Talk:Launch vehicle

message: This article would be improved by adding a description of a launch.  What happens; what it looks like, smells like and sounds like.  For example, the USAF says, "The operation of launch vehicle engines produces 
significant sound levels. Generally, noise is generated from four 
sources during launches: (1) Combustion noise from launch vehicle 
chambers; (2) jet noise generated by the interaction of the exhaust jet 
and the atmosphere; (3) combustion noise from the post-burning of 
combustion products; and (4) sonic booms. Launch noise levels are 
highly dependent on the type of first-stage booster and the fuel used 
to propel the vehicle." http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064807e2c1b
Where in the article can this type of information be most effectively added? (sdsds - talk) 03:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of a launch 

message: The External links section consists entirely of about a half dozen links to technical articles by S. A. Kamal.  I don't question that Mr./Ms. Kamal is a fine researcher on these matters, but is having the External links section be an advert/linkfarm for his/her work make the article better?  N2e (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkfarm for S. A. Kamal 

message: I don't see any in the remarks about stages. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the word "typically" to deal with #1. I don't think the phrasing implies there are no single stage sounding rockets. There are certainly multi-stage sounding rockets, while the wording correctly implies staging is more important for orbital rockets. As for #3, I don't think the wording implies a hard upper limit of 4, but I've changed it to make it more obvious. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How about refining the sentence so that it only mentions orbital rockets and includes a brief reference to the concept of SSTO while stating none has ever flown? With regards the four-stage limit, why does a number need to be included, and why does that number need to be four? --W. D. Graham 10:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care very strongly about the current wording, including the mention of the number four, but what's wrong with it? I think four is the highest number that's in common use (Proton to high energy orbit for example), but I could be wrong. The reason I undid your initial change is because I'm not sure single stage rockets never orbited themselves in the early days while some of the additional information seemed useful. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A true SSTO has never flown, although 1.5-stage rockets (i.e. single-stage with boosters) have reached orbit - Sputnik, Polyot Atlas-B, Atlas LV-3B, the Atlas SLV-3 launch with ATDA and to some extent the Space Shuttle (if you don't count SSME and OMS as separate stages). Five stage rockets have flown - off the top of my head, some Scout configurations, Start-1 with a post-boost module, Start (I can't remember if this had a PBM - if it did it would have been six stages), Minotaur I/HAPS, Minotaur IV/HAPS, Minotaur V, ASLV, N1 and Pilot. --W. D. Graham 12:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Obvious factual errors" 

message: I copy-edited the lead and first section:
*Removed unnecessary "that"'s, generally replacing
**"noun that verbs" with "noun verbing"
**"noun which/that [to be] verb" with "noun verbed"
*Added an oxford comma to a list
*Removed an unnecessary comma before a verb phrase
*Changed "particularly" to "especially" to emphasize difference of degree noted in Talk Page
Duxwing (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold Copy Edit 

message: I am not familiar on launchers' technical lingo, but is "payload mass" the same as "lift capacity"?  In aviation, the payload does not include the mass of the aircraft, just its useful cargo capacity. I am assuming a rocket's 'payload' is the equipment delivered to outer space, and it excludes the mass of the rocket, fuel and the multiple stages/engines to get it there. My point is that if "payload" is not the same as "lift capacity", then it should not be used as a synonym. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Payload is what is normally used, but "lift capacity" is synonymous, even though it's kind of obscure. — Gopher65talk 02:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifting ≠ Payload 

