Talk:List of private spaceflight companies

message: "Passenger" is confusing.  ICAO uses souls on board.  A craft such as spaceship 1 had one required crew member and could carry one passenger, but instead carried dead weight.   Spaceship two will carry two crewmembers and ? passengers.   Souls on board counts the crew with the passengers.  If a web visitor see's NO passengers, they might assume it is unmanned, yet it may have 1, 2 or more required crew members, especially during the test flight phase.    Good luck...  You might want to add tail numbers for the craft too? -unsigned comment moved from User talk:Aremisasling
:I don't have the tail numbers. That's part of the problem. The only thing we've got is the transponder code, and I've looked that up on a few sites and found nothing. If you've got better sources than I do, please provide them. Due to the lack of records that I could find, I don't know that it should have a place here yet. Additionally, this is simply a list of planned, developing, and current spacecraft. N numbers, transponder codes, registration, or serial numbers are not relevant to the article. It is supposed to document the model, not the specific craft. If you feel that information would be useful, and I actually do think it would be, my suggestion would be to put that in a page dedicated specifically to the spacecraft or at least to Sabrina Aircraft Manufacturing. I would do it myself, but I don't know much about the spacecraft or the company due to the paucity of actual information out there on either.
:As for the 'souls on board' designation, generally on wikipedia the passenger capacity of spacecraft is considered to be the total number of people that it can carry. It certainly makes no difference whatsoever how many people are actually carried, only the number of people that could be carried. The Souls On Board designation, while it may be used in the tech specs of the aircraft, is likely a confusing term for most readers. Furthermore, it's not in keeping with the rest of the list. If a case can be made to change all of the passenger capacity column titles to souls on board, then that change should be made universally in this list and likely others throughout wikipedia. aremisasling (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of the transplanetary vehicles section 

message: The tables in the Lift Vehicles section are interesting, but they have gone unsourced since August 2007.  I have narrowed the focus of the former unreferencedArticle tag to just the offending unreferencedSection.  I also looked through the article history to learn who/when the tables were added.  User Jrockley initiated and did most of the work.  I have invited Jrockley to take a look on his talk page today.  Anyone else is, of course, welcome to provide sources for the information in the tables. Failing that, I suspect the table won't be able to stay by WP rules of no unverified information. N2e (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References needed for the ''Lift Vehicles'' section

message: I'm using the Full List as a checklist for it's own removal.  As each company is accounted for in the categorized sections, remove them from the list.
:Checklist completed.  Some of these companies do fit into other categories as well.  I'll have to continue crawling them to keep it up to date.  aremisasling (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elliminating the full list 

message: Since there are no degrees associated with being an expert, I guess I'm not one to make that judgement, but I've filled in a lot of holes and will continue to do so.  I'm also planning on starting my own blog on private space based on my work here and my discussions with the companies themselves.  So I guess between the two, I fit the bill.  aremisasling (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Expert Needed tag 

message: We need to separate space launch vehicles from orbital payload vehicles.  The SpaceX Falcon 1 and 5 don't belong in the same table as the various capsules, and the Falcon 9 should be in whichever table gets created...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agreed.  I was just thinking that yesterday as I moved the Falcon 9 link down to the launcher section of the Dragon entry.  I'm glad to have another set of eyes on this page.  I began to worry it was becoming more of a pet project than a wiki page.  I don't mind being a heavy contributor, but I begin to worry when I'm the only contributor.  aremisasling (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have people looking over your shoulder.  I'm in the industry, and I know most of the rest of the key people firsthand, and they also keep an eye on the WP articles on their products and on related articles.  You're doing fine in general 8-)  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Done. Though, I'm wondering, do we need to record the technological demonstrators? Things like sounding rockets, the DC-X and Armadillo's Quad (rocket) seem a bit odd when nestled amongst heavy lifting systems (as there are many many demonstrators, and not all of them were even designed to BE spacecraft). I think we could create them their own section, or get rid of them entirely. Thoughts? Anxietycello (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it's an arbitrary distinction or not, but I'd say it depends on whether or not it's an operational payload.  While sounding rockets are often tech demonstrators, many are used or are at least planned to be used for scientific payloads.  But I do agree that they may be better placed in their own columns.  aremisasling (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I hadn't quite figured out a nice way to reorganize the page, so I was holding off for a bit, but you're modifications really cleaned things up nicely.  aremisasling (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight reorganization needed 

