Talk:Centaur (rocket stage)

message: There is also possible future use of the Centaur on the new Delta IV (Heavy) rocket, which made its first test flight in 2004.
:Never heard of it. Are there any sources for this? --Bricktop 22:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005-2006 misc. discussion

message: The article claims that Centaur was originally designated "Hustler", however the RM-81 Agena article claims that this was the original designation of the Agena. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the information relating the Centaur to the Hustler, Vega, etc, based on Saturn I, Agena A and Atlas Centaur LV-3C Jrquinlisk 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The Vega stage came out of the Naval Research Lab, but it did bear some structural similarities to Centaur, in that it was meant to use Atlas "steel-balloon" construction.  DonPMitchell (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I'm not really sure who's watching this page, but if there is anyone who is, what are your thoughts on renaming it to either "Centaur launch vehicle" or "Centaur rocket stage"? I note that "Centaur rocket stage" already exists as a redirect, but I personally kind of prefer "Centaur launch vehicle", except... that name somewhat implies that it's self sufficient, which isn't really accurate. Anyway, I wanted to see if I could solicit any feedback, and see if this would be controversial at all, or if I might need to start a WP:RM, or what. Thanks!— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stand by, I'm watching and I'll let GW know. -MBK004 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Where is it built?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.140.60 (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are they built 

message: In the infobox, the Centaur is listed as unflown on the shuttle, but it was flown on Shuttle Atlantis for the Galileo mission, so unless I am missing something the infobox should be changed. Not an expert so I'm just suggesting the change here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRat262 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unflown" on space shuttle? 

message: I don't think the Centaur project started at Lewis.  I believe administrative control began at Convair, then got transferred to Marshall (von Braun hated it, but he put a good man in charge), then finally it was transferred to Lewis.  That's the administrative control.  Physically, the Centaur was built at Convair.  Also, according to astronautix.com, the first successful Centaur test was in November 27, 1963 (not 1965).  He claims that AC-2/Atlas 126D placed a dummy payload into geosynchronous orbit.  NASA's website about centaur agrees Nov 1963 was the first success.  DonPMitchell (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DonPMitchell's statement on the development history. Lewis was involved in the 1950's (actually earlier than 1956) on research into the use of LH2 in aircraft engines. They did a lot of work on project Suntan for the Air Force, including work with on a LH2 turbojet engine with Pratt & Whitney. This work provided Lewis with a unique competency in the use of LH2 as a propellant, and directly lead to the RL-10 engine. As Don states, Lewis was not the birth place of Centaur, but it would play the role of champion for Centaur once control was transferred from Marshall to Lewis (which occurred between 8 October 1962 and 1 January 1963, according to ￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼Taming Liquid Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket 1958-2002). LESJet (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development History 

message: Hello everyone. I was looking at the paragraph of "Shuttle-Centaur" and I noticed something strange.
This paragraph states that: "During its first mission on May 16, 1986, a Centaur-G boosted the Galileo probe towards Jupiter. Just six days later, another Centaur-G boosted the Ulysses probe towards Jupiter where it used the planet's gravity to reach a highly inclined solar orbit to observe the Sun's polar regions."
This is not true, as both Galileo and Ulysses were launched on the IUS, a totally different stage which uses solid propellant. Of course, they were planned to launch on the Centaur-G, but weren't actually because of safety concerns after the Challenger disaster. The paragraph does not state this in that sentence, however. When I read further, the article says that the Galileo and the Ulysses probe were launched on the IUS so it is only this first paragraph that contains (potentially) misleading information.
"After the Challenger accident, and just months before the Shuttle-Centaur was scheduled to fly, NASA concluded that it was far too risky to fly the Centaur on the Shuttle. Galileo, Ulysses, and Magellan were boosted by the much less powerful solid-fueled IUS, with Galileo needing multiple gravitational assists from Venus and Earth to reach Jupiter."
I can imagine someone that did not read the whole article might then get the impression that the probes were launched on the Centaur-G while they were not.
Since I have never edited a article it seems wrong when I do edit it. I would just like to state that this potentially misleading information is in that paragraph, to help researchers (or space nerds) find true information.
 Levi van Leeuwen (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading information in the first paragraph of "Shuttle-Centaur" 

message: Sources are totally absent on a good bit of the historical claims in the article.  Some, but not all, of it has been explicitly challenged for some months now.  
If sources are not found, it will be best to just remove the unsourced bits until some editor can find sources for the material to stay.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the very first line is "Centaur has been designed to be the upper stage of space launch vehicles and is used on the Atlas V", which is very bad. 93.73.16.77 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a lot of unsourced information on the historical claims in the article 

message: Apparently the development of ACES has been shelved going forwards to focus on Centaur V, the article may need updating to reflect that
https://spacenews.com/ula-studying-long-term-upgrades-to-vulcan/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.202.211 (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I have added it to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACES discontinuation? 

message: Has anyone published estimates of the cost of Centaur-III ? It would be good to see an idea of what a single-engine or dual-engine Centaur costs ULA or their customers. Or the costs for Centaur G/G-prime if that's available. - Rod57 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Costings for Centaur G are in the Shuttle-Centaur article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has anyone published estimates of the cost of Centaur-III 

message: Under characteristics it says 20 (2x2 + 4x4), but lower down under specification it says 12 RCS thrusters. (Maybe the 20 mistakenly includes the 8 retro thrusters on the common core ?) - Rod57 (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many RCS on Centaur-III 

message: I think the section on Atlas configs and fairing attachments needs to be updated, but I do not know where to find a reference. The section mention only fairings, but Starliner does not use a fairing. Does anyone have a reference? -Arch dude (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlas N22 config for Starliner? 

message: Which grades (or type) of stainless steel are used ? Is it 304, 304L or something else ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which grades of stainless steel are used