Talk:Proton (rocket family)

message: Please somebody correct the performance figures, they are a full two metric tons below what they should be. The latest version of the rocket (Phase III) can lift 6150+ kilograms to GTO instead of 4140 as claimed. Naturally some satellites don't weight as much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.107.106.197 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance 

message: Under the section 8K82K, the article says:
Note that the six structures around the base of the vehicle ....  the core is the oxidizer tank, and the six units are outrigger fuel tanks. 
but later contradicts the statement that the fuel tanks are outside the body with:
(the Titan rockets avoided this by having its fuel and oxidizer tanks located in the body itself, thus the Titan II and III rockets can be flown with or without solid boosters).
(GoAirForce 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is indeed a unique design, allow for a relativity short 1st stage height while the tanks remains within the diameter size that could be transported by rail. imo, the prime problem of the russian space center is the lack of sea access, limiting the diameter of it's rocket design. the chinese are expected to build a new space center on the coast similiar to US and european center, and allow them to use similiar large diameter rocket that are transported to the site by sea. Akinkhoo (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: I just removed this from paragraph 2:
:The enormous capacity of the new rocket allowed the heavy materials used in particle detectors.  Thus the Proton satellites were pioneers of high-energy astronomy.
This is garbled.  If anyone knows what it means, please rewrite before reintroducing into the article.  Tempshill 03:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy materials and particle detectors? 

message: The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_rocket#Proton_M section says that payload to GSO is about 3 tonnes (I assume these are metric tonnes), and payload to GTO is about 5.5 tonnes. How come that Proton has been routinely injecting 6-tonne payloads to GSO? I am not sure about older launches, but the latest one just put the 6-tonne Inmarsat 4 into a GSO. Here is the flight plan (pdf): http://www.ilslaunch.com/assets/pdf/INMARSAT-4-F3-MOFinal.pdf From the flight plan and ILS blog it is obvious that it was Proton/Breeze that injected the satellite, the satellite did not use its own engines (if it has them) for that.
Also, should not all numbers that quote payloads specify launch site? I don't know whether Proton is being launched from other sites besides Baikonur, but in any case, the payload mass is limited not only by structural rigidity of the rocket and power of its engines, but by location as well. A much smaller Zenit rocket injects 6-tonne satellites from equatorial Sea Launch site. Mikus (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Payload 

message: > Proton ... would very likely have launched the first humans to circle the Moon <
Proton was never human-rated! Its fuel is so toxic, the communist party central comittee banned its use for human lunar flight, even after the soviet astronauts staged a street demonstration in Star City to demand a totally crazy dual-Proton "crush launch" with in-flight EVA to beat the americans around and onto the Moon!
Spontaneous street protest was highly unusual in the USSR, yet the top brass still shunned the Proton rocket, because they knew the cosmonauts would come back very ill from the toxic fuel, even if they managed to evade death and they would not be in a suitable shape for public celebrations display and pre-arranged festives so essential to communism. All in all, Proton is a strictly thing-launcher and has never been a being-launcher, not even on the drawing table! 87.97.48.253 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullshit claim in the article 

message: the specs listed the thrust of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th stage only in pound-force. i consulted the web and found numbers in kgf and newton. i found that the 1st stage (specified as 10.47 MN) matched up *exactly* with the webpage, while the amounts in pound-force of the later stages were off by big margins (in the order of 10%). this may be the result of inaccurate conversion by the editor. also a value in newton lacked. where did these numbers come from? why were they (exclusively, and primarily) in pound-force? this rocket was made in USSR so the official specs were likely not in pound-force, it's US-centrism.
Bewareircd (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: note UK pounds and US pounds are different. and what units of force would USSR have used ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  UK and US pounds are the same, 453 grams and change, the UK and US tons, by contrast do differ by around 10% Galopujacyjez (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of pound-force 

message: Good article in SpaceNews on two new Proton variants for smaller satellites.  "The Proton Medium and Proton Light, which ILS officials said Krunichev has been quietly developing for Reston, Virginia-based ILS for more than a year, are on track to debut in 2018 and 2019, respectively. - See more at: http://spacenews.com/ils-unveils-two-proton-variants-sized-for-smaller-satellite/#sthash.VsItRMcR.7MgE4xtx.dpuf"
Definitely a good source for improving the Wikipedia Proton article.  Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Proton variants 

message: The Future developments section seems unclear. When was the KVRB stage development initiated and cancelled ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future developments ? KVRB stage ?