message: As mentioned immediately above, I disagree with the (well-intentioned) recent decision by editor Anxietycello to rename this article to List of space tourism companies.  I do not believe there was a consensus on such a move, even among the three editors who had been recently discussing the subject.  Specifically, I do not believe there was a consensus to eliminate an important Wikipedia article, one that had been in Wikipedia for nearly three years, that attempted to provide a list of companies doing non-governmentally-funded spaceflight endeavors.  
Proposal:  So, given the "move" was completed, what next?  I think it would be best to: 
*1) return this article to it's former name, List of private spaceflight companies, the name by which the article has been developed by many editors for nearly three years, and with the content of the article as it existed 18 hours ago.  After that, we can continue the discussion on how to clarify the scope of the renamed article to continue and see if a consensus can be reached on the scope, and perhaps a new name, of a private spaceflight list article.
*2) This is in no way a position that believes it is inappropriate for a new article to be created that is titled as Anxietycello has proposed, specifically limited to human spaceflight.  So the second part of my proposal is for Anxietycello to go ahead and, then, create a new article, List of space tourism companies, with the content that he now has in the former List of private spaceflight companies as he has significantly changed it in the past 24 hours.  N2e (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with the above proposals. I don't see any real justification for narrowing the scope. A company that is privately developing rocket engines for non-tourism purposes is no different in reality that one who has selected tourism as the ultimate market for their products. Once you start labeling companies by their perceived markets, there is all kinds of problems. For instance, XCOR Aerospace is currently developing a tourism rocketplane, but before that they were developing rocket motors for other uses. They would fit in the list as it was originally conceived, but their earlier work wouldn't fit into the current scope of the article. Given that the applications of the technology are wide open, it doesn't make much sense to me to focus on those which might only be used for tourism and leave out the others. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Agree I think certainly the previous state was too borad, this is a bit too narrow.  There's more to private spaceflight, by far, than human launch providers.  Furthermore, the entire private spaceflight venture relies more on research and commerce applications than tourism.  Space tourism is only the most public and inspirational angle.  aremisasling (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009-04-20 Article Rename and narrowing of article scope:  What next?

message: There were a few additions and removals during User:Anxietycello's edits that I don't really see justification for.  In specific they include:
Adding Lockheed Martin - I think this was the result of the rescoping to human-rated
Removing Canadian Arrow
Removing McDonnell Douglas - This may be a justifiably non-private removal
Removing JP Aerospace - They are definitely unconventional in that they are a 100% balloon launched system, but I don't think any definition we come up with necessarily requires that it be rocket or engine-only.
Aside from the tourism change, these were the only real issues I spotted and they certainly are pretty minor and possibly debatable.  Any thoughts?  aremisasling (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions and removals of companies 

message: I like the things User:Anxietycello did with separating out the test vehicles.  But I think including research vehicles in the mix is not quite right.  It's really more of a tweak than a complete alteration, but I think slipping those back into hte launcher category would be more accurate.  We could definitely leave true tech demonstrators in a separate list.
I also would like to note that contrary to their insistence, Lynx is not a spaceplane.  It's not designed to break 100km.  It's the same reason the guys from the early high altitude balloon tests didn't get astronaut wings, but the x-program guys did.  Do we want to redefine it as including upper atmospheric craft as well?  If so, where is the line drawn?
I also propose we eliminate equipment only manufacturers including propulsion.
These are all gray areas, so I'm looking for some opinion and hopefully consensus on them one way or another.  I'm keeping it on this talk as it's not directly relevant to the overall discussion on the private spaceflight pseudo-project.  aremisasling (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some new ideas on proposed changes 

message: I reverted the last well-intentioned edit to use only a single Bigelow source for a bunch of claims.  My argument is that we don't want to do that, or at least, should not do so without discussion on the Talk page.  I have three basic arguments, which I don't have time to fully develop now, but should at least summarize.  1) As I mentioned in the revert edit summary, we don't want to have any "loss of reference information; ... [nor 2) replace] any WP:secondary sources with primary sources; nor [3)] lose the article character where individual claims are sourced."  I will be happy to develop these more fully soon; but gotta go to non-Wikipedia life stuff right now.N2e (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: *I have switched the EADS Astrium thing from cancelled back to in development due to the following BBC source: Space tourism jet work continues dated 12.01.2011. Hektor (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: EADS Astrium

message: I tried to sort by several column headers and it just doesn't work properly. Can someone fix it? user:mnw2000 19:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Colspan and sortable tables do not mix well.  Fixed. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, just realised this affects the other tables as well which do it for the company names. *sigh*.  ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting not working! 

