Talk:Black Arrow

message: It would be nice to know who the 3rd, 4th, and 5th. nations in space were. Thanks. Fred.
The page for the Prospero x-3 adds australia to the list of previous nations, anyone know which to correct?
Pardon, but wasn't Canada the third country to put a satellit in orbit? (The Alouette 1, in '62: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alouette_1 )
:There is a difference between owning a satellite that is put into orbit by someone else, and developing the capability to do it yourself - the Alouette 1 was launched by NASA which is different to developing a successful launch system.--Si42 00:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC "TimeShift" television programme stated that Black Arrow was one of two orbital carrier rockets to be derived from the Blue Streak (The other being Europa). Looking at images of the two rockets confirms this. The only difference is the use of different engines, and H2O2 instead of LOX. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thrust Vectoring. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: old talk

message: Black Arrow is too close to other uses, it needed to be disambiguated. For example Stevenson's novel is often called "Black Arrow" or "The Black Arrow" and its possible someone could refer to the rocket as "Black Arrow" or "The Black Arrow", or just "black arrow" for either one. -- Stbalbach 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what the disambig notice is for at the top of the articles. GraemeLeggett 09:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reverted your move, as the point of discussion is to discuss the action before it is carried out. For the record, I am opposing the article being renamed. The point of disambiguation in the article title is to deal with pages with exactly the same name, which is not the case here, as the book's title is different from the name of the rocket in that it does not contain the word "The". --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: #Support per above. -- Stbalbach 23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, this is the nominator --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: :Add any additional comments:
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: While Paraffin is technically correct, it is vague and confusing.  Paraffin describes an entire class of hydrocarbons, from light volatiles to wax.  Kerosene is much more specific.  If there's another term that is as specific as kerosene, go for it.  But I don't know what that would be.
This is not a color/colour issue.  This is a less-specific/more-specific issue.  This is also clearly demonstrated by the fact that the use of "paraffin" in the article *cannot* use the actual "paraffin" Wikipedia article, but has to use the kerosene article!  Doesn't that clearly demonstrate that the use of "paraffin" in the article is at the very least vague?
Tmassey (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. No.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: To expand on the color/colour analogy, this is more an "inquiry/enquiry"-type issue. The word has different meanings in the two dialects. And the word "kerosene" simply isn't used in British English. Changing it would be like changing "inquire" to "enquire" in US English articles when it does not refer to official inquiries. (In British English "inquire" refers to an investigation conducted officially, whilst "enquire" is used for general investigation. In American English, "inquire" is used for both. For example, EN-GB: The police are conducting an inquiry and I didn't know the telephone number so I called directory enquiries. EN-US: The police are conducting an inquiry and I didn't know the telephone number so I called directory inquiries.) --GW… 20:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK 'kerosene' is the chemical name for the compound and this is the name by which it is known by chemists, but kerosene itself was formerly widely used as a lamp and heater fuel and because of this kerosene is better known outside the chemical industry by what was originally IIRC a trade name, 'Paraffin'. IIARC Paraffin was originally a more refined grade of kerosene, formulated to burn more cleanly. It was for this reason that Frank Whittle's jet engines settled on using Paraffin as fuel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.123 (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paraffin / Kerosene 

message: The Ariel 1 and Ariel programme articles indicates that Britain was the third rather than the sixth nation to have a satellite, and that Prospero was Britains fourth satellite. Shouldnt this be mentioned in the article? 92.28.249.93 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ariel 1]] 

message: When I click the image in the upper right it goes to an image for a film with the title Black Arrow.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.23.168 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a botched page move on Commons. I've requested that it be reverted. --W. D. Graham 21:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo error 

message: Should the use of turbo pumps rather than pressure feed be mentioned. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turbo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Black Arrow. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5mqiUXlX2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astronautix.com%2Flvs%2Fsoyuz.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuz.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6133/blackarrow.html
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) 13:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Black Arrow. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuz.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.space.co.uk/DataBank/VideoGallery/OnceWeHadARocket/tabid/682/Default.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6133/blackarrow.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928115825/http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/download.do?file_uid=886 to http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/download.do?file_uid=886
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) 07:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Black Arrow. 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/20071025154109/http://www.fathom.com/course/21701717/session4.html to http://www.fathom.com/course/21701717/session4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206111804/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/blaarrow.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/blaarrow.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) 07:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Black Arrow. 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/20090724121138/http://www.hengistbury-head.co.uk/highdown.htm to http://www.hengistbury-head.co.uk/highdown.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091022131131/http://www.astronautix.com/props/h2oosene.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/props/h2oosene.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316090401/http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/space_technology/1972-325.aspx to http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/space_technology/1972-325.aspx
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) 18:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: "The oxidiser tanks were located below the fuel tanks, following the practice of putting the more dense propellant at bottom in order to lower the centre of gravity and make the rocket easier to control.[4]"
Can this be correct? Like arrows & missiles, rockets are easier to steer by aft control surfaces (feathers, fins) or thrust vectoring if the centre of gravity is as far forward as possible: longer moment arm from COG. 
Jmostly (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I also think this is incorrect. Higher center of gravity means larger lever the force of engines is applied to, and so the higher ability to turn, not lower. Avmich (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For stability the centre of pressue has to be behind the COG. Having the short thrust to COG length means, as the Rocket rotates around the COG to move through any angle means the latter distance the base moved is smaller. Leavers do not come into it as the COG is the pivot. To move the rocket by A degrees tha base needs to translate tan(a)*(L) when L is the dustance from the motos to the CoG. The shorter the distance between the CoG and the CoP the more responsive the vehicle. Typical fight aircraft of WWII had very a very small CoP/CoL difference and trainers longer. This makes the Trainers easier to fly as they are less twitchy but also makes them less manoeuvrable. Modern fighters have "relaxed stability" and are "Control configured vehicles" they fly like a dart going backwards with computers adjusting the fins to keep it that way. https://prezi.com/lgwzqgdrevr5/centre-of-gravity-centre-of-pressure/ --Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low centre of gravity? 

message: “The oxidiser tanks were located below the fuel tanks, following the practice of putting the more dense propellant at the top …”
The argument is nonsensical as the denser propellant is the oxidiser: ~1.4 for HTP 85% vs ~0.81 for RP-1. Would the author of it please review what he intended to say. Jmostly (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vehicle: location of tanks, densities of propellants 

message: In the article it currently reads: "Due to the optimum mixture ratio being about 7, a larger oxidiser tank was required compared to many contemporary launch systems. The oxidiser tanks were located below the fuel tanks, following the practice of putting the more dense propellant at the top in order move the centre of gravity higher and make the rocket more stable, when in flight, and thus easier to control. This arrangement had been pioneered by Germany and the United States, whereas the Soviet Union had placed oxidiser tanks above fuel tanks, making it easier for the lower tank to be filled first."
The HTP oxidiser is however by far the more dense of the two propellants (1.42g/cc vs 0.81g/cc for the RP-1) meaning that Black Arrow clearly DIDN'T follow the practise of putting the more dense propellant on top, as the fuel tanks were placed above the oxidiser tanks with the fuel tanks being around 15% the volume of the oxidiser tanks and containing a propellant barely 75% the density. Rocketandroll22 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction to Black Arrow tank-order description