Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Archive 1

This page 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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The project needs alot of fleshing out. New members are welcome to add what they think is appropriate, just add a note to the talk page as to what you did and why. - enceladus

I added the stage names to the example table since it isn't clear where they go otherwise. I would suggest we just use the same table for the other two types of rockets. Just replace the "payload to XXX orbit" with "Payload to XXX miles". Of course, other interesting information exists for missiles which doesn't really apply to launch vehicles (ie: number deployed; dates of first, last deployment, and retirement of missiles; 'standard' warhead types and yield...). A different header background graphic might be in order, however. Audin 22:50, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good ideas. Just had a thought with Russian missiles - do we use NATO names or the Russian names OR do we just have a row in the table for each? - enceladus

The aircraft Wikiproject has adopted a policy of de-emphasising NATO reporting names (and Allied reporting names for Japanese aircraft), as an sign of Neutrality. I suggest we do the same here --Rlandmann 00:02, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First have we decided what the articles would be titled? Saturn V, Saturn V rocket, Saturn V (rocket), Saturn rocket with sections of the article for different types, Saturn (rocket). Rmhermen 22:53, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

I vote for Saturn V (rocket), as the "rocket" part is not part of the item's proper name. Ideally I think mediawiki should strip the (...) part during rendering, but that will have to be taken up on the mailing lists. It's a hack, though, as we're trying to express categorization by using an extra piece in the title. Audin 23:26, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but Saturn V rocket does not imply that "rocket" is part of the name - if it were, the Wiki naming convention would be Saturn V Rocket. Lower-case "rocket" is just a descriptor, to which the parentheses really add nothing... --Rlandmann 00:02, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think we should have a major article called for instance Saturn Rocket Family. This would work for basically ever type of rocket family - Soyuz, Delta, Titan, Atlas, Vostok, Voskhod etc as they were all basically of the same type just with extra strapons or whatever. In it would be basic coverage of the rockets that are found in that family. I think that each major rocket difference should have its own article. We probably don't need to split up the two and three stage versions of the Saturn V, but for the Atlas rocket, the Atlas V is absolutely nothing like the Atlas 2 for instance.

So to answer your question (;-) ) I think we should have a hierachy like:

Saturn Rocket Family

Or

Titan Rocket Family
- Titan I (rocket)
- Titan II (rocket) etc

-enceladus

Putting a parenthetical categorization in brackets in the article's title should only be done when necessary for disambiguation, when there are other articles in Wikipedia that would also fit under that title. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#When_to_disambiguate, the latter specifically stating "Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion." For something like Saturn V, there's nothing else in Wikipedia that would go by that name so I think it's inappropriate to put (rocket) in the title. Bryan 04:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Since most rockets are not still in production, the dates they were produced or used should be in each article. Should it be in the text or the table? Rmhermen 22:58, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

I would like to see it in the table. But I have no problem if it is also mentioned in the text. I don't mind a bit of redundancy if it means someone can jump into an article and quickly find the bit of information they're looking for. Basically I think all basic facts and figures should be in the table for quick access. Explanation as to why those facts and figures are as they are should make up the body of the article. Audin 23:26, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We could maybe include the first launch (and the last launch for rockets that have ceased to be used) as well as the number of launches. For rockets that had low number of launches it would be possible to maybe include a table in the text of each launch (like Saturn V) but for the R-7 and its derivates with over 1600 launches, we could maybe just include important or historical launches. -enceladus

A word of caution I thought I add here. Although http://www.astronautix.com is good source of basic info, don't trust it for the numbers. Often info about rockets, stages and engines are erroneous and contradictory. For instance in the Saturn I article it talks of it having a launch capacity of such and such yet on one of the launches it put about double that number into orbit. -enceladus

I've created a table for the ICBM and filled it in with data for the Minuteman I ICBM. Seems to be a bit of uncertainty to values and different websites have different numbers. Table needs some work to make it better looking and also a new picture. Couldn't see things like ISP and we probably don't need it anyway as it means little no most people. Not sure what to do with the fuels though as for solid rockets its not a simple case of LOX. -enceladus