message: use the STATUS "operational" or "development" only for SpaceX, Orbital Sciences and Bigelow
for all other "vehicles" use the words "toy", "photoshop" and "scam"
.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.103.78 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  just a suggestion 

message: I think this article would be enhanced with small thumbnail photos in the table, where they exists. user:mnw2000 13:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about thumbnails of images in tables? 

message: I note that some vehicles seem to count the pilots—which is certainly consistent with all spacecraft to date, where the pilot were definitely a part of the human-carrying capacity—and some don't.  For example, Space Ship Two includes the pilots, Lynx does not.  I suspect the entire column needs to be reviewed to get it consistent, and then we need to confirm capacity from the sources given.  Should we retitle the column to merely "Capacity", or maybe "Human capacity"?  I suspect it may be a little too early in the industry to easily distinguish between "crew" and "passengers", say on a vehicle like Dragon, when none of the folks on board are essential for launch and successful docking (much as the Air Force pilot types might not like to think about it).  Furthermore, for carrying folks to a space station, the relevant metric is just how many bodies can be carried, kept safe, and in a benign environment for the journey to a space outpost.  Thoughts?  N2e (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies in "passenger capacity" column 

message: Shouldn't this be four, rather than three?  The Dragon capsule has been launched to orbit and retrieved four times to date: December 2010, the COTS-1 demo flight, May 2012, the COTS-2+ demo flight, October 2012 (CRS-1) and March 2013 (CRS-2).  See List of Falcon 9 launches for reference.  --69.25.240.18 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  SpaceX has completed four missions in four flights.  These pages can sometimes become out of date, so if you see any other discrepancies like this... please point them out or better yet help us to edit Wikipedia so it can be more accurate.  I updated the article with the correct information and fixed the reference link (which was broken apparently).  --Robert Horning (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of SpaceX Dragon flights 

message: This list looks messy.  I move that we cut the many entries here that have no craft name or type, no stand-alone wikipedia page, and only one reference.  Thoughts? Fanyavizuri (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has commented over the last couple of weeks, so to be specific, I would start with a number of landers/rovers/probes that are former Google Lunar X Prize entrants.  I would cut those which are clearly cancelled, withdrawn, or acquired.  I think this means Team Selene, SCSG, Advaeros, Quantum3, Micro Space, Next Giant Leap, Lunatrex, JURBAN.  Any objection to removing those from the list, since they no longer appear to meet the definition at the top of the page? Fanyavizuri (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made these edits.  More cleanup is likely in order, but I will pause here for others to review. Fanyavizuri (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

text:  I also cut Chandah, as I could find no reference to it on the Lunar X Prize page in a 2010 archive.org web crawl, and there is none now. Fanyavizuri (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentless Landers, rovers and probes 

