Talk:Comparison of heavy lift launch systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Mid

Contents

[edit] Start of article

Please note, right now this article is built using information from other articles. A lot of information, such as pricing, needs to be researched from external sources. Hopefully this will get some people interested in the relative capabilities of the various launch systems. --StuffOfInterest 13:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exclude Atlas V 551?

From Duk's recent edit, I see that the Atlas V 551 does not meet the 20,000 kg threshold for HLV. The rocket should probably be taken out of the chart because of this. Now, I do see from Duk's reference that there is a design concept for an Atlas V HLV. Does anyone know if there are any actual plans to build this thing? If so, and if specs are listed somewhere, this model would meet the stated criteria. --StuffOfInterest 17:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Atlas V's published GTO is greater than the Proton's. Also, there is a lot of variation in both the references and the actual orbits. For example: the Atlas V LEO is at 185km 28.5°, Delta V is at 407km 28.7° and the Proton's is at 200km 51.6°. Is there a more 'apples to apples' comparison for orbital energies (I don't know much about this)? I was going to try a notes section for these details rather than expanding the table - comments? Atlas V HLV - there are a bunch of Atlas V expansions in the Atlas Mission Planner, including the HLV and also increased diameter of upper and lower stages (p.307) but I don't know if they are mythology or actually happening. --Duk 18:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It might make sense to have a minimum inclination column being that you can't send something up at less than that inclination for a given launch site. I don't know if we could ever get a true apples to apples comparision, but it is better to have too much rather than too little information. It would be nice if the wikitable class gave the ability to hide and rearrange columns. This would make the analysis much easier if someone is looking for a particular piece of information. Also, thanks to everyone who took my little Sunday morning project and ran with it! --StuffOfInterest 18:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Ha! I was just going to ask if there was a way to hide vertical columns in a table. --Duk 18:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Why not put the Atlas V HLV in? ULA lists this in their reference material that we use, and the Atlas V page also lists 20,500 as max to Leo, so I think we need to be consistent at least with other wikipedia pages and manufacturer's claims. Hartze11 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that the Atlas V HLV has been added, but where does the launch record of "1/1" come from? To my knowledge, there has never been an Atlas V launch with three core modules. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that the project was cancelled several years ago. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If it was more than just a back-of-the-napkin design before being cancelled, should we consider having a status of "Cancelled" for this type of entry? --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It would set one hell of a precedent. Many seriously considered HLVs have been cancelled. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
True, and I don't want to see the list get too out of control. Still, it would be interesting to know how many HLVs which had significant engineering done died on the drawing board. We could always start the list on the talk page to see how bad it would be. Unfortunately, I'm not enough of a rocket head to rattle off a list from memory. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Off the top of my head:
  • Pretty much the entire Nova and N families
  • Half the Saturn family
  • Ares (Mars Direct, not the current design)
  • Energia-M
  • Groza
  • RLA-120
  • RLA-135
  • RLA-150
  • Shuttle-C
  • Shuttle-Z
  • UR-700
  • UR-700M
  • UR-900
  • Vulkan
Some of these weren't very advanced, but some were. We would also need a fixed set of criteria to determine inclusion. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yikes! That could easily end up doubling the list. OK, my feelings is quickly shifting the other way. Maybe someone, at some time, will feel like building a "Comparison of proposed heavy lift launch systems" article in the future. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
As I stated, if a fixed and justifiable criteria for inclusion was set, then it would be possible to eliminate some of these (although such a criteria is also likely to eliminate the Atlas V heavy. It would be nice to see them listed here, but it may not be practical without such a criteria. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the question is, "Does ULA currently offer the Atlas V HLV configuration?" The only source cited by the article (the product sheet) implies that ULA would create an HLV if the customer were willing to pay for it. I don't think that's true of the others in the list above. (sdsds - talk) 06:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Include Atlas V 551 and others?

Another option: lower the "bar" specifically to include the Atlas V 551, and then add other launch vehicles that also pass the lowered limit. That might be a bit artificial, but wasn't the original 20,000 kg limit somewhat arbitrary? Don't we all think of Atlas V as a "heavy lift" vehicle? (sdsds - talk) 04:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd hate to see this article turn into a generic list of every launch vehicle out there. There is a major difference in technology integration between a medium-lift and heavy-lift vehicle. You can see that from the extra work it took to bring the Delta IV Heavy on scene vs. a standard Delta IV. 20T is a nice round number to give a good cutoff point, but I'm open to adjusting it if someone has a good reason or can show any "industry" standards for describing classes of vehicles.
Here is another idea. How about creating a Comparison of medium lift launch systems to cover vehicles in the 2,000kg to 20,000kg range and a Comparison of small lift launch systems to cover vehicles handling less than 2,000kg? This would give all of the vehicles a place but keep the individual lists small enough to still provide utility. --StuffOfInterest 11:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
According to Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle the cutoff is 14,000kg. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Again I'm left wondering, is this an industry standard or just something someone decided on for that particular article? --StuffOfInterest 00:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

N.B. the "Futron" source now (once again ;-) cited in this table uses "Heavy Launch Vehicles (more than 25,000 lbs. to LEO)" as its definition. 25,000 pounds = 11,340 kilograms. (sdsds - talk) 03:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shuttle failures?

