Talk:Jupiter-C
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Question for this site.How long does this type of fuel last,is it harmful if found that it's shelf life is over?(environmently)
---
"Calling a Redstone-based rocket a Jupiter to show that something was getting done for the money paid for the Jupiter project is typical of the changes-of-name that take place in military industries." I'm not so sure about this... it seems a little POV'd, and not really on target for the Jupiter-C rocket article. If there's no response, I'll go ahead and delete.Sjcodysseus 05:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Contradiction
The date of the maiden flight in the table differs from that in the main article.
RE: The date in the maiden table refers to the first orbital flight, which isn't clearly labeled. Also, the burnout time listed in the table (120 s) refers to the burnout time of the original Redstone without the increased tankage. It's not clear which of the two figures given in the text (155 s and 157 s) is correct, but I can say that 155 seconds is the amount of time the Rocketdyne engine would take to burn all of the fuel at 100% throttle.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
[[Jupiter-C (rocket)]] → Jupiter-C – Unnecisarry Disambiguation GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 16:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Support per nom and other recent rocket articles. David Kernow 01:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
Add any additional comments
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] Cleanup and split
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was to split.--GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to conflate the Jupiter IRBM, the Jupiter-C sounding rocket, and the Juno I launch vehicle:
- The Jupiter was an IRBM, and the Jupiter-C was not so the lead is clearly incorrect.
- The Jupiter-C was a 3-stage sounding rocket, which was used to test re-entry vehicles.
- The 4-stage launch vehicle described in much of the article is the Juno I, which was used to orbit satellites, including Explorer 1. It is commonly confused with the Jupiter-C because the only real difference is the presence of the upper stage. Even some official sources get this wrong from time to time.
Therefore, I propose that this article is cleaned up, and information on the Juno is split out to a seperate article. I would be happy to do this if consensus (or lack of objection) is reached. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, GW.Fl295 16:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It's been more than 5 days, no objections, so I am carrying out the split. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] Confusion between Juno I and Jupiter-C
- Confusion remains, both Juno I and Jupiter-C pages claims they launched Explorer 1 - phe 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