Something that needs to be discussed is the nomenclature for Saturn launch vehicles and specfically the stages. Personally I feel that the rocket should be the Saturn I (rocket) but the stage should be the S-I (rocket stage). This way there is no confusion in the writing where you would tend to use | to stop the bracketed disambiguation from appearing. I've rewritten the Saturn (rocket family) page to reflect this. - enceladus

I just put together List of rockets with all the articles and references to rockets that I could find on Wikipedia so we have an idea of the present state of the subject. I wasn't clear on the difference between missile and rocket for our project so some might need to be removed from the list. Rmhermen 23:55, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that their really is any difference between the two, just basically whether it is primarily a weapon of war or something that you use to launch things into space. enceladus 1:09, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Note, however, that in military usage there's a clear distinction between a rocket and a missile - a rocket being a simple unguided projectile. These really have more in common with a bullet than a space launch vehicle or ICBM... --Rlandmann 23:43, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't know why, but for me the header of the factbox is black text on black background with a few white dots. If I read the html source correctly the text is intended to be white, but at least in Mozilla 1.5 it shows black - which lacks a bit of contrast to be readable :-). andy 16:50, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Great, a rocket project! But -- why not call it WikiProject Rockets and Missiles, since that is the intent of the project. It's too bad to refer to rockets only, when missiles are a whole subject in itself. I would like to contribute to the missile part especially (though I'm interested in space travel and rockets as well -- honestly can't imagine how people manages not to be, but that's a common geek problem, I guess..). --Wernher 05:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

{{SampleWikiProject}}

Hi. The example rocket table links to TLI, however this is now a redirect to Transport Layer Interface, and I suspect that isn't what's meant :) Presumably the table should link to something else (ie, what TLI stands for) and TLI should become a disambig page. Unfortunately I don't know what "TLI" is so I can't do that myself... — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 10:49, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

RP-1

Copy question from RP-1: the article states that RP-1 is both considerably less powerful than liquid hydrogen, and significantly more powerful! Could somebody please make this more comprehensible to the lay wiki-crawler who knows nothing about rocket science? Thank you! (^o^)V

Less powerful per unit of mass (specific impulse), more powerful per unit of volume (higher density). That's why they use kerosene for first stages and hydrogen for upper stages. Night Gyr 23:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Stub?

is {{rocket-stub}} linked to this Project? If it is not, it will probably be deleted. --Circeus 18:10, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi, I have an infobox for Launch Vehicles which I am using for PSLV and hopefully GSLV. Please have a look and provide your inputs for improving it. --IMpbt 23:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Inactive - vote for merger?

Since this WikiProject seems to be inactive, I would like to suggest that it be merged with WP:Air. I for one have been making edits to many articles that are ostensibly part of this project, without even noticing its existence. The two projects are of related and overlapping scope anyhow, and really should not have been separate. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

They're not that closely related; I know the project seems to have gone "thump" recently, but I oppose merging. They really are different fields, and people who are expert in one aren't experts in the other without separate training. Georgewilliamherbert 02:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a merger is necessary; see my parentage proposal below. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Parentage

Because of this WikiProject's inactivity, I propose changing its parentage from WP:Transport to WP:Aircraft, and encouraging members of WP:Aircraft to take part. Comments? See also the discussion of infoboxes, specs, and naming conventions below. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Launch vehicles/Standards discussion

New standards

Having given nearly three weeks for comments and received none, and done everything I could to solicit comments, I have decided that action must be taken because of the deficiencies in this project's standards, and have updated the project page with the new format. Ingoolemo ^talk 18:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

An example of the updated standards in action can be found at MGM-1 Matador. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Space exploration