message: Request to merge article Space vehicle into Launch vehicle; dated: 03/2017. Proposer's Rationale: "Space vehicle" in space systems terminology refers to the satellite itself, whereas "launch vehicle" refers to the rocket.  The current Space vehicle article is about rockets. Discuss here. --198.102.155.100 (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say to merge the two articles, though I would definitely agree with altering the content of "Space vehicle" in order to provide the more technically accurate definition. IP.D (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Strong oppose Where do you get the idea that "space vehicle in space systems terminology" refers to a satellite itself? The definition of vehicle is "1. a means of carrying or transporting something; 2. an agent of transmission" (ref Merriam-Webster dictionary). A satellite is the thing (cargo) being transported, not the means of transportation; therefore calling it a "space vehicle" makes absolutely no sense. And there is verifiable use of the opposite. In the days of the Apollo program, NASA used the term "space vehicle" (e.g., Apollo-Saturn V) to refer to the combination of the launch vehicle (e.g. Saturn V) and the spacecraft payload (Apollo spacecraft). That is what this article and space vehicle were written to reflect. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Discussion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Launch vehicle. 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/20111001112905/http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.13fe8544a6e090af0506874197e65650.271&show_article=1 to http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.13fe8544a6e090af0506874197e65650.271&show_article=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Launch vehicle. 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/20021013181710/http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/fl_clcs_020918.html to http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/fl_clcs_020918.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Launch vehicle. 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/20150923185100/http://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-intro/spaceport-brochure-2009-en.pdf to http://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-intro/spaceport-brochure-2009-en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414071325/http://www10.brinkster.com/drakamal/pub/confabst.htm to http://www10.brinkster.com/drakamal/pub/confabst.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414071325/http://www10.brinkster.com/drakamal/pub/confabst.htm to http://www10.brinkster.com/drakamal/pub/confabst.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414071325/http://www10.brinkster.com/drakamal/pub/confabst.htm to http://www10.brinkster.com/drakamal/pub/confabst.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414071325/http://www10.brinkster.com/drakamal/pub/confabst.htm to http://www10.brinkster.com/drakamal/pub/confabst.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414071325/http://www10.brinkster.com/drakamal/pub/confabst.htm to http://www10.brinkster.com/drakamal/pub/confabst.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414071325/http://www10.brinkster.com/drakamal/pub/confabst.htm to http://www10.brinkster.com/drakamal/pub/confabst.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The purpose of a suborbital flight is not necessarily to put the payload into outer space, but to another point on Earth; suborbital spaceflights qualify as spaceflights because their flight path takes them through space. A flight is not intended to carry the payload to space unless it is orbital or beyond. The lead sentence describes the intended purpose of a launch vehicle. "A rocket used to carry a payload from Earth's surface to space" is not inclusive of suborbital flights; "a rocket used to carry a payload from Earth's surface through outer space, either to another surface point (suborbital), or into space (Earth orbit or beyond). " is all-inclusive. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It just occurs to me, maybe the reason you didn't get this is that you're hung up on suborbital spaceflight purposed for space tourism rather than for high-speed transport. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence: "to" outer space or "through" outer space? 

message: "Distributed Lift" and "Distributed Launch" are marketing terms for one company, ULA. If you look at the current article, it has 3 references in that section. One is from NASA, and is referring to a distributed computer simulation, i.e. the "distributed computing" jargon term. One is a paper by ULA. One is a news article about SpaceX which does not mention either "distributed lift" or "distributed launch". SpaceX prefers to say that their proposed Starship architecture has on-orbit refueling.
I don't think we should be using the marketing term for one company in a general Wikipedia article. Greg (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Distributed Launch" and "Distributed Lift" are a marketing term 

message: Space vehicle and launch vehicle have an obviously similar definition. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose No, they do not have "obviously similar definition". Launch vehicle is a carrier rocket. Spacecraft is a payload sent into space on a carrier rocket. Space vehicle is the combination of a launch vehicle and spacecraft. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Space vehicle]] into [[Launch vehicle]] 

message: With Starship 2 and possible alternate systems being created in the future there may come a time where the lower limit of what is Super Heavy launch vehicle does not really provide for true examples.
I see two possible solutions to this moving ahead (and for future readers to consider - I made no changes myself).
1 - Change all the category limits up, or just the super-heavy minimum lift. I don't like this one myself for my own reasons.
2 - Create a new category for the systems that are truly immense starting at 150000kgs. I prefer this option going forward. Name it what you like, but I like Ultra Heavy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.89.11 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to class limits or new class? 

message: This article features a groovy chart or diagram showing some different rockets. But what's the criteria for inclusion? Energia flew like two flights, not sure if N1 ever had a successful flight, Yenisei appears no where else in the article, both Starship variants aren't quite ready for prime-time, ditto for LongMarch9, and the 2 SLS versions. So 8 of the 14 aren't flying, or weren't particularly successful. Why not Soyuz for example, instead of the lamentable N1? Feldercarb (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up with the chart? 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Return to launch site and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 26#Return to launch site until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Return to launch site" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The above redirect is to a sourced section unilaterally removed by one editor who slimmed down this article . It's worth double checking if the section removal and other aspects of that cut down is useful for readers, if not restore some content. Widefox; talk 21:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section and other content

message: While I understand what the article is saying here, can we accept that a reader less familiar with some topics might become confused by such an abstract  and unclear term? Essentially, can someone with better wordsmithing skills than me come up with the best definition of 'the surface' for the opening of this article. We don't need to be excessively specific, but should we put, say, "the surface of the Earth/ Earth's surface" or "the surface of a planet", or what should we say? (We don't mean "the surface of the kitchen counter" or "the surface of a tumbling football" is what I am getting at.)
Like I say, not trying to be picky, but I'm getting a serious writer's block trying to come up with the best term for what we're trying to say here. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:BD09:51F9:D6BC:1FFE (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to say "Earth's surface". The term does not apply to rockets which lift spacecraft off of other bodies. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

text: The lead section currently stinks and needs a significant rewrite anyway. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "From the surface" 

message: is that a typo, a translation error, or someone trying to be cute? 
And "earth's house"?  same question. 2603:800C:2101:17F0:6C49:C7A1:80AB:CC97 (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck is a "burger rocket"?!