For the purpose of this article, how many failures should we define the Shuttle as having had? Incidents that could be seen as launch failures are:

  • STS-51-F - engine failure during ascent, reached lower orbit than planned, most objectives completed - Partial Failure.
  • STS-51-L - o-ring failure resulting in rapid dissasembly of entire stack at T+73 seconds. - Complete Failure.
  • STS-93 - fuel leak, ran out of fuel during late ascent, reached lower orbit than planned, most objectives completed - Partial Failure.
  • STS-107 - Foam strike during launch caused disintegration of orbiter during re-entry. - ???

So how many times should we list the shuttle as having failed during launch? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say two. Challenger is a no brainer. To me, with Columbia, a failure in the booster system (shedding foam) caused a complete loss of the primary payload. As for the other two, since the system did reach an orbit and was able to accomplish most tasks I'd call the launches successes. It could be argrued that they were partial failures, but this seems marginal. ---- StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The heavy-lift aspect of the Shuttle Transportation System has experienced one failure -- STS-51L in 1986, in which the vehicle was lost before stage 2 began (i.e, SRB burnout). The loss of orbiter Columbia on STS-107 was not a failure of the launch system, but a faulure of the thermal protection system that protects the crew and vehicle during reentry. Jparenti (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This failure was a direct result of the failure on launch of the foam insulation system on the External Tank. It was a launch failure. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The vehicle was lost on descent, after launch. The payload was launced successfully, the mission objectives were completed, and STS-107 was no more a failure than 51F or 93. At least 107 got to its final orbit and completed a useful mission. If 107 was a failure, then why aren't the other two missions that didn't complete their objectives considered failures? Jparenti (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Jparenti, please stop making these changes to the article before the discussion has finished. I think the consensus here is to consider that the Shuttle has had two failures, therefore, your continued changes to this number could be seen as vandalism. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. If I have a differing opinion, I should be able to include it. Now the name of the article is "Comparison of Heavy Lift Launch Systems". The "launch" aspect of STS-107 was sucessful, therefore, it should be included as a sucessful launch. And changing an article to reflect an opinion that isn't everyone else's doesn't fall into the category of vandalism. I am supporting my opinion with verifiable fact. Jparenti (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
"You should be able to include your opinion." I think not. Ever heard of WP:NPOV. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I also said, "I am supporting my opinion with verifiable fact". And please do not get nasty. This is an issue that needs to be resolved so that Wikipedia is a better reference source. Why it is making you so angry is beyond me. Jparenti (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not angry. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the shuttle has only had the one failure, the Challenger disaster. Why not just leave it at one failure instead of two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.223.43 (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saturn V record

Is it 12/12 or 13/13? There were 12 Apollo missions, but the Saturn V vehicle was used to launch Skylab 1 in 1973 (see Saturn V)) as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs) 02:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Saturn INT-21 (used for Skylab) is listed separately. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks for the clarification--Rtphokie (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table sorting

The table doesn't sort right by Mass to LEO (descending). Tried both firefox and IE browsers with the same result. Also tried changing to tonnes from kg - same results. --Duk 21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the sorting is lexical, rather than numeric. Because "1" comes before "2", "100,000" sorts lower than "20,000". Placing non-breaking space characters before the six-digit masses gets it to work as expected, but surely there's a better way? (Wishing I understood wikitables better!) (sdsds - talk) 06:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
See Help:Sorting. I haven't had time to look, but there will probably be something useful there. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 07:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energia's LEO payload

Official wikipedia page for Energia states it is capable of taking around 100 tons to LEO. In fact Buran's maximal takeoff weight is 105 tons. Other sources (e.g. http://epizodsspace.testpilot.ru/bibl/ziv/1994/02/rn.html and http://www.buran.ru/htm/rocket.htm) say it is capable of carrying at least 95 tons payload to LEO (200 km, 50.7°) without Buran. So why those 88000kg in the table? That article in encyclopedia astronautica has mistakes. It for example states that there were two launches one of which failed. But in fact that first launch was a success it was Polyus that failed (they themselves write: "The launch vehicle performed successfully, but the Polyus payload failed to inject itself into orbit due to a guidance system"). If that launch was not successful all the Buran program wold be delayed.