I've started the Space exploration WikiProject, but there's nothing there right now. My hope is that we will be able impliment the article assessment that's going on at the 1.0 editoral team, as they are trying to Work via Wikiprojects. Over 100 other wikiprojects are already following suit; the articles within the scope of this project could greatly benefit from being apart of this.. thoughts? (discuss here) Mlm42 17:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

article assessments

as some of you will have noticed, i've been tagging many article, under the broad topic of Space exploration, with the tag {{WP Space exploration}}. this banner has a built in assessment feature.. you can rate the articles quality (out of Stub/Start/B/GA/A/FA), and the importance (Low/Mid/High/Top). The quality has a pretty clear grading scheme, but the importance is much more subjective.

anyway, to do this, for example, add {{WP Space exploration|class=B|importance=Mid}} to the Talk page. the banner also has a link to a pretty bot generated list (update once a day, around 10am UTC) of all articles with the Space exploration tag. so feel free to help out, and tag and assess some articles. :) also, when rating an article, you may feel a desire to justify your rating; if so, a comment on the Talk page with the heading "Assessment" seems appropriate. Mlm42 09:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What goes into the {{WP Space exploration}}

Launch vehicles, telescopes, NGO's that help with space exploration? A breif summary of what goes in this wikiproject.

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Volna & Shtil'

Shtil' and Volna are different designations for the same rocket. One should be merged into the other. Please could some input be given to the discussion I have started at Talk:Volna. Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this project still active?

Is this project still active? I made the suggestion at WP:ASTRO that this project be merged into Space exploration in attempt to consolidate the inactive and duplicative projects. What does everyone think? Lunokhod 13:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be tempted to move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject rockets. This could cover all types of rockets - Sounding rockets, LVs, missiles, Carrier rockets (British/Russian/German LVs), etc. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Current Major Orbital-Launch Rocket Families

I would like to do some work organizing the articles that relate to "major orbital-launch rocket families", defined as:

the family has at least two major versions sharing a common ancestry (e.g. manufacturer) and name (or part of name)

and:

the family has had 10 or more successful launches, with at least one of them a launch to orbit

and:

the family has at least one vehicle being planned or prepared for a future launch

Examples of families included: Delta, Titan, Atlas, Proton, Ariane, Soyuz, Saturn, Long March, H-II, Zenit, etc.

Examples of families excluded: Falcon, Space Shuttle, Redstone, R-7, etc.

Currently, the lead article often covers the entire family (e.g. Ariane rocket) but sometimes the name of the first member of the family is somewhat misleading (e.g. Atlas (missile)). The work I want to do involves renaming lead articles for each of these to some consistent form, e.g. following the example of Titan (rocket family). Specific instances would thus include Ariane (rocket family) and Long March (rocket family).

Another approach would be to create a new article, e.g. , leaving Atlas (missile) as the article covering the first version(s), and moving much of the material there to a newly created Atlas (rocket family) article.

The scope of this work is fairly large, but it will hopefully give the collection of articles covering these launch vehicles a more encyclopedic (not to mention consistent) feel.

Comments, anyone? Sdsds 00:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why exclude R-7? Meus Nomen 11:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The proposal has already been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation#Rocketry. The basic proposal is to move this project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry to increase and clarify its scope. Please post comments and support/oppose votes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation. Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Implemented --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Delta-v (physics) for deletion

Delta-v (physics) has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta-v (physics). A suggestion has been made to perhaps merge with Delta-v, the orbital dynamics article. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Redo this project?

Is this still an inactive project? I'm wondering if there is enough interest to have this project re-done as a aviation project task force. To take a sampling of articles that link to {{Infobox Missile}}, V-2 rocket and AGM-65 Maverick are currently tagged under the Military history project (just like (B-17 Flying Fortress). Perhaps is should be a shared task force with them, just like the Military aviation task force. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that if we have to move this to a task force, it would be better to remain as part of WP:SPACE. Perhaps some form of sharing would be a good idea, though, with WP:SPACE being the main parent. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that WP:AVIATION would also be a likely parent project... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.85.177 (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rocket name cleanup

