Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

Having been conceived as a reusable system part of the Space Shuttle's mission is to land safely to fly another day, therefore a hull loss in my opinion can't be considered a success but rather a partial failure.115.131.203.196 (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)
The solution is to add the template:smn to the field where you want numeric sorting. I have done this on the fields i spotted. Still does not sort correctly. I'm working on it. --80.63.213.182 (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I now added invisible zeros to the fields so that all numeric fields has six digits. That way, it doesn't matter if numeric sorting works (template:smn) or not, because it will work with the alphabetical one. --Ysangkok (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think we should either (1) exclude Energia from the list, as it never brought a payload all the way to orbit by itself or (2) consider both launches success for Energia. If you think there is no contradiction (and, therefore, there is no need to change the article), explain your thoughts here. Avmich (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no objections. I'm writing the number of successful launches to 2, as it is more natural to consider Energia an orbital rocket, even though it was intended to bring the payload to suborbital trajectory. Avmich (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

  • And I have reverted you. The fact that you may have had the last word does not invalidate the previous discussion. I for one did not reply to your comment because it changed nothing. To make myself perfectly clear, I oppose your proposal. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to reiterate my arguments; please, GW_Simulations, respond to them, as it would be silly for us to revert each other's modifications.

1) Energia was designed to bring payload to a suborbital trajectory, close to orbital velocity. So, if we want to include only those rockets, which by themselves brought payload to orbits, Energia should be excluded from this list.

2) Energia was supposed to be used for payloads which were intended to eventually get to Earth orbits, by their own means. The rocket itself would remain on a suborbit; this is a design decision (e.g., to avoid extra space junk), not the inplementation shortcoming. So, this makes more sense to consider Energia a heavy space launcher and actually include it to this list.

3) Both missions where Energia rocket was the launcher the rocket completed its task successfully. That's why I think there should be listed 2 successful missions.


I would like to be shown, which of these points is incorrect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Avmich (talk • contribs) 22:03, 27 December 2008

    • I agree with points one and two. I have a problem with point three. If we are saying that it was used to place payloads into orbit then we must surely consider the upper stage, or propulsion system used to attain orbit as part of the launch system. Therefore, flight 1 should be considered a failure. Per point 1, in order to consider flight 1 to have been successful, we must consider Energia to be a sub-orbital launch system, which therefore fails the primary inclusion criteria, and I think it would be a pity to exclude one of the heaviest launch systems ever built on a technicality. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Energia is not the full launch system according to this definition and never were - it is that part of launch system, which was intended to bring the payload to near-orbital speed. And the rocket both times performed successfully. The other part, which had to increase the speed to make it orbital, malfunctioned in the first flight. It is important to understand that Energia wasn't intended to bring the payload to full orbit - only to suborbital trajectory, and that part of the mission was done. It's not the rocket's fault that its payload didn't perform as intended.

I agree that mission in the first flight of the Energia wasn't completely successfull, but only partially so. Specifically, launcher (Energia) performed successfully (see, for example, http://www.buran.ru/htm/rocket.htm), but the payload didn't get to orbit because of malfunction of autonomous control system.

Let me bring an analogy, which illustrates what I'm explaining. The Apollo 13 mission wasn't completely successful. However, the Saturn-V rocket used in that mission performed successfully all the operations it was intended to do. It's because Saturn-V is only a part of the system designed to bring men to the Moon. Similarly, Energia is only a part of the system designed to bring a payload to orbit; Energia doesn't do that all by itself. So formally, according to the chosen criteria, Energia isn't the orbital rocket, and Energia flied successfully in both missions.

I definitely agree that it would be a pity to exclude one of the heaviest launch systems ever built on such a technicality. I think the criteria for inclusion should be modified, and should include launchers which were designed to bring payloads to nearly-orbital speed. After all, it was the design decision, which had a reasonable justification. Avmich (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a comparison of systems, not individual rockets, so the upper stage reliability should be a factor. I am concerned about your proposal to modify inclusion criteria - please can you define "nearly-orbital speed". Your analogy to Apollo 13 is flawed in that Apollo 13 failed after launch, whereas in this case the failure occurred during launch. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If we would consider the systems, then we should look differently into Energia-Polus system and Energia-Buran system. These two are different. In both cases Energia rocket, I guess, would be considered only a common part of the system, not system itself. Similarly, we should consider Saturn-V-Skylab system differently from Saturn-V-Apollo systems.