82.138.48.125 (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Andrew

It still failed to reach orbit. Without an upper stage, Energia cannot reach [a stable] orbit. It was just that Buran did not require the failed component. Anyway, the Soviet Union didn't usually delay launches after failures occured. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Energia didn't reach LEO during that flight because it wasn't supposed to exactly as it wasn't supposed to reach LEO during the following flight with Buran. It was supposed to deliver its payload to H=117 km in the first flight ant to H=150 km in the second one which Energia successfully did. More info on Plyus (in Russian): http://www.buran.ru/htm/cargo.htm Still I don't understand the reason of that discrepancy between the two wikipedia pages. 82.138.48.125 (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Andrew
  • Okay, let's try to sort this mess out. Energia could not reach LEO without the use of an upper stage. This failed on the first flight, therefore, we need to decide whether we consider this part of the launch system. If we do, then we need to consider the first flight a failure, if we do not, then we are saying that Energia could not place a payload in LEO, and thus fails the primary inclusion critera, as it is an oversized sounding rocket. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
When Energia was used with Buran, did the Energia provide all the propulsion to orbit, or did the Buran do some kind of apogee kick burn on its own? If Buran contributed in getting itself into orbit, then Energia is better described as a booster stage, not a complete launch system. The two launch systems, each of which was used for a single launch, were then Energia-Polyus and Energia-Buran, one having a 0/1 record and the other a 1/1 record. For the purposes of this table, glossing over this by categorizing Energia as a single launch system with a 1/2 record seems fine. The payload of the combined table entry should then reflect the range from the mass of the Polyus' payload (not the entire Polyus mass) to the mass of the Buran payload (not the entire Buran mass). (sdsds - talk) 23:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
N.B. the graphic on this history page at Energia's website supports the view of these as two distinct launch systems. (sdsds - talk) 02:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Energia could either do a launch to LEO (Buran) or be the lower stages for a payload with an upper stage (Polyus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.120.53 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
imo, the 1st launch is a success because the payload made it into orbit. it was because the Polyus that overspin (because it is place backward like the apolla LM) and ended up still facing the earth and it rocket itself back to earth. if the Polyus didn't fire it engine, it could still travel around the earth; just only in the wrong orbit so the LV did what it is suppose to do. on the Buran, it can actually reach LEO height without firing it own engine, with it own engine, it can raise it's orbit by another 100KM to about 250KM. by own engine, i don't include orbit correction as stuff, else there will be no real LV under those "standards". Akinkhoo (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
If Polyus was in a stable orbit before the misfire of its engine, then so too was the LV from which it detached. The LV did not misfire its engines, so would it have remained in orbit? This source says they both re-entered over the Pacific. (sdsds - talk) 07:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that anything reached orbit from that launch. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think both launches of Energia should be considered success for the launcher. Energia did what it was supposed to do, successfully in both cases. To consider Energia sounding rocket would be stretching definition; I doubt, for example, that sounding rocket guys will be happy to have their statistics skewed that much.(Avmich (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
If you argue that the first launch was successful, then Energia cannot be considered capable of reaching orbit, as an upper stage is a required part of the system, and this failed. If it is not capable of reaching orbit, then its LEO payload = 0, and it does not qualify for inclusion. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
According to http://www.buran.ru/htm/flight.htm , Buran finalized acceleration to LEO using its own fuel and engines. It seems to me, however, that to call Energia a booster is misleading, as it was deliberately designed to bring payloads to full LEO and beyond, while leaving itself on a suborbital trajectory. Technically, Energia could make LEO by itself, with somewhat reduced payload. I think the criteria for inclusion should be changed here.(Avmich (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
The first Energia launch was, to all intents and purposes, a failure: the vehicle was intended to put the Polyus payload into orbit, and failed to do so. However, rather than announce a failure, the Russians at the time announced it as a successful suborbital test of the booster system (with a dummy payload), and the contemporary references list it as a successful test flight. It was only much later that it was revealed that the payload was not a dummy, and the actual objective was orbit.
In view of the original definition of the flight as a "success," it was retrospectively asserted that, since the failure was not on the first stage, the test of that stage indeed was "successful." As far as I know, though, nobody actually in the space industry accepts a definition that loose. (If you did, you'd have to revise the success rate of all other boosters, to check which failures occurred on upper stages and label those launches "successful.") Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a confusion between technical characteristics and intended use. Energia could deliver payload into LEO (It is a matter of amount of fuel, payload mass, etc. Therefore, nothing is wrong with rating its LEO payload), however, it was intended to stay on suborbital trajectory in order not to pollute space with its huge second stage. Polyus never was or never contained an upper stage of Energia, therefore the Polyus-related failures are irrelevant to Energia and its rating should be 2/2 (the booster did deliver the payload to the point of separation with intended orbital characteristics). No revisions of success rates of other boosters are required because there is a clear technical distinction between a stage and a payload with its own engine. Gadinaaa (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your view that it could put 20,000 kg of payload into LEO without an upper stage? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The world-first ICBM R-7 (two stages with layout similar to Energia except the payload location) was designed to deliver nuclear payload to suborbital trajectory, but it was used to launch the first satellite Sputnik to LEO. So, no fundamental problems to deliver payload to LEO without an upper stage. The LEO rating for Energia is published on the official web site of the Energia Corporation (which designed the Energia booster). They claim up to 100 tonn, but that is approximate. More precise information can be obtained from an article "The Star Wars Which Never Happened" published in 2007 in Quest magazine (Vol. 14 No. 1-2). It discusses history and technical details of Polyus spacecraft (including the root cause of its failure). The article also mentions ability of Energia to deliver about 95,000 kg to trajectory requiring additional 60 m/s to LEO. To gain these 60 m/s one needs to reduce payload mass by about 1 per cent. That results roughly in 94,000 kg to LEO. To claim it as a formal evidence I need to find time to visit a library and to compare the text of the article which I have with the text translated and published in the Quest magazine. Gadinaaa (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If evidence can be found then reconsideration may be possible, but in the meantime, it should be considered OR. R-7 was unrelated to Energia. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that OR is my speculation where I tried to make the statement "up to 100 t" more precise. However, the statement itself, as I mentioned, is taken from the official site of the manufacturer: http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/launchers/vehicle_energia.html which seems to be an acceptable source. And the article in Quest mentioned above contains statement that the failure during the first Energia flight was on the Polyus side. It just needs to be verified. Gadinaaa (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The STS space shuttle would be heavy launch then too

