Talk:Heavy-lift launch vehicle

message: Hi there!  Please check out this proposed version: HHLV/tmp  I cut out some of the stuff that I thought was redundant, left some of the stuff in that you feel strongly about, and I think the article is a little closer to what something on the WP should look like.  I'd like your thoughts on it, Dr1819, because I'm sure we can come to some consensus.  Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dr1819!  I don't want to pooch up your suggestion, maybe you could make the edit?  I note that there is already an article Geosynchronous_transfer_orbit, would you be able to use it in the text?  One thing I'd like to mention, your description of GTO is good, but I wonder if it might scare away non-technical readers who are interested in learning.  What would you say to something a little easier to digest (with links to perhaps the more technical Geosynchronous_transfer_orbit page) that say something along the lines of "A Geosynchronous transfer orbit is a special trajectory that is used by rockets to insert a payload into Geostationary orbit (at 22,240 miles above the equator where the satellite remains motionless in relation to the earth)." then your 'By contrast' sentence about geosynchronous orbits.  Just a suggestion, but the difference between mentioning the tangent of the perigee to LOE and not mentioning it might be someone who keep going, then digs a little deeper (versus deciding that they could 'never figure out this stuff' and giving up).  It's totally up to you, just a thought from someone coming from a different angle.  BTW, I've created a link for HLLV that points to the main page.  To make your own in the future, create a new page that has nothing but #REDIRECT Target page in it.  Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed version - Oct 2005

message: Heavy Lift are capable of 20mt to LEO  - need a secondary source for this definitional claim that heavy lift is above 9k GTO, 20k LEO kg. Space Shuttle doesn't lift 9mt+ to GTO, some other of the Heavy Lift rockets listed also don't have this capability. Alinor (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Alinor.  I agree, of course.  And on a related note, I've had real trouble finding a reliable secondary source for the entire set of definitional claims that several WP articles use for medium-lift, mid-heavy lift, heavy-lift and super-heavy-lift.  Do you know of one?  I think this will be needed to support the new template that you have added to several of the "List of _____ lift launch vehicle" articles.  N2e (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTO 

message: According to the table, Proton-M launched Intelsat 31 directly to GEO. Some quick googling shows that it was instead launched to a much more logical GTO orbit. If this is the case, could someone cite a good source and find something else to put in the elsewhere column for Proton-M? Quadrplax (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Intelsat 31 was sent to a supersynchronous orbit at 65,000 km apogee. Pretty much qualifies for a direct geostationary insertion, because the satellite's engine had then very little delta-v to apply in order to circularize the orbit at geostationary altitude of 36,000 km. Still, text should be updated, will do. — JFG talk 01:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  wait, I remember the difference between standard GTO and typical SSTO not being that big, something like 1500 m/s vs. 1800 m/s. So I disagree: that definitely doesn't "pretty much qualifies for a direct GEO insertion". A direct GEO insertion would require 0 m/s from the spacecraft. 1500 vs 1800 is only a 17% saving (which might be a worthy saving, but the spacecraft still has a lot of work to do). –Meithan (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of supersync orbit profiles, so there's a wide range of delta-v remaining to be handled by the satellite's propulsion system: can be anything between 0 and 1,800 m/s. I did change the text, as this was clearly not a 0 m/s "pure" geostationary insertion. — JFG talk 02:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Also note that this particular launch had its perigee raised to 3,500 km by the Briz-M third stage, which performed no less than 5 burns. — JFG talk 02:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's as much variation in the delta-v of SSTO profiles as you claim (even with a near-zero starting inclination the apogee is never very high, and most of the energy is spent raising the apogee). I could run the numbers and compute the required delta-v for Intelsat 31 to transition to GEO from the deployment orbit (assuming the most efficient strategy). But I don't think there's much point, as I think the current shape of the article is perfect. –Meithan (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, article looks good for now. Interesting exercise in orbital mechanics, though, I'd love to see the outcome, and compare it to Intelsat 35e for example, which was also sent to supersync, but with a single burn of the Falcon 9 second stage, and therefore a low perigee. Inclination was also quite different between Cape Canaveral and Baikonur, so Briz-M had to work harder. — JFG talk 04:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to abuse this talk page with unnecessary stuff, but here's the calculation. For Intelsat 31, I compared injecting the satellite into a "standard" GTO (200 km x 35,768 km x 50.5° -- note the exaggerated inclination) vs. a 3,500 km x 65,000 km x 50.5° supersynchronous transfer orbit. Total Δv's are 2399 m/s and 1950 m/s, respectively. That's a 19% reduction. Not bad at all. But the inclination is higher than realistic, the upper stage would reduce it somewhat during its last burn. For launches from lower latitudes (=smaller injection inclination) the saving is smaller. And the high injection perigee can be helpful when the required inclination change is not too big (not the case for Intelsat 31 at 50.5°). –Meithan (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for taking the trouble to compute this; very informative. And now, let's stop our WP:OR interlude…  — JFG talk 00:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proton-M Intelsat 31 launch? 

