This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
There was a discussion last month about VTVL, VTHL, etc. terms for Spacecraft and Rockets? on the WikiProject Spaceflight discussion page. Interested editors may want to look at it as part of initiating a more thorough discussion of Aviation-related and Spacecraft-related terms here on THIS talk page. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 16:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
VTVL, VTHL, etc. terms for Spacecraft and Rockets: Should they be kept separate (and cleaned up)? Or merged into the aircraft related term articles? Or what?
There is a poor quality "rocket"-specific article on VTVL, which also briefly mentions VTHL and HTHL. In addition, there are a series of articles that are aircraft-specific (e.g., VTOHL, VTOL; plus see the template bar that is the bottom of each of those articles).
The rocket/spacecraft definitions are unclear. Is the Space Shuttle and the X-37B a VTHL? According to a definition from what source? Or should VTVL be reserved for non-staged craft like the small Lunar Lander Challenge vehicles?
Given the new CCDev phase 2 proposals announced yesterday, at least of couple of which appear to be VTHL spacecraft, I'm thinking it would probably be useful to think about this at a project level soon and see if a consensus might not be reachable as to how to improve the extant articles. What do others think? N2e ( talk) 15:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I said earlier, I think I'd be happy to go with whatever is proved by sources to be both notable and cited. However, in my reading over the years, I do think that the acronyms with the "O" in them (STOL, VTOL, VTOHL, etc.) tend to be used in the aircraft community and aircraft literature, while those without the "O" (VTHL, VTVL, HTHL) tend to be used in the space community. Clearly, there is a large recent, if informal, use in the alt.space ( NewSpace) community to use these terms to compare the wide variety of design concepts, and even vehicles in development or in use: VTHL (the new Orbital lifting-body spaceplane proposal for CCDev2 fits here, but so does the X-33, X-37B, and the Space Shuttle); VTVL (e.g. Blue Origin New Shepard, all the Armadillo Aerospace rockets, all of the Masten Space Systems rockets, and the SpaceX plan to equip the Dragon spacecraft with a vertical landing capability in a future version); and HTHL ( Reaction Engines Skylon, Rocketplane XP, SpaceShipTwo, etc.)
At the end of the day, Wikipedia ought to reflect whatever is descriptively verifiable, and not be force-fit to use whatever language we might prescriptively prefer. I don't know for sure just yet what that language is, but my sense tells me that there will be a distinction between the terms used by the two communities, and that it will be a distinction with a difference. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 18:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the content of this article should be split into the relevant aircraft-related articles. An overview of the different types of takeoff and landing types would be appropriate for the articles Rocket or Spacecraft, and should probably be added to new sections there. Mlm42 ( talk) 17:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion here on the VTOL talk page regarding a merge. Please add comments there. I'm not sure why this article has recently been extended to include concepts other than VTVL; based on the above discussion, they should probably go in the relevant aircraft-related articles. Mlm42 ( talk) 17:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you should think of it as rocket-people "imposing" on aircraft-people. All that would be required is in the first line of the VTOL article say something like "also called VTVL, in rocket-related contexts".
I'm not sure I'm understanding the proposals. (1) Is it to merge all the rocketry articles into one article? or (2) To merge each rocketry concept into its equivalent aircraft concept? (3) To merge all aircraft concepts into one article, and all spacecraft concepts into another? (4) Merge all rocketry and aircraft concepts into one grand article?
If it is (4) or (3), I definitely oppose since several of the aircraft articles are quite big. In any case, HTHL equivalent in aircraft is covered by alot of articles (CATOBAR, STOL. STOBAR, CTOL, etc) all of which have alot of background material to build out their own subarticles and subsubarticles. This also applies to VTOL, S/VTOL, STOVL, and even VTOSL (autogyros with spinup capability do this mode). 65.93.14.196 ( talk) 22:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Though the concepts covered here, VTVL is VTOL, HTHL is HTOL, VTHL is VTOHL, but HTVL isn't covered by any single aircraft article... No one wrote a HTOVL article. And HTOL is currently a dab page to all the various HTOL articles, as we don't have a single article for that one either. It certainly isn't CTOL, since there's nothing conventional about a rocket taking off sideways and landing that way. A CTL for rockets would be taking off vertically and crashing back down vertically. 65.93.14.196 ( talk) 06:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The merge discussion above appears not to have developed a consensus. But there was some agreement amongst (at least) two editors about a process that might work for improvement, essentially by adding spaceflight-related terminology and prose to the existing aviation-centric article set. Here is a recapitulation of the main ideas of that proposal:
In my view, if we accomplished the first four steps, without a revolt from the existing aviation-centric articles editors who care, etc., then I think we would have a good solution. Mlm42 seemed to agree with the conceptual approach when I first outlined it a month ago in the midst of the merge discussion.