I have proposed a large number of moves and other changes to clean up the mess that is caused by the lack of any accepted disambiguation standard for rocket articles. The proposal is located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rocket name cleanup poll

User:GW Simulations has implemented a poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles/Poll concerning GW's rename proposal found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles 70.55.203.112 (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Does anyone have any objection if I bring the "Naming conventions" section in line with the conclusion of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like this went forward without complaint. All the moves listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rocketry/Titles/Poll#Implementation seem to have been un-contested. Hurray! (sdsds - talk) 04:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Total impulse

I'm wondering why the articles on rocket stages (and to a lesser extent the articles on entire rocket vehicles) so rarely describe the "total impulse" provided by the stage(s). In model rocketry everyone classifies motors using this specification, i.e. by the Newton-seconds the motor provides (or by the equivalent scale starting with the Estes "A" engines). Isn't total impulse the most fundamental spec allowing comparison of "apples to apples"? (sdsds - talk) 04:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. It really doesn't tell you much in by itself, in isolation, unless you know something about the mass, mass ratio, exhaust velocity, or burning time. For model rocket motors (or probably larger solid motors) it makes some sense in suggesting an appropriate application. Thrust, mass ratio, and exhaust velocity all together would seem to be a 3-parameter set that give a rough indication of applicability, but there must be other 3-parameter sets, and total impulse might be a good parameter in some.

Anybody know any standard sets? Another possibility would be the maximum total energy that a stage or motor could give to a payload (? "Ideal energy"??). If the payload (which could be upper stages) is too heavy, the energy would be zero (little or no movement), and if the payload is too light it would also be zero (all the energy goes into the empty stage structure). So the most useful application would be somewhere near the payload mass that gets the most energy out of the stage, which ought to be a good fraction of the total energy in the propellants, near the optimum load. Wwheaton (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

I think a good way to bring some activity back into this project would be to implement a rating system. Does anyone have any comments or objections? --G W… 10:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Done - I've added a quality rating system. I have also proposed an importance system. --G W… 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

- I'm going to be bold and start assessing on both scales. I'd usually leave it a bit longer, but since the project is fairly inactive, there have been no objections, and it does not directly affect the content of the articles, I think it would be better to crack on with it. We can always refine it later if needs be. --G W… 21:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

WPSpace

Since the reorganisation, this project has been, for a significant part, operating outside of the scope of WPSpace. I am therefore proposing that it be reclassified as an independent project rather than a subproject of WPSpace. It would continue to operate as an associated project. --G W… 22:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Rocketry is only sometimes related to space, and in those cases we have WikiProject Spaceflight as the WPSpace sub-project. (sdsds - talk) 22:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Support most rockets are military weapons, most rockets function in the air. Either of which would mean falling under WP:MILHIST or WP:AVIATION more than WP:SPACE. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Support and Suggestion - Concur wth 76..69. As a suggestion, you might approach WPAVIATION about joining it as a daughter project. WPAVIATION could be renamed WPAEROSPACE to emphasize a scope broader than just aviation. Many of the comapnies that WPAIRCCRAFT covers have spcecraft/rocket divisions. Just a thought. - BillCJ (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- That might be better as a new project, with aviation as a child. --G W… 09:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment If the project does not fall within a parent project's scope, then I agree that you may need to relook the parentage. However, I feel that a WP:Aerospace would be too broad a scope to be effective. The effort to create a scope and then unify a larger and growing group of projects with their specialized datasets and templates will waste more effort than it deserves and detract from growing the articles that such an endeavor is purported to represent. Until the projects mentioned actually show an increasing amount of collaboration and cooperation that might need managing in those areas where their scope and focus overlap, creating a superproject to coordinate such nonexistent activity would be superfluous. --Born2flie (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I think WP:Rocketry would fit well under WP:Aviation/Aerospace if that's what this project wnats that. Since WP:Aviation seems to be mostly an umbrella group now, renaming to WP:Aerospace would be fine with me. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no opposition, I'm going to remove it from WPSpace, but I can't see a consensus to do anything with regard to WPAviation yet. --G W… 08:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bottom importance

