Talk:Atlas V

message: I don't have the time to do all that is necessary on this article, as my main projects at the moment don't allow me to schedule researching, sourcing and writing this article; however, the article could easily meet "Good Article" status if time was given to proper citation formatting, better integration of the facts gleaned from articles (not quoting a spokesperson or president of a company), and replacing most of the list-based information with prose, that summarizes the information. In the case of the launch list, it is redundant due to a separate list article that does just that: list every Atlas V launch. Highlights like first launch, first launch of a derivative would be appropriate. I'll contribute when I can, especially on citation formatting. This rocket is destined to be one of the two main launch vehicles for America's human spaceflight program for the foreseeable future, and its article should be treated as such. It's not that far from being a "Good Article", but using reliable sources, and citations to back up claims in the article, are needed pronto.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree it would be great to get this article to "Good Article" status!  I'm not sure the comments above fairly characterize the situation regarding the list of launches, though.  List of Atlas launches is not a single article.  Also as examination of List of Atlas launches (2000–2009) reveals, Atlas V launches were interspersed in time with launches of other rockets in the Atlas family.  So why not do the readers this article the favor of providing exactly what they are likely to want, i.e. a list of Atlas V launches? (sdsds - talk) 07:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving this article to get it to "Good Article" status 

message: What has been said about when final [retirement] flight of Atlas V might be ? Could Atlas V continue launches beyond 2022 or 2024 ? even after Vulcan Centaur is flying, in case Vulcan certification is delayed ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What has been said about when final flight of Atlas V might be  

message: From the article summary:
"Major manufacturing and integration operations occur at ULA's facility in Decatur, Alabama, with additional operations occurring at ULA's facility in Harlingen, Texas."
Can anyone explain to me why it shouldn't read:
"Major manufacturing and integration operations occur in Decatur, Alabama, and Harlingen, Texas."
Or, even better:
"The rocket is assembled in Decatur, Alabama, and Harlingen, Texas."
(As, indeed, it once did.)
It just looks to me like all we'd be losing is a lot of long, repeated, vague words. "Additional operations occurring"? I take it the value of the longer sentence is that it informs the reader that the operations occurring in Decatur and the operations occurring in Harlingen are not identical; so far, so ... good. I suggest that if we can say, and source, precisely what operations are occurring where, and if the matter is worth talking about at all, the place to do that would be somewhere south of the article summary anyway.
Seriously, "The rocket is assembled in Decatur, Alabama, and Harlingen, Texas" is less than half the words. Half.
Regulov (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this is a lot of work over a comma that remains in the article. So, the thing is that, in reality, ULA's main factory is in Decatur. If you look at ULA's website you will see that this language is used. As my note says, I was not sure whether or not to cite ULA's website. Rocket manufacturing and integration operations are a complex business, I think that we should acknowledge that. At the same time, obviously it is not appropriate nor feasible to spell out every step in the supply chain. 5Ept5xW (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Ok, looking at the actual objective truth of the issue - what operations occur in Texas? IIRC it might have been fairing production, which is now being moved to the Decatur plant. Another option is component manufacturing. Contrast this with the operations that are carried out at Decatur: milling of isogrid and orthogrid panels, forming of panels, assembly of panels into tank sections, assembly of tank sections into tanks, assembly of tanks into boosters, equipment fit-out of boosters, testing of boosters, and finally shipping to the launch site. Giving the Texas plant and Decatur equal status does not make sense - the Texas plant is undoubtedly important to ULA's supply chain but Decatur is absolutely the main manufacturing facility. As it happens, I was already thinking that that sentence needed to be modified before your insertion of the comma. (Feel free to disagree but this is the truth.) As it stands now, the article reflects the complexity of rocket manufacturing operations. Simplifying would result in loss of information and do the reader a great disservice. 5Ept5xW (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

text: There is something wrong with your sentence: it omits important information. If you would like to write a separate section for manufacturing be my guest (good luck finding sources!), otherwise you should probably move on. 5Ept5xW (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I thought that I had made my point clear, apparently I was mistaken. Decatur is the main ULA manufacturing facility, Texas is not. You seem willing to expend many hundreds of words trying to revert my improvement to the article. I was suggesting that you might instead to focus your energy on improving the article. I haven't found sufficient sources to motivate a separate manufacturing section, so it would seem appropriate to leave the information in the introduction. Is there anything else that you don't understand about my points, or was that it? 5Ept5xW (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

text: So what I'm saying is maybe you should go ahead and add that information instead of writing multiple novels in the talk page. Simply removing my edit results in the omission of necessary information, which would be unacceptable. If you can do the supporting work as well that would be acceptable. 5Ept5xW (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider adding it in the article below, but it doesn't belong in the introduction. --mfb (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturing facilities 

message: Article gives some figures for 2016 prices but doesn't say if prices changed after 2016 until the last launches were sold in 2021. Tony Bruno's comments on price and perceived value were laughable by about 2019 (and perhaps should just be deleted). - Rod57 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch costs need prices after 2016 

message: More than half the rows in the table are for "unused, not planned" configurations. I do not feel that they add to the reader's understanding. At least two columns also fall add basically nothing. By removing the cruft, we would improve the article. I will start making changes in about a week unless there are opposing comments here. -Arch dude (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplify the "capabilities" table? 

message: Since I received no comments, I went ahead and made the change. -Arch dude (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I made the change

message: Perhaps adding a mention of the New Horizons mission and its Star 48-powered performance in the Capabilities section of the article would be consistent with giving this configuration due weight? (It is after all one of the few payloads delivered to solar escape velocity. (sdsds - talk) 02:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I struggled with that and decided against it, but I'm just one guy and your opinion is as valid as mine. I think it's a very notable mission, but I just could not fit it in as a "capability". Maybe a expand its paragraph in the "notable missions" section? I found it interesting that Star 48 was used as part of the PAM in the Delta II, on many missions. I think that this is where the "Boeing" came from. It means that ULA was launching Star 48 both before and after this use on Atlas V. I agree that the "Boeing" is not appropriate, since it started life at Thiokol and passed through many hands, and was basically a ULA product (as part of Delta II) at the time of the launch, or maybe a component purchased from Northrup Grumman? -Arch dude (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's probably best to avoid asserting the Star 48 was used as a third stage of the Atlas V launch system; better to understand it as part of the payload on that mission.  (sdsds - talk) 16:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

text: The fact sheet at https://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Resources/Press-Kits/011607_JupiterPressKit.pdf does attribute the Star 48 to Boeing. I don't understand that though. Perhaps Boeing was responsible for integration of the combined spacecraft and solid motor? I'm not confident there's a reliable source for that, or for the notion the combined stack was the payload for Atlas V. (sdsds - talk) 16:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That documument lists Boeing as being "on the team". Perhaps from JPL's perspective, Boeing provided the Star 48. That does not mean that ULA considered it to have come from Boeing, and I think this Atlas V article should be from the POV of its subject, AKA ULA's Atlas V. According to Star 48, Boeing never manufactured the product.  If this obscure point should be mentioned anywhere, I think it should be in the New Horizons article. -Arch dude (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A reliable inside source writes, "APL contracted [with Boeing] to provide the Delta II 3rd Stage system (STAR-48, spin table, NCS, and ordnance)." (sdsds - talk) 01:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Yes, covering details of Star 48 somewhere other than this article makes sense. I propose Apogee_kick_motor#Use_on_interplanetary_missions as a place for this rather obscure topic. See also https://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/News-Article.php?page=111805. (sdsds - talk) 19:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Due Weight for Star 48 on New Horizons