My question is, are there any others willing to help with this mini-project and devote a few hours of edit work to it? If so, I'm in. If not, I think I'll just let the idea age until such time as any fellow-interest emerges. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 18:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: Looks like my proposal for a specific process we might follow to improve the spacecraft/rocket explication of these terms has failed to find a consensus. So I'm going to take this page off my watchlist for now. If anyone comes along later on and wants to pursue a course of action similar to the steps I outlined above, just ping me on my Talkpage and I'll see if I can't help out. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 22:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
VTVL → spacecraft takeoff and landing modes — This covers four modes of operation, with fairly equal amounts between them. So just convert the article by resequencing paragraphs and building a new intro, will result in a neutral name, with virtually the same text. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 09:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Earlier, there was some question on the usage of these terms (VTVL, VTHL, HTHL, HTVL). Well here is a recent NASA source that uses two of these terms—HTHL and VTVL—with respect to several commercial designs being looked at for the NASA Flight Opportunities Program for suborbital science. sRLV platforms compared. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 06:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
VTVL → spacecraft launch and landing modes — This covers four modes of operation, with fairly equal amounts between them. So just convert the article by resequencing paragraphs and building a new intro, will result in a neutral name, with virtually the same text. -- since two of the objectors last time rejected "takeoff", and preferred "launch", the proposal has been modified. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 12:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.@Chaosdruid: you used made-up terms in your opposition last time, and this isn't a list of launching techniques, since landing is also covered. I also don't see you having filed a new requested move with a different title. As for four stubs, that is discussed on the talk page, where it is rejected because people don't want four stubs, in the sections above the last requested move, which you didn't seem to have participated in. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 05:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Are Vertical Takeoff, Parachute Landing (VTPL?) spacecraft in-scope for this article? If so, then a very large group of spacecraft will be added to this article shortly: Project Mercury spacecraft, Project Gemini spacecraft, Soyuz (spacecraft), Apollo (spacecraft), Stardust (spacecraft), etc, etc. I've never seen a source apply the VTVL moniker to that type of vehicle.
I'm asking because a fairly recent addition to the article is a VTPL spacecraft. I'm thinking it is out of scope, but could not find an explicit previous discussion. Opinions from others? N2e ( talk) 05:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
What should this say now? Looking through 'see also' links, we appear to have:
Presumably no longer in development: Zarya (spacecraft) cancelled 1989 Kankoh-maru seems to have little detail and dates to 1993. McDonnell Douglas DC-X last flight 1996 Grasshopper (rocket) F9R Dev1 F9R Dev2 Project Morpheus no further development funds last flight Dec 2014
Who was or is the fourth company?
Also not sure how to count rocket vehicles eg is Falcon 9 Heavy separately counted from v1.1FT? 9R separate to v1.1 FT? Is MCT just being discussed while enabling tech is developed with 9R and Heavy so it is not really under development yet? crandles ( talk) 10:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on VTVL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on VTVL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Retropropulsive landing. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 28#Retropropulsive landing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@ BilCat: Regarding your removal of the following:
The Young Sheldon episode, " A Patch, a Modem, and a Zantac®" features Sheldon developing the equations for VTVL, only to have them rejected by NASA for lack of the technical capability to implement it at that time. Sheldon concludes that he is ahead of his time. 27 years later, a flashforward in 2016 shows the successful SpaceX CRS-8 mission, followed by SpaceX founder Elon Musk looking over Sheldon's old notebook then hiding it in a desk drawer.
What in WP:IPC leads you to think that this content is inapplicable? It is clearly describing a fictional theory of the original of VTVL (resulting in a depiction of its application). Granted, it is uncited, but is easily citable (see, e.g., Looper, " The Young Sheldon Episode You Likely Forgot Starred Elon Musk"). Cheers! BD2412 T 06:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
"In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject.I'm not certain the Looper mention is significant enough, but you should be able to find something a bit more robust. BilCat ( talk) 07:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
In the paragraph about Landing Technology, it is stated that "thrust must be less than weight". Is there a source for that? A rocket for which the thrust is less than it's weight would accelerate downwards, making it impossible to slow down for landing. 2A01:CB19:894F:5E00:6369:E1E0:FEDA:13E5 ( talk) 10:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
There was a discussion last month about VTVL, VTHL, etc. terms for Spacecraft and Rockets? on the WikiProject Spaceflight discussion page. Interested editors may want to look at it as part of initiating a more thorough discussion of Aviation-related and Spacecraft-related terms here on THIS talk page. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 16:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
VTVL, VTHL, etc. terms for Spacecraft and Rockets: Should they be kept separate (and cleaned up)? Or merged into the aircraft related term articles? Or what?
