in the article? Preferably in the beginning. -- Law Lord ( talk) 08:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Quoting this article: "Bad weather is still a factor during takeoff, ascent, and the transit to the staging point."
The meaning in our article Staging Area is "A staging area (or staging point) is a location where organisms, people, vehicles, equipment or material are assembled before use."
In this article, does "staging point" mean the airfield from which the airplane and rocket take off, or the place aloft where the stages begin to separate? Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This line confuses me. Isn't Pegasus the only operational air-launch-to-orbit system in history? If so, how could any other system be cheaper when there aren't any? Rob ( talk) 20:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The sections “ Launch profile” and “ Carrier aircraft” don't seem to cite any sources. Could someone please add sources?-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 03:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The charts used here can be hard to interpret for people with color vision deficiency AKA colorblindness. This means at least 5% of the readers will have difficulty with the charts (more if the readers are mostly male. For a severely red-green colorblind person like myself they are totally incomprehensible. Could someone familiar with this type of accessibility please correct them. Because not all colorblindness is the same I am not able to do it myself. RMoribayashi ( talk) 18:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
OBV (Orbital Boost Vehicle) is a wingless Pegasus launch from the ground (see http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/obv.htm). Should this be listed under Related projects or a version of the Pegasus? Mattise135 ( talk) 18:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I just added a WP:OR cleanup tag to the article. It seems that there is a good bit of WP:SYN synthesis in the claims that relate to the fully private nature of the development of this rocket. For example, this one:
All of the sources seem to be company published or company-written/company-articulated. So the view is a valid view; it's just a view and a position taken by the companies involved. Originally this was Orbital Sciences Corporation and Hercules Aerospace; today it is the successor after various mergers and acquisitions since the late-1980s/1990s: Northrop Grumman
At a minimum, we need better sources, and sources not directly tied to the company ( primary sources), to establish the veracity of the claims being made about the magnitude of the "private development" of this technology. For example: the single paragraph in the source (Pegasus First Mission Flight Results, a paper presented via the AIAA by Mosier, Harris, Richards, Rovner, and Carroll) that discusses project funding says the company joint venture was privately funded, and that the jt. venture funded vehicle development; but is also quite explicit that the US government funded much of the non-recurring and recurring costs for Pegasus rocket testing and flight missions. Moreover, that is a company-authored paper, as all five of the authors are from the two companies; it is a good paper, but it is not a peer-reviewed journal article, and is not a WP:SECONDARY source. N2e ( talk) 03:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)