Any analogy is only somewhat similar to the item at hand, otherwise it would be a duplicate, not an analogy. The idea to use analogy as illustration is that you're looking for similarities, not for differences, which always exist.

I see no reason we should consider substantially different upper stages as parts of the same "system". The definition looks random. It's as random as if I would consider Saturn-V failure on the basis of Apollo-13 mission failure - not on the basis of Apollo-13 LEO insertion success.

The question remains - why we should consider the Energia first launch, not the first mission where Energia was used, a failure?Avmich (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This link (http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/launchers/vehicle_energia-l.html) shows the Energia manufacturer considers first Energia launch successful. Avmich (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  • So what? The manufacturer has a vested interest to portray its product as being more reliable. See WP:RS. And please don't make changes to the figure without discussing it here first. --GW… 07:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There are some online references which state 1/2, like Encyclopedia Astronautica, and some, which state 2/2, like Buran.ru . So it's the question which reference to consider; not very helpful.

"Nearly-orbital speed" can be defined as speed, when it's not orbital but close enough, in which case the payload may perform necessary boost itself without significant changes to its mass because of fuel spending. It's used both to increase payload and reduce low orbit pollution.

I still haven't seen your explanation why we should consider both Energia flights as flights of the same system (though the orbital injection was done by different payloads) or, alternatively, why payload performance effects launcher stats. Please don't change article without explanations. Avmich (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it might formally fail the 20 tonnes criterion, but there is your other "stupid technicalities" criterion (see below "Ariane 5 ES" discussion; also note your phrase "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." - be consistent). And by the way you did not comment on my earlier statement about distinction between an upper stage and a payload with its own engine. One of the main differences is that payload has its own independent flight control system. Therefore the Polyus was not an upper stage, but a payload whose failures are irrelevant to the launcher itself. --Gadinaaa (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Please don't take my comments out of context. My argument here is that it is incapable of reaching LEO without additional propulsion, which means it must either be considered a suborbital launch system, or Polyus must be considered part of the launch system. I will accept either definition, as long as the same definition is applied to all columns (ie. if it is deemed capable of reaching LEO thanks to payload/upper stage propulsion, then failures of said components must also be included in the "result", and if it is decided that they should be excluded, then the rocket should not be listed, as it was incapable of delivering the required payload into orbit). In reply to your other comment, quite a few upper stages have their own guidance and control systems, so I don't really understand how this can be used to differentiate between payload and rocket. --GW… 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1. No, I do not believe I took your comments out of context improperly. The 5ES cannot formally meet the "20 tonnes to LEO" criterion, but you kept it due to the "stupid technicalities" criterion. Energia might not formally meet the same "20 tonnes" criterion (because the launcher itself only was delivering its payloads to suborbital trajectory), but what about the "stupid technicalities"? Isn't it selective enforcement?

2. We can spend days and days discussing differences between a stage and a payload, but don't you think that the manufacturer's opinion about how to categorize its own design should be respected? I posted earlier web link to the manufacturer web site (they also claim that Energia can deliver "up to 100 t" to LEO). According to the Wikipedia rules, it is an acceptable source of information, but you seemed to ignore that.--Gadinaaa (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  • BTW, you added postfactum "or at least 9 tonnes to GTO", now, Energia qualifies even without "20 tonnes to LEO", because in the next column the table states for Energia: "20 tonnes to GTO"--Gadinaaa (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I will try to address your points.
  1. It is not selective enforcement, the circumstances are completely different for the two rockets, and I'm not "enforcing" anything, anyway.
  2. Could you please point me to the "Wikipedia rules" which state that first-party sources are better than third-party ones? See WP:RS.
  3. 20 tonnes to GTO is, of course, with an upper stage or self propelled payload.
Perhaps a compromise would be to list "Energia-Polyus" and "Energia-Buran" as separate entries, seeing as they used different propulsion systems to reach LEO. --GW… 23:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I disagree that the circumstances are different enough to justify different decision, but it seems to be just two different subjective opinions on same set of conditions. It looks like if we decide to achieve agreement on #1 we might need mediation.