I think this project should add the {{Bottom-importance}} level to importance assessment. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Done --G W… 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Country of origin

The Question: Russia have produced upper stage for GSLV. Should we list Russia alongside with India as a country of origin of GSLV? Russia have produced upper stage for Zenith 3SL. Should we list Russia alongside with Ukraine as a country of origin of Zenith 3SL? Russia will produce first stages of KSLV. Should we list Russia as a KSLV country of origin alongside with S. Korea? And to somewhat bigger scope - Russia have produced first stage main engines for Atlas III and Atlas V. Should we list Russia as a country of origin of Atlas III and Atlas V alongside with US? If the rocket have foreign components inside it - should countries who produced that components be listed as a country of origin of a rocket? Or we should list just a countries who actually in charge of the project? TestPilot^{talk to me!} 00:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should be more general with what we ask. Should the nationalities of manufacturers of individual stages and/or engines be listed as one of that rocket's countries of origin? --G W… 07:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I thinks I asked pretty much same question, but gave major examples of specific articles that would be affected by answering it. It give potential commenter context of the question. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 04:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page

For KSLV would be S. Korea. Dosent matter who produce first stage. Same apply for GSLV. In latter case it would be India(there was plans to get upper stage from abroad- but canceled now). TestPilot^{talk to me!} 01:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

{{fact}} --G W… 01:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

With such logic you should start editing country of origin in GSLV article. Third stage for it was actually made in Russia. But that make no sense. Sure, if you would find a way to introduce Russia into country of origin of GSLV(and I will object it), then I guess same edit could be introduced to Zenith article. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget to add Russia as country of origins for Atlas III and Atlas V. First stage engine is mach more sophisticated and expansive piece then third stage. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 01:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not concerned about first stage engines, however if an entire stage is produced in a country, that country should be listed. There is a variant of the GSLV with an Indian upper stage. By your logic, KSLV should be listed as all-Russian. --G W… 07:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

India is in charge of GSLV. So GSLV is an Indian rocket. Korea is in charge of KSLV. So KSLV is a Korean rocket. United States is in charge of Atlases. So Atlas III and V are American rockets. Ukraine is in charge of Zenith 2 and 3SL. So they are Ukrainian rockets. All this rockets use foreign components. And again, if you think that one special component make rocket belong to another country... Then in case of upper stage you should add Russia as a country of origin of GSLV article. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 20:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm going to move this discussion to WT:ROCKETRY to allow a wider discussion on the subject. --G W… 21:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

I feel that it would be a good idea to determine how we handle this issue across all articles, so I have moved the discussion here. The original comments (as posted above) can be seen on my talk page. --G W… 21:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:V

As with any other content on Wikipedia, policy requires rocketry-related "Country of origin" assertions to be consistent with verifiability. If an editor cannot provide reliable sources supporting the "Country of origin" entry in an infobox it would be more proper to leave that field unused. (sdsds - talk) 20:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Mer-b-final-launch.jpg

File:Mer-b-final-launch.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Space Barnstar Idea 1.png

File:Space Barnstar Idea 1.png has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Barnstar-shooting-star.png

File:Barnstar-shooting-star.png has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Black Arrow GAN

I have nominated Black Arrow for Good Article status. --G W… 08:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Task force

Would it be a good idea to create a task force to handle launch ground infrastructure that falls under this project (eg. launch pads), as they are significantly different to the flight hardware (eg. rockets) covered. --G W… 09:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Deprication of specifications tables, infoboxes for missiles