message: Hiya, i created this to be helpful for easy cross-referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_spaceflight_companies
There are quite a few candidates on this list but its hard to confirm some, for example RocketRacingLeague has been dead as a doornail since 2011ish but nobody pronounced them dead yet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 05:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This may not have been true in 2014 when you wrote this, but someone (perhaps you?) has since found a Leo Laporte webcast interview with Diamandis that declare's Rocket Racing League dead.  Thanks for all of your work on this.  aremisasling (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Originally this page was mostly active projects with a few cancellations here and there.  But with the X Prize and its participants and successors fading into history a good number of them have gone dark.  Some continue to make claims they are active, but appear to be making no tangible progress toward providing any kind of spaceflight services while others have significantly descoped to be providers of very specific spaceflight services.  I stepped away from the page because I felt I was significantly at risk of appearing to violate WP:OWN if not doing so in actual fact.  But aside from contributions from a few folks over the years, this page has largely rusted away.   I can lend a hand on the cleanup.  aremisasling (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunct companies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of private spaceflight companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081023174026/http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/SS1_touchdown_040621.html to http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/SS1_touchdown_040621.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of private spaceflight companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/Taurus/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of private spaceflight companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120329032217/http://www.seattlepi.com/local/200644_forks22.html to http://www.seattlepi.com/local/200644_forks22.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hey people, just so you know, I've updated some of the entries for Interorbital systems to reflect more recent changes in their launch plans.
Tancred2 (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on List of private spaceflight companies. 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  tag to https://www.arcaspace.com/ro/haas_2B.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003001238/http://www.arcaspace.com/ro/super_haas.htm to https://www.arcaspace.com/ro/super_haas.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080702190816/http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/ to http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406171507/http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_overview.html to http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_overview.html
*Added  tag to http://www.starchaser.co.uk/Starchaser
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041101205026/http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/vision_concepts.html to http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/vision_concepts.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/out_there/developing_a_galaxy.php
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5sjTGFSmg?url=http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php to http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130326183411/http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=18 to http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=18
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/63btGA0Bq?url=http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/63btGA0Bq?url=http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501002858/http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/63btGA0Bq?url=http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/63btGA0Bq?url=http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509234540/http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive07/armadillo_0625.html to http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive07/armadillo_0625.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810141928/http://www.cuaerospace.com/Products/SmallSatellitePropulsion.aspx to http://www.cuaerospace.com/Products/SmallSatellitePropulsion.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222125903/http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html to http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html
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) 00:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on List of private spaceflight companies. 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://web.archive.org/web/20141024093802/http://bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-1-specs.php to http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-1-specs.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814180219/http://bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-1.php to http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-1.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815003805/http://bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-2-specs.php to http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-2-specs.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814064752/http://bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-2.php to http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-2.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418173127/http://www.onorbit.com/node/1395 to http://www.onorbit.com/node/1395
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091011051507/http://www.rocketlab.co.nz/atea-1.html to http://www.rocketlab.co.nz/atea-1.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150710074734/http://www.sciops.esa.int/SD/ESACFACULTY/docs/seminars/120314_LopezUrdiales.pdf to http://www.sciops.esa.int/SD/ESACFACULTY/docs/seminars/120314_LopezUrdiales.pdf
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) 12:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on List of private spaceflight companies. 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://web.archive.org/web/20150925191137/http://habitats.gso-space.org/2013/12/18/gso-lunar-station-one/ to http://habitats.gso-space.org/2013/12/18/gso-lunar-station-one/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150623061004/http://www.gateway-galactic.com/ to http://www.gateway-galactic.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108041355/http://www.interorbital.com/Neptune%20Page_1.htm to http://www.interorbital.com/Neptune%20Page_1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417163010/http://www.rocketlabusa.com/index.html to http://www.rocketlabusa.com/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160706160550/http://www.interorbital.com/interorbital_06222015_013.htm to http://www.interorbital.com/interorbital_06222015_013.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723014858/http://worldviewexperience.com/fly-your-payload/ to http://worldviewexperience.com/fly-your-payload/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010142546/http://www.planetaryresources.com/technology/ to http://www.planetaryresources.com/technology/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417163010/http://www.rocketlabusa.com/index.html to http://www.rocketlabusa.com/index.html
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) 17:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noticed that Rocket Lab's Electron rocket is still listed as "development," but it did launch into LEO successfully yesterday (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11979201). I'm not sure what the different stages of development are in the table, but it seems to me that it should be listed as either testing or operational. I'll leave that edit for someone who knows what they are doing, though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:2287:D200:1457:C10:BF7D:698 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rocket Lab successful LEO launch 

message: While most people see the Electron as a 2 stage rocket, it is technically 3 stage rocketing with it what RocketLab call it's kick stage designed to circularize the orbits of its satellite payloads.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:5A00:D86C:ED00:ACA9:78B8:EF7A:DE54 (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stages 

message: Isn't this a list of private spaceflight vehicles, not spaceflight companies? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. I renamed that section "Launch vehicle makers". Is that enough? Rowan Forest (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no, that's not really what I meant. I'm meant the entire page. I would expect "list of private spaceflight companies" to be that. A list of companies involved in spaceflight. This entire page is not that. This is a collection of lists of launch vehicles, orbiters, engines, etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spaceflight requires different components, generally fabricated by separate companies and then integrated: rocket, spacecraft, orbiter, lander, etc. Each of those is listed with the name of the company in the first column. I see no confusion. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, if you can actually read the title of the page, and the first (only) line of the lede, and actually think they are accurate descriptions of what follows... ok, sure. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/aerospace:product / https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/company=aerospace dulliman Dulliman (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of what? 

message: their next rocket, vikram-1 is orbital. A year out and 3 stage solid. 2001:558:6033:9C:D55F:13EA:C38:7FD9 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vikram-S  is suborbital