2. Citation from WP:NOR: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.". Therefore, I am discussing it here. My point is: there is a statement in primary (first-party) source that does not need interpretation. If another statement in a secondary (third-party) source contradicts it, the first-party source should take precedence.

3. I am open to discuss whether "Energia-Buran" should be a separate entry because it could be used to deliver payload, but I do not agree with "Energia-Polyus" to be categorized as a separate launch vehicle. I would say, "Energia" and "Energia-Buran".--Gadinaaa (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • 1) We could argue this point to death, but it wouldn't change anything. I feel the issues are different, so I am taking different positions on the two issues. My opinions on other issues are irrelevant here, and cannot be used to imply a position. 2) A primary source would have a vested interest to portray their products as being as reliable as they can, so they will present the figures as favourably as possible from their perspective. Third party sources are not biased. --GW… 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Please do not switch subject about the primary source. I do not believe you do not understand what I mean. At this point, I am discussing not a question of how the primary source portrays its reliability, but the questions a) whether the statement "up to 100 t to LEO" in the primary source should be respected and b) whether "Polyus" (that was not designed to deliver generic payloads because it was a payload itself) should be considered a part of launcher. At this point, I start to believe that your ego does not allow you to accept corrections from others, therefore further discussion is pointless. Do you mind against mediation?--Gadinaaa (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I am happy to discuss the issue as long as you refrain from ad hominem arguments. I do not believe that you understand my argument, that regardless of whether the engine used for orbital insertion was part of the payload or rocket, it should be considered part of the "launch system". I have nothing against using a primary source for the payload capacity as long as that source clearly specifies whether an upper stage is used or not. --GW… 11:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I never use ad hominem. If you mean the above statement about ego, it was not the ad hominem because it was a reply not to "an argument or factual claim", but to the phrase "We could argue this point to death, but it wouldn't change anything. I feel the issues are different" that is neither an argument nor a factual claim. If one has just feeling I am afraid it might be not enough here without elaboration. If we come to the point when we have different "feelings" about same set of facts/conditions then (according to the Wikipedia policy) it is time to escalate the discussion to the mediation stage. OK, let's try one more time. I assume that we are on the same side of the Truth and are trying to find together the optimal way to present data rather than an excuse to dismiss each others arguments. Because you originated the page and I am trying to introduce correction, let me present my position step by step. And I suggest that you comment after each step so that we can pinpoint disagreement early without running in circles. Does it sound like a plan for you?--Gadinaaa (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. --GW… 19:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I. What is the point of rating the "launchers" (vehicles, systems or whatever so far) by their GTO capacity while the GTO itself has no intrinsic value? To highlight set of "launchers" intended to facilitate GSO "payload" delivery, but to exclude from the equation "payload" contribution, because GSO satellites often provide the GSO insertion by means of their own engine. (Here, I quote the words "launcher" and "payload" because I do not yet draw the border between them.) Agreed/Not_agreed/Need_elaboration? --Gadinaaa (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • GTO is, along with LEO, one of the two orbital regimes to which the vast majority of payloads is delivered. The "payload contribution" is usually to raise the orbit from GTO to GSO, but this table lists GTO rather than GSO, so the spacecraft raising itself to GSO is not relevant. --GW… 07:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Please, do not run in front of the horse. I didn't draw the border between "launcher" and "payload" yet. Therefore at step I, we shouldn't say what exactly the "payload contribution" is. Remember, that we agreed to look for "the optimal way to present data". However, your response implies that "this table" is already optimal. If you stay on this position, then I do not see a point to continue. Now please, either reiterate your response to the step I. (agreed/not_agreed/need_elaboration) or confirm your position in your most recent response. Also please, If you decide to continue then respond more specifically e.g. "I agree" or "I disagree with ... because ...", because if i misinterpret your response (and possibly miss the point of disagreement) we will be running in circles (and I assume that we both want to avoid that).