--User:AaronPeterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.179.218 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean? The Space Shuttle is already in the list. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ariane 5 ES

I removed the reference to Ariane 5 ECA since it has never sent 20 tons to LEO and never will. The one which does that is the ATV carrier, the Ariane 5 ES ATV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.50.220.97 (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added it, as it is capable of doing so. Just because it is not used for something doesn't mean that it should not be listed as being unable to do so. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I must say that performance wise this is true that 20 ton is possible. However you sure know that structural reinforcements have been added to the second stage of Ariane 5 ES ATV to carry the Jules-Verne. So I would say that the ECA cannot currently carry 20 tons, since its structure could not withstand the mass at launch. Hektor (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support this? Also, I should note that I think a second inclusion criteria should be established so as not to exclude heavy systems on stupid technicalities which are unrelated to their lift capability. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
“To handle such a heavy-weight, the Vehicle Equipment Bay, supporting the ATV on top of the launcher, has been structurally redesigned and strengthened accordingly,” explains Julio Monreal, ESA's head of Ariane operations support, in charge of the ATV-Ariane 5 interfaces. I think that the fact that the structure of the launcher would not support the weight of the payload is not a "stupid technicality". It is a fact which makes the launch impossible. For instance, historically, the Ariane 44L could have launched 12-14 tons from a propellant/delta-vee standpoint, to LEO. Indeed, the 44L never went to LEO, because the structure was not designed for that.
I would add that contrary to the ECA, the second stage of the ES ATV is reignitable. The lack of reignition capability would put on the payload (the ATV) the burden of performing the perigee raising maneuver at first apogee, therefore reducing the performance to LEO. The ES ATV did that for the ATV ; the ECA could not. If you add the penalties of additional propellant for perigee raising and of the structural reinforcements, maybe the performance of the ECA is even below 20 tons to LEO ! And finally the ECA would remain stranded in orbit, creating a dangerous debris. The ES ATV second stage deorbited itself at the end of its mission (always thanks to this reignition capability). Hektor (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying that the world record holder for payload to GTO should not be considered a heavy launch system? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 09:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Technically speaking, the structure of ECA is designed to handle 10 tons to GTO, and not 20 tons to LEO. Maybe you can change the definition of a HLS. "can launch 20 tons to LEO or 9 tons to GTO or both". Hektor (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I did suggest a second inclusion criteria, but you seemed to dismiss it - "stupid technicallities" - so I would support the addition of such a criteria. 9 tonnes seems fair enough. What do other people think? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
All this nitpicking over inclusion criteria serves what purpose exactly? suppose the article had no criteria and was ranked by sourced payload to LEO. Then we wouldn't even need to have this discussion and the article would be less useful how?Zebulin (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of space launch systems