message: Technically until Nauka (ISS module) goes it is "unproven". Also, how do you guys suggest representing Saturn V in a table format considering that all but 11 of the 13 launches were super-heavy profiles. Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Proton-M

message: The Super HLLV Saturn V is in the retired table so why not also add the Energia shown in SHLLV ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a good solid source for the class of the Energia launch vehicle, then sure, should be added.  The current Energia article is bit inconsistent on whether Energia is a "super-heavy" (claimed, but no source provided) or "heavy" (also claimed, but sources a bit unclear) launch vehicle.  So there might be a bit of work to get that sorted.  Cheers.   N2e (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the lead in this article, NASA and Russia have different definitions of Heavy-Lift (50,000 kg, vs 100,000 kg to LEO) so Energia seems on the Russian boundary. Is there any harm in having Energia (and others) in both articles ? - Rod57 (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired Saturn V but no Energia 

message: Falcon Heavy has just launched over 6,000kg to 90,000km supersynchronous GTO, all reuseable except for second stage. This might be close to being as onerous as launching 20,000kg to LEO. If it is as onerous as 20,000kg to LEO then it does not appear appropriate to say it is 'unproven'. Even if payload mass to that orbit is not quite as onerous as 20,000kg to LEO then it is still clear stages have proven they have more to give in more expendable format because of work done proven by the landing. How much needs to be proven to put it in operational category (presumably meaning available to procure and capable of launching 20,000kg to LEO)? crandles (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any RS sources making this analysis? As tempting as it is, we can't rely on our own OR. — JFG talk 14:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. However, I note that article indicates Proton-M has no launches over 20,000Kg but it is still placed in operational rather than unproven category. So predecessor is allowed to count as proving capability but useful work done in landing boosters is not allowed to count? That seems like a somewhat arbitrary decision and I wanted to open a more general discussion of what should count rather than end the discussion at 'RS needed'. Perhaps also getting into: Is the article placing too much emphasis on 'need to prove' what only needs to be a capability? Is stressing requirement for proof by such categorisation getting close to the point of being a slur on the manufacturers concerned by implying wikipedia doesn't believe them? crandles (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Proton case cannot be compared with Falcon Heavy. Proton-M is an evolution of Proton-K with slightly higher power and new electronics; it's only logical that whatever Proton-K has achieved can also be considered proven on Proton-M. On the other hand, there is no version of Falcon Heavy that has yet lifted 20+ tons into LEO, even though it can do it on paper. That remains true of all configurations, irrespective of how many boosters are expended. Yes, Falcon Heavy is rated heavy-lift, or even super-heavy in some configurations; no, it has not demonstrated this capability in an actual flight. — JFG talk 19:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proven / Unproven distinction 

message: Did Wikipedia invent this ? Just for heavy-lift ? Can't we merge these two sections and just maybe note the heaviest payload so far ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need this proven/unproven distinction once the launcher is operational ? 

message: Would it be relevant to add Indian Heavy launch vehicle in the under development section.
Wiki Page for the same:-https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Launch_Vehicle
References for the Indian heavy launch vehicle:-
1)http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/India/ULV/Description/Text.htm
2)https://i.imgur.com/wtgxPDL.jpg
3)http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/India/LVM3/Versions/LVM3.htm Mayank Prasoon (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISRO ULV-HLV(Indian Heavy Launch Vehicle) 

message: Falcon Heavy fully expended should be included in the tables, since it is within the Russian definition. Can add asterisk saying it is super-heavy-lift in NASA defn. Also, since it would be useful, since FH competed with the HL launchers such as D4H. - Rod57 (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falcon Heavy fully expended should be included 

message: When do we include LandSpace#Zhuque-3 as under development ? It's planned to be a very close match to Falcon 9 FT, eg 21 tonnes to LEO. - Rod57 (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  When do we include [[LandSpace#Zhuque-3]] as under development 

message: Unproven could include Falcon Heavy with 2 boosters recovered (FH2R), since it already includes Falcon Heavy (all boosters recoverable).
Either an extra row, or widen definition of current row ?  FH2R has launched 9,200 kg Jupiter-3 to GTO for Echostar in late July 2023. - Rod57 (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unproven could include Falcon Heavy with 2 boosters recovered, since includes Falcon Heavy (all boosters recoverable)