--Gadinaaa (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I do not fully understand what you are suggesting. --GW… 23:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Dogmatic following a paradigm can stretch it to a point when the paradigm gets in conflict with the foundation idea the paradigm is based on. I believe that the way you use the LEO delivery criterion conflicts with the idea behind the LEO rating. In order to demonstrate limitations of a paradigm, one needs to step beyond it. Therefore, I suggested above that I present my logic step by step and you agree or disagree with each statement in the logical chain, so we can identify where exactly we disagree and focus on that issue.--Gadinaaa (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • So what alternative are you proposing? --GW… 07:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I propose 1) To exclude "Polyus" from "Energia" system (that is currently implied to be part of it during its first launch); 2) To apply the "stupid technicality" criterion to include the "Energia" per se into the set of the "Heavy Lift Launch Systems"; 3) In case of objections to the clauses #1 or #2, I propose to review their justification starting from the step I. that is presented above. --Gadinaaa (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just slightly off-topic: there is a book by Steven Isakowitz, et al., named "International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems". It's currently in its 4th edition and usually used as a reference for topics like this. The 2nd edition of the book, published in 1991, includes Energia launcher (Energia was dropped from later editions as retired). Here - http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/facts/faq13.html - is a quote, from that book (that's not entirely clear from the page itself, but check the book), which lists Energia's reliability as 2/2 . This can possibly be explained as different definition of "success", but then we come back to a question of a good definition - whether should we use definition sufficiently different than there. Avmich (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is another reference: http://www.klabs.org/DEI/Processor/shuttle/birdsfinalcomplete4.pdf "Eventually, after seven more years, the first Energiya launch took place on May 15, 1987. The Energiya launch vehicle carried a Polyus cargo container, not the Buran orbiter, as the payload. The cargo container inadvertently fell into the Pacific Ocean, but the Energiya launch itself was successful.74" 74 See, for example, Marcia S. Smith, Space Activities of the United States, CIS, and Other Launching Countries/Organizations: 1957-1994 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, July 31, 1995), p. 119. Avmich (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The first Energia flight was not a failure of Energia: the payload (Polyus) deorbited itself due to a faulty attitude control system. Energia had completed its mission, and delivered Polyus to the intended point in space with the intended velocity then successfully detached from it. Everything the launchers of Energia wanted it to do on that flight, it did. To consider this a failure is quite bizzare. Also, to consider this beast of a rocket 'incapable of orbit' is plain ridiculous; it placed the Buran shuttle in orbit on its second flight, and Buran itself had no engines (aside from OMS).

To be frank, the consensus seems here to be favouring reporting Energia itself has having a perfect, 2/2 launch record; this is what every single source I have read on the matter states. GrampaScience (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your allies in this matter haven't been around in a while, and also the fact that reputable sources give 2/2 rather than 1/2. You have also (quite incorrectly) stated that the Energia stack cannot reach orbit, when it clearly can and did in 1988 when it put Buran (which lacks its own main engines) into a stable orbit. Unless the people you claim to have formed a consensus with return I see no reason why your version should be on the page. GrampaScience (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Failure to contribute for a while does not mean that comments should be ignored, I'm sorry but there is no consensus. Please stop changing this until we can agree on the result here. You cannot also unilaterally dismiss comments that you see as incorrect. Buran did have manoeuvring engines, and my understanding is that it raised itself into LEO by means of these, in much the same way the Shuttle does after ET separation. If the Energia entered orbit with Buran then it would have been tracked, but it wasn't so it didn't. I am not claiming to have formed a consensus, I am just stating that there isn't one, so it shouldn't be changed. If you change it again without first discussing it here, and allowing discussion to come to a real consensus (not one of your fictitious ones), I will view it as vandalism. --