Why not remove the "heavy lift" qualifer and allow the article to organically grow to encompass potentially all launch systems ever used?Zebulin (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support this if "orbital" was used as a qualifier. GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds harmless but why would we need that? Even if someone were to add hobbyist sounding rockets as a "space launch system" they would have to be powerful enough to reach the 100km altitude. I doubt the list would bloat that badly.Zebulin (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, it would. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Then lets bloat it and then split the article when the bloat is too much. The list could stand to have a great deal of bloat at the moment. For now we have some dozen of all lift system to compare. That's pathetic. Using the more general title also avoids nitpicking over what qualifies and what doesn't. So why do you want it limited to a comparison of orbital launch systems? In any case, exactly what are orbital launch systems and is the definition obvious? If a system is never used to orbit anything but was intended for interplanetary missions would it not qualify for inclusion?
Furthermore, as the comparison is based upon LEO and GTO capability any launch system someone can find the appropriate data for is already going to arguably be an "orbital" launch system anyway.Zebulin (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Aha, and what do we list as the LEO payload for a sounding rocket? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I would not recommend expanding this list to all classes, it would make it too big to be of use. I'd suggest creating companion articles for medium-lift and light-lift (small-lift?) launch systems instead. Keep this list for the big boys so we have a concise target and avoid scope creep. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
How are multiple shorter lists more useful than a single comprehensive list? They would all be ranked by the same criteria in any case.Zebulin (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a great plan. The companions in the form of medium-lift and light-lift would be a great addition. -MBK004 20:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If we keep 20,000kg as the lower limit for heavy-lift, do we want to make the ranges for medium and light something like 2,000kg-20,000kg and <2,000kg to LEO? --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Good question...I think we should ask GW and others who are more involved with these articles than I am. -MBK004 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just starting to gather information for the medium list. I was thinking of using exactly the same figures as SOI suggested. I think that would work well. Also, could I suggest renaming the articles "Comparison of XX-capacity launch systems". Whilst heavy-lift is reguarly used as a term, this is not true for smaller systems, and I think that this change would facilitate consistancy. I've started a draft here. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list candidate

Anyone think it is about time to submit this article as a featured list candidate? When you look at the criteria page, it looks like we are in pretty good shape. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Close, but no cigar. There are a few uncited things in the table, and the page lacks an image of a rocket. There are some good ones of the rockets we are talking about on their individual pages. -MBK004 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
An image or two shouldn't be difficult to get, but I'm not sure if they would really help the article. I suppose if we expand the introduction somewhat that will make space of an image on the right of the introduction without pushing the table down. I'd really prefer to avoid putting an image to the side of the table as it would squeeze the table too much on standard monitors. As for the references, I believe most of the unreferenced numbers come directly from other articles. For some numbers we may be able to copy references from those articles but I believe there will be numbers in rocket articles which don't have references. I guess we need to push those articles to improve at the same time as we try to help this one. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think it is anywhere near ready yet. I think there is still a lot of work to be done. It has no lead section, for one thing. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Europe vs ESA

Whilst I agree that Europe is not a country, we should not make an exception for Ariane 5 and list ESA as a "Multinational Agency". Europe is as good as a country in this context, and should be used to avoid a pointless exception. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy is not a pointless exception. No encyclopedia would ever place "Europe" under a column header of "country". That is not only sloppy but grossly inaccurate and uninformative. It's like crediting the space shuttle as belonging to the country "North America" and tagging it with a nafta logo because various subsystems such as Canadarm originate from Canada.
For the record the ESA is in every sense a "Multinational Agency" but it is not in any sense the space agency of "Europe" or the "EU". It's launch facilities are in south America and it has non EU members.
Additionally, the international space station is a perfect example of a multinational space system and a good example of why pure "Country" column headers are increasingly useless for space articles such as this.Zebulin (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Aha, so why do we not list agencies for other rockets? Surely we should be consistent. ESA is not a political entity. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 06:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Listing agencies for other rockets might be an overall improvement. Not all agencies are government agencies. I just don't want to see the ESA equated to "Europe" or the EU anymore. "Europe" and the EU do not develop rockets and if they ever do that won't make them into countries.Zebulin (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Ares I

At least one source who should know asserts Ares I (not Ares V), "is projected to deliver ~26mT (without performance margin) to LEO/28.5°." Does that qualify it for addition to this list of heavy lift launch systems? The quote is from Dr. Doug Stanley, ESAS Lead. It can be found here. (sdsds - talk) 06:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)