Talk:Aerobee

message: Given that the Aerobee and most of those who worked on it were American, and used US customary units rather than the Metric System, the measurements quoted here should be expressed in both units.  If anyone has this information already and wants to add it, that would be helpful.  If not, I'll give it a shot myself. Bricology 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aerobee. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516114854/http://www.nmnaturalhistory.org/aerobee-rocket-engine1.html to http://www.nmnaturalhistory.org/aerobee-rocket-engine1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607062800/http://www.aerojet.com:80/careers/quickfacts.php to http://www.aerojet.com/careers/quickfacts.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117191801/http://www.wsmr.army.mil:80/pao/FactSheets/chrono.htm to http://www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/FactSheets/chrono.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have made major additions and minor revisions to this article. Published information on the Aerobee is as with many other early rockets and missile difficult to find. Books are few and hard to come by. Published histories are few and likewise obscure. Online sources are as often inaccurate as accurate. They are also given to hobbyists who may or may not be driven by sound historiographic principles. Thus many Wikipedia articles on early rocketry and missile development fall far short of the quality and quantity of information required of excellence. I have utilized the best sources available within the constraints of Wikipedia standards prohibiting "original research." This does not mean that I do not have access to material which would be deemed "original research." I have just avoided citing them. I do cite one such document in response to a "citation needed" request. When data is demanded the question is raised and a valid response is the results. I do not wish to disparage the research of prior authors/editors. I am old and have a considerable library on rocketry from the 20th century and thus access to considerably better data than many. My exclusion of the Aerobee 75, AKA Aerobee HAWK is based entirely upon it being in total variance with all other Aerobees in having no connection with the WAC Corporal derivative liquid fueled sounding rockets which compose the other Aerobees. The use of deceptive designations was common in the budgetary environment of the late 1940s and 1950s. It was a time when it was easier to get funding for something proposed as a new version of an old program rather than as something new. For example the ever changing goals of programs like MX-770 Navajo, the XF-96A was quickly redesigned as a XF-84F to defeat pre-Korean war budget cuts. As was the YF-95 transformed into the YF-86D. This does not mean I have found solid evidence that the Signal Corps intended to deceive but it had been purchasing Aerobees for years and another new version of the old purchase may have been more easily sold to Congress than a new rocket competing for missile motors with an active air defense weapon program.
Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Additions / Revisions