There is a poor quality "rocket"-specific article on VTVL, which also briefly mentions VTHL and HTHL. In addition, there are a series of articles that are aircraft-specific (e.g., VTOHL, VTOL; plus see the template bar that is the bottom of each of those articles).
The rocket/spacecraft definitions are unclear. Is the Space Shuttle and the X-37B a VTHL? According to a definition from what source? Or should VTVL be reserved for non-staged craft like the small Lunar Lander Challenge vehicles?
Given the new CCDev phase 2 proposals announced yesterday, at least of couple of which appear to be VTHL spacecraft, I'm thinking it would probably be useful to think about this at a project level soon and see if a consensus might not be reachable as to how to improve the extant articles. What do others think? N2e ( talk) 15:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I said earlier, I think I'd be happy to go with whatever is proved by sources to be both notable and cited. However, in my reading over the years, I do think that the acronyms with the "O" in them (STOL, VTOL, VTOHL, etc.) tend to be used in the aircraft community and aircraft literature, while those without the "O" (VTHL, VTVL, HTHL) tend to be used in the space community. Clearly, there is a large recent, if informal, use in the alt.space ( NewSpace) community to use these terms to compare the wide variety of design concepts, and even vehicles in development or in use: VTHL (the new Orbital lifting-body spaceplane proposal for CCDev2 fits here, but so does the X-33, X-37B, and the Space Shuttle); VTVL (e.g. Blue Origin New Shepard, all the Armadillo Aerospace rockets, all of the Masten Space Systems rockets, and the SpaceX plan to equip the Dragon spacecraft with a vertical landing capability in a future version); and HTHL ( Reaction Engines Skylon, Rocketplane XP, SpaceShipTwo, etc.)
At the end of the day, Wikipedia ought to reflect whatever is descriptively verifiable, and not be force-fit to use whatever language we might prescriptively prefer. I don't know for sure just yet what that language is, but my sense tells me that there will be a distinction between the terms used by the two communities, and that it will be a distinction with a difference. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 18:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the content of this article should be split into the relevant aircraft-related articles. An overview of the different types of takeoff and landing types would be appropriate for the articles Rocket or Spacecraft, and should probably be added to new sections there. Mlm42 ( talk) 17:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion here on the VTOL talk page regarding a merge. Please add comments there. I'm not sure why this article has recently been extended to include concepts other than VTVL; based on the above discussion, they should probably go in the relevant aircraft-related articles. Mlm42 ( talk) 17:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you should think of it as rocket-people "imposing" on aircraft-people. All that would be required is in the first line of the VTOL article say something like "also called VTVL, in rocket-related contexts".
I'm not sure I'm understanding the proposals. (1) Is it to merge all the rocketry articles into one article? or (2) To merge each rocketry concept into its equivalent aircraft concept? (3) To merge all aircraft concepts into one article, and all spacecraft concepts into another? (4) Merge all rocketry and aircraft concepts into one grand article?
If it is (4) or (3), I definitely oppose since several of the aircraft articles are quite big. In any case, HTHL equivalent in aircraft is covered by alot of articles (CATOBAR, STOL. STOBAR, CTOL, etc) all of which have alot of background material to build out their own subarticles and subsubarticles. This also applies to VTOL, S/VTOL, STOVL, and even VTOSL (autogyros with spinup capability do this mode). 65.93.14.196 ( talk) 22:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Though the concepts covered here, VTVL is VTOL, HTHL is HTOL, VTHL is VTOHL, but HTVL isn't covered by any single aircraft article... No one wrote a HTOVL article. And HTOL is currently a dab page to all the various HTOL articles, as we don't have a single article for that one either. It certainly isn't CTOL, since there's nothing conventional about a rocket taking off sideways and landing that way. A CTL for rockets would be taking off vertically and crashing back down vertically. 65.93.14.196 ( talk) 06:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The merge discussion above appears not to have developed a consensus. But there was some agreement amongst (at least) two editors about a process that might work for improvement, essentially by adding spaceflight-related terminology and prose to the existing aviation-centric article set. Here is a recapitulation of the main ideas of that proposal:
In my view, if we accomplished the first four steps, without a revolt from the existing aviation-centric articles editors who care, etc., then I think we would have a good solution. Mlm42 seemed to agree with the conceptual approach when I first outlined it a month ago in the midst of the merge discussion.