Can we deprecate the specifications tables? To my knowledge, they are used on a total of two articles (neither of which is technically within this project's scope), and are almost entirely redundant to Template:Infobox Rocket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
Also, we currently have no standard infobox for missiles, with both Template:Infobox Weapon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Infobox Rocket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) being used. Both infoboxes contain some features that do not overlap. Overall, I think the rocket infobox is better suited due to its ability to handle stage data, so I am proposing that we start using it for all missiles, perhaps with some modifications to give it the "missing" features that the weapon infobox provides. I think the weapon infobox is just too general, and is trying to do too many things, and the quality of coverage that the generic template provides in this area is unacceptably poor. --G W… 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Some mentoring required

Please give D.martorelli (talk · contribs) some pointers in the right directions. See xyr duplication at C-41 Italian Rocket and SISPRE, the lack of context at Poligono di Furbara, xyr original duplication at Crocco mission and Crocco Grand Tour, and this edit to Salto di Quirra duplicating in part content that was already there. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 12:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting test

A discussion regarding date formatting has been started at Talk:Ares I#Date formatting test
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Background colors in comparison tables

I like the use of background colors in Comparison of heavy lift launch systems to distinguish proposed/operational/retired launch systems. I think this would be of even greater value in the remaining comparison pages (small, medium, mid-heavy, solid) since there are so many retired systems. Do we like the choice of colors (khaki, none, lightgray)? Are there similar lists on Wikipedia we can use as a style guide? --IanOsgood (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fajr-2

The article Fajr-2 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for reference did not find any for the "Fajr-2", There are multiple references for Fajr-3, 4 & 5. Fails WP:N & WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Individual launch articles

The question of whether individual launches warrant their own articles has been raised again. Since previous discussions have been inconclusive, I think we need to establish a guideline on what to do in such situations. Current practice is to, generally, cover launches in a dedicated section of payload articles. To my knowledge, five articles on individual launches currently exist:

There may be others, but I have yet to identify them. Of these, the Falcon 1 article was created before the payload had been named, and was never brought into line with it, there still is no known or commonly accepted name for the Vanguard's payload, and the VLS and Ariane articles cover multiple-payload launch failures whose payloads do not currently have articles. The Falcon 9 article covers a launch where the payload has its own article, however when I proposed a merger a concern was raised that the launch was sufficiently notable to warrant an article independent of its payload's. The wording of this implied that the individual concerned implied that all launches should have articles. This has been discussed before on Talk:Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite, with some degree of support for separate articles.

As I see it, the issues that need to be addressed are:

1. Should such articles be created for every launch?

1a. If not, in what cases should they be created?

1aa. If they should not be created at all, what should be done with the ones that already exist.

2. How should such articles be named?

3. What information should they include?

Hopefully we can reach some form of consensus with regards to what to do with this type of article. --G W… 09:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't advocate creating separate launch articles covering the ground-to-orbit stage of every notable payload; I think in some cases, such as launch failures (Vanguard, Ariane Flight 501, etc.) a separate article is appropriate given that a failed launch lessens the notability of a mission which does not take place as a result of it, in which case the encyclopedic content is what caused the failure, whether a duplicate mission is intended (such as in the case of OCO), etc. The Falcon 1 Flight 4 and Falcon 9 Flight 1 articles are uniquely encyclopedic because they are the first successful launches of a given vehicle, and are notable in a way that flights such as Falcon 1 Flight 5, a nominal, non-notable operational mission, are not.

