Talk:Shuttle-derived vehicle

message: SDLV is not an actual vehicle but a concept, which has been around for a long time, sense the 80's.  Shuttle-C should be merge because it was one of the original concepts.  Ares on the other hand is a launch vehicle that uses shuttle derived hardware.
Suggested Structure for reorganisation of SDLV, Ares, Shuttle C, AND C.E.V.
Article:SDLV
*Should only contain info on shuttle derived hardware & about using shuttle derived hardware.
*With sparing references to ares and the C.E.V.(all references for CEV should be on the CEV page).
*add shuttle-A & shuttle-B & shuttle-Z to page.
*add Magnum concept( this may be the shuttle-Zconcept) & the original Ares concept from Robert Zubrin to page
*There is a large element of this page that is about the Ares rocket this should be on the Ares rocket article not the SDLV articel. 
*Robert Zubrin work for heavy launcher MUST be in this article.
Article:Shuttle-C
*merge into SDLV
Article:Ares
*sense this is an actual rocket it should stay seperate, WITH ONLY relavent referenses to SDLV AND CEV.
MAJOR POINT: CEV DOES NOT BELONG ON THIS PAGE!
--aceslead 16:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose both mergers, as documented on each article's talk page (ie Talk:Shuttle-C and Talk:Ares (rocket) --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge & Splitting 

message: I removed this as 20 mins of googling revealed no supporting evidence to the claims made, and there was no supporting link. I will admit that the SRB exhaust is rather unpleasant and a liquid fuel system would be preferable (although using LH2 would not, as the structural penalties are to high)
::The original fuels used in SRBs were damaging to the ozone layer (there is some commentary on this at astronautix.com, i.e. Encyclopedia Astronautica), but was changed in the 80's after the Challenger accident. This did result in some loss of payload capacity for the shuttle, some of which was made up for by not painting the fuel tank and thinning the foam layer, however another environmental issue, specifically the CFC ban on production and use of freon, directly impacted the foam insulation application process, and it has been commented on by a number of industry insiders that the problem of falling foam started after the fuel tank maker stopped using Freon to clean the tank surface prior to foam application. User:Mlorrey
*The 'Environmental Opposition to SRBs' would be better served if it were on the SRB article.--aceslead 16:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental Opposition to SRBs

message: Is this sentence necessary in the article? The rocket looks like a lengthened space shuttle boost system, without the space shuttle attached (perhaps this is why it is called "shuttle derived"), is Robert Zubrin credited with that design?
:It is also worth noting that the Heavy launcher is visually extremely similar to the Ares heavy lift booster conceptualised by Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, who has met with NASA on many occasions in trying to advocate his Mars Direct mission profile.
--Fxer 23:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Zubrin credited with inspiration?

message: The criticism about the 5-segment booster ending up with its nozzles too deep underwater for OSHA regulations references a blog entry by "MJ" at chairforceengineer.blogspot.com.  However, there is an update at that blog entry which reads, "It has come to my attention that a Wikipedia article is treating this post as an authoritative source regarding the five-segment SRB. I should warn the readership that my info comes from just one second-hand source. I can't vouch for the authenticity of this info because I haven't done the analysis, at least not yet...."
So I think the smart think for me to do on Wikipedia's behalf is to water down the claim in the Criticisms section a little bit.  I will do this, and also move this entry lower down in the section, as a way of addressing "MJ"'s comments.  I'm being bold, but if you wish to tweak my wording, go ahead.
:You're exactly right, that entire paragraph doesn't belong, so I removed it. This is an encyclopedia, not Usenet. We don't cite blogs as references. Even having a criticism section is questionable, unless backed up by authoritative references. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for pro/con discussion. The prime directive is DESCRIBE the topic. There were multiple other problems with the criticism section. I left the criticism section in but reworded it to be more encyclopedic in nature. Joema 01:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of 5-segment booster and nozzle depth

message: I say we change the name of this article to Ares Rocket. 
LOL!
Supercool Dude 02:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ares Rocket

message: SDLV should not contain info on the CEV.  That info belong on the CEV page.--aceslead 00:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR THE C.E.V.

message: Why is duplicate information from the Ares (rocket) on the SDLV? --aceslead 01:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: duplicate info

message: *There is a lot of information from the Ares rocket article and from the Orion space capsule article on the SDLV.  I propose that this irrelevant information be removed so that only information on the SDLV concept is present.--aceslead 01:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Removal of Irrelevant Content

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support--aceslead 01:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add any additional comments
The information in question is irrelevant for the SHUTTLE DERIVED LAUNCH VEHICLE concept.  Information that belongs on the Ares rocket article is infested the SDLV article which ISN'T about the Ares rocket nor is the SDLV about the C.E.V. or Orion space capsule.  For this article CEV & Orion & Ares shouldn't be on THIS article.--aceslead 01:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: As mentioned in my edit summary where the  tag was removed, this is the rationale for the major edit.  My goals were to:
* Fix numerous little things throughout the article
* Redo the headings
* Rearrange the article's sections to place the current proposal together and above past proposals
* Sort the standard appendices to bring that area in line with the Manual of Style
So there you go.  Is there more room for improvement?  Certainly, as no person or article is perfect.  If you can improve it further, then by all means, be bold and do so.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major edit of December 7, 2006

message: The article states that DIRECT bears a strong resemblance to Ares IV. I don't see why this is stated. Ares-IV uses 5-segment SRBs and a 10m core stage; DIRECT uses 4-segment SRBs and an 8.4m core stage. Thus, Ares-IV resembles Ares-V far more closely than it does DIRECT. In fact, it is just an Ares-V with the upper stage from Ares-1 put on top in place of the usual EDS. I will remove the comparison unless somebody can explain why it is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.36.5 (talk • contribs) 
:Agreed, and therefore removed.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DIRECT vs. Ares IV

message: Has there been any public discussion of this unusual choice of names?  It seems somewhat surprising that NASA would choose to name the centerpiece of its space program after the Greek God of violence and war.  It would be interesting to learn more about the thinking that, in this era of global cooperation, convinced NASA that it was appropriate to rebuild its space program around the mythos of this ancient God of War.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.164.213 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for the name "Ares"?

message: I have created the Wikipedia entry for the Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, but it needs someone to read the two articles and watch the NASA video and then write a decent Wikipedia article. Can someone please step forward and do this? --Radical Mallard (talk · contribs) 23:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Page Needs Work!

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Shuttle-Derived 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://archive.is/20130104234510/http://spacenews.com/civil/120803-boeing-spacex-sierra-ccicap.html to http://spacenews.com/civil/120803-boeing-spacex-sierra-ccicap.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118201447/http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/shuttle.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/shuttle.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510134511/http://astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.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) 09:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should the scope of the article be to the launch vehicles derived from the Space Shuttle (e.g. SLS, Ares I, etc.) or extended to the spacecraft derived from the Space Shuttle (e.g. Orion, Shuttle-C, etc.)? --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this whole article reeks of WP:SYNTH. All of the above can claim some sort of connection to NASA's space shuttle, but this is hardly a defining attribute for most except for Shuttle-C (a proposed Shuttle variant).--Eostrix (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree, particularly since the heritage-shuttle design was mandated by congress for the launch vehicles listed above.PedanticLlama (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Include both launch vehicles and spacecraft... I know the title of the article specifies one, but the shuttle was a hybrid and thus it makes sense that both classes of vehicle are derived from it. PedanticLlama (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on 24 January 2020