My question is, are there any others willing to help with this mini-project and devote a few hours of edit work to it? If so, I'm in. If not, I think I'll just let the idea age until such time as any fellow-interest emerges. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 18:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: Looks like my proposal for a specific process we might follow to improve the spacecraft/rocket explication of these terms has failed to find a consensus. So I'm going to take this page off my watchlist for now. If anyone comes along later on and wants to pursue a course of action similar to the steps I outlined above, just ping me on my Talkpage and I'll see if I can't help out. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 22:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
VTVL → spacecraft takeoff and landing modes — This covers four modes of operation, with fairly equal amounts between them. So just convert the article by resequencing paragraphs and building a new intro, will result in a neutral name, with virtually the same text. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 09:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Earlier, there was some question on the usage of these terms (VTVL, VTHL, HTHL, HTVL). Well here is a recent NASA source that uses two of these terms—HTHL and VTVL—with respect to several commercial designs being looked at for the NASA Flight Opportunities Program for suborbital science. sRLV platforms compared. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 06:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
VTVL → spacecraft launch and landing modes — This covers four modes of operation, with fairly equal amounts between them. So just convert the article by resequencing paragraphs and building a new intro, will result in a neutral name, with virtually the same text. -- since two of the objectors last time rejected "takeoff", and preferred "launch", the proposal has been modified. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 12:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.@Chaosdruid: you used made-up terms in your opposition last time, and this isn't a list of launching techniques, since landing is also covered. I also don't see you having filed a new requested move with a different title. As for four stubs, that is discussed on the talk page, where it is rejected because people don't want four stubs, in the sections above the last requested move, which you didn't seem to have participated in. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 05:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Are Vertical Takeoff, Parachute Landing (VTPL?) spacecraft in-scope for this article? If so, then a very large group of spacecraft will be added to this article shortly: Project Mercury spacecraft, Project Gemini spacecraft, Soyuz (spacecraft), Apollo (spacecraft), Stardust (spacecraft), etc, etc. I've never seen a source apply the VTVL moniker to that type of vehicle.
I'm asking because a fairly recent addition to the article is a VTPL spacecraft. I'm thinking it is out of scope, but could not find an explicit previous discussion. Opinions from others? N2e ( talk) 05:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
What should this say now? Looking through 'see also' links, we appear to have:
Presumably no longer in development: Zarya (spacecraft) cancelled 1989 Kankoh-maru seems to have little detail and dates to 1993. McDonnell Douglas DC-X last flight 1996 Grasshopper (rocket) F9R Dev1 F9R Dev2 Project Morpheus no further development funds last flight Dec 2014
Who was or is the fourth company?
Also not sure how to count rocket vehicles eg is Falcon 9 Heavy separately counted from v1.1FT? 9R separate to v1.1 FT? Is MCT just being discussed while enabling tech is developed with 9R and Heavy so it is not really under development yet? crandles ( talk) 10:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on VTVL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on VTVL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Retropropulsive landing. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 28#Retropropulsive landing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@ BilCat: Regarding your removal of the following:
The Young Sheldon episode, " A Patch, a Modem, and a Zantac®" features Sheldon developing the equations for VTVL, only to have them rejected by NASA for lack of the technical capability to implement it at that time. Sheldon concludes that he is ahead of his time. 27 years later, a flashforward in 2016 shows the successful SpaceX CRS-8 mission, followed by SpaceX founder Elon Musk looking over Sheldon's old notebook then hiding it in a desk drawer.
What in WP:IPC leads you to think that this content is inapplicable? It is clearly describing a fictional theory of the original of VTVL (resulting in a depiction of its application). Granted, it is uncited, but is easily citable (see, e.g., Looper, " The Young Sheldon Episode You Likely Forgot Starred Elon Musk"). Cheers! BD2412 T 06:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
"In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject.I'm not certain the Looper mention is significant enough, but you should be able to find something a bit more robust. BilCat ( talk) 07:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
In the paragraph about Landing Technology, it is stated that "thrust must be less than weight". Is there a source for that? A rocket for which the thrust is less than it's weight would accelerate downwards, making it impossible to slow down for landing. 2A01:CB19:894F:5E00:6369:E1E0:FEDA:13E5 ( talk) 10:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)