As far as naming convention goes, I would prefer "Falcon 1 9 maiden flight" or "Maiden flight of Falcon 1 9" to "Falcon 1 9 Flight 4 1" which is not obvious as the first flight to people who don't follow SpaceX closely. For failed flights or accidents I would follow the precedent set by the articles covering the Shuttle failures, where we have separate articles for the failure, such as Space Shuttle Challenger disaster as a complement to STS-51-L; in this case, for payload launches, were there to be an operational failure of Falcon 9 that was notable, we could name it 20xx Falcon 9 failure or something similar to the 2003 Alcântara VLS accident (I would rename Ariane 5 Flight 501 to something like 1996 Ariane 5 failure). --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 13:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Falcon 1 Flight 1 and Falcon 1 Flight 4 were the official names of those launches. As its name suggests, Falcon 1 Flight 4 was the fourth Falcon 1 launch, not the first. Personally, I would sooner see serial numbers used (eg VLS-1 V03 rather than 2003 Alcântara VLS accident). In some cases these will not be available, and in such cases I would support using the format "Launch of [payload]", or "[month] [year] [rocket] launch failure" in the event of a launch failure. My view on such articles is an all-or-nothing approach; I feel that if we are going to have such articles then all orbital launches should have them. If not, then none should exist, other than to cover orbital launches without payloads, or where the payloads cannot reasonably be identified. --G W… 16:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking a lot when I wrote that comment...I meant Maiden flight of Falcon 9 instead of Falcon 9 Flight 1. Back in January I made a redirect for Falcon 1 Maiden Flight to List of Falcon 1 launches#First flight, and I did the same for Falcon 9 Flight 1, but I think a better name would be Maiden flight of Falcon 9, and for Falcon 1 flight 4, I would prefer something like First successful flight of Falcon 1. My only reason for this naming convention is that it's more descriptive than just the flight number.
I don't think all orbital launches covered should have separate flight articles, but notable flights like the first successful flight of a vehicle and launch failures are generally more notable than their payloads; for instance, the Dragon and Ratsat boilerplates are not particularly encyclopedic, but the flights which lofted them are. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I would still consider the payloads to be notable. I don't like using descriptive titles when "real" titles such as flight numbers are available. To give an example from elsewhere, aircraft crashes use flight numbers not descriptions. --G W… 17:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Falcon 9 Flight 2 has now cropped up. Should this be kept or disposed of (perhaps merged into a payload article when one emerges). --G W… 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Project Icarus

FYI, Project Icarus has been proposed to be split. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Rocketry articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Rocketry articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

naming of missile articles

Note, there's a proposal to rename missiles, see WT:MILHIST#Naming of missile pages. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a daft idea to rename Bristol Bloodhound to Bloodhound (missile) when Bristol Bloodhound is a perfectly reasonable non-dabed common name. MilborneOne (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

VTVL

There is an issue dealing with VTOL, see Talk:VTVL for the merger discussion. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

template:Rocket specifications-all

{{Rocket specifications-all}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Userbox?

Do we have a userbox for this WikiProject? If not, would anyone care to join me in designing one? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We do. This userbox {{User Rocketry WikiProject}} is here. I've have created it myself. JJ98 (Talk) 07:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rocket turbine engine

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

{{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger with WikiProject Spaceflight

Since this project has a large overlap with WikiProject Spaceflight and is not particularly active, I have suggested that the two projects be merged to form one larger project covering the whole area of rocketry and spaceflight. The proposal is located here. --G W… 21:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Support merge of Rocketry into Spaceflight.LanceBarber (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! Not sure we should start a parallel compilation of opinions on the matter, or at least not without first noting two things.

1) The previous discussion was closed on March 20th: "The discussion determined that there was No consensus to merge WikiProjects Spaceflight and Rocketry, but Supported the Abolition of the Human and Unmanned spaceflight task forces. Colds7ream (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)" Go to the link GW included to read through the debate.

2) If a new discussion is to be started to revisit the question (potentially possible even though only ten days have passed since the completion of the last one), it should be clearly marked as a new discussion/start-over of the previous one; all comments should be in the same place; and editors should not merely "vote" (support or oppose) but should also provide a rationale for their position.

So is someone suggesting a brand new discussion on this item closed only ten days ago? N2e (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It was my fault for assuming the discussion was to be done here in this Talk and not in Spaceflight. GW's link with "here" piped to a poorly labeled section called "Further reorganisation" and NOT a logical section title of "Propose merge of WP Rocketry" which i would of read and moved on. A very quick peruse of the section seemed not applicable, so I returned to this Talk and gave my Support, and then notified a dozen+ editors that a discussion was in progress. Peter notified me with a clarification of the closed discussion and Ed helped me by reverting all my notices. I thanked him, logged off and went to bed.LanceBarber (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

VTVL

The naming of VTVL is under discussion, see Talk:VTVL. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster FAR

I have nominated Space Shuttle Challenger disaster for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Parrot of Doom 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page 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.

Perigee Aerospace needs updating

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perigee Aerospace planned a rocket launch on July 2020, but since then, the article is not updated. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is this Talk page nearly empty?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see some ancient and old threads in the archives... but normally we expect to see the last half dozen or so active Talk page threads on the Project Talk page, even if they are old. Why only one on this page??? N2e (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably because this project has been inactive until recently. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Archive 2 shows the last discussion to be "Requested move 4 September 2020" and "Kuwait Space Rocket" (Feb 2020) both seem to be closed. The others before that seem to be inactive as well so I think its ok that they are archived, as the project picks up again we probably will have more discussions. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reorganized the mobile launcher platform article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have reorganized the MLP article by location (e.g. "Kennedy Space Center", "Cape Canaveral", etc.). I had previously organized the article by vehicles. I shall restore the table of the MLP usage by KSC. Tell me what you think with this current edit. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Instead of restoring the table, I have created a chart based on the data in the table. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed the chart because I can't find MLP data for some Shuttle launches. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC concerning payload capacity 15 September 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the payload capacity of a rocket lacking orbital altitude and/or inclination be invalid in all cases, or some exemptions be allowed (e.g. the foo rocket is capable of sending 100 kg to geostationary transfer orbit with 27° inclination and the foo rocket is capable of sending 100 kg to 300 km Sun-synchronous orbit should be valid, since the apogee of GTO and inclination of SSO are mostly the same)? --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 04:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Articles missing payload orbit parameters from October 2015 has been nominated for deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Articles missing payload orbit parameters from October 2015, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minor edits to Black Brant (rocket) and declining an invitation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soumya-8974 I have made some minor edits to the Black Brant page to address a couple of issues and added a good published source for early Black Brant operations by NASA. Thank you for your kind invite but I am laying low right now as I have profoundly annoyed some Wiki Gods by insisting upon putting the truth (or as close as we can determine to be the truth) in Wiki pages which they preferred to contain their opinions. I was taught to do the very best I could in anything I do. This conflicts with some people who believe that they may determine the truth no matter what the facts are. I have contributed to the Wikipedia on early rocketry and missiles in the past and probably shall again sometime in the future. Right now I am under threat of banishment by a group of Wiki editors. Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sucked into rocketry...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My focus has been early satellites, but since I started working on the Timeline articles in earnest, I've ended up cleaning up some rocketry related articles.

This was the most recent, salvaging a truly embarrassing situation:

Once this is now Aerobee.

--Neopeius (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

this is now Viking_(rocket) --Neopeius (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assistant Needed!

Hired

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An assistant project coordinator is needed. If you are interested, please tell me both here and on my talk page. Starship SLS (formerly IP 64.121.103.144) (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@StarshipSLS: I'm interested. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 21:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@JackReynoldsADogOwner: Great! No one else wanted to do it, so you're hired!Starship SLS (formerly IP 64.121.103.144) (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rocketry Editor of the Year

Nominations Over

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominate users to be Rocketry Editor of the Year at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry/Rocketry Editor of the Year. StarshipSLS (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related discussion

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_8#Category:Spacecraft_by_launch_system. fgnievinski (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Project Bumper has been upgraded from Start to B :)

Just a heads up. RTV-G-4_Bumper --Neopeius (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC) @Neopeius: Thanks for the notification!StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC) If you think Bumper (or Viking (rocket or Aerobee are ready for GA, let me know and I'll throw them up there. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Thor DM-18 Able launches#Requested move 15 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Thor DM-18 Able launches#Requested move 15 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

request change title

this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LY-60_/_FD-60_/_PL10 need to change name as the 1st discussion on the talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.62.225 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship GA reassessment

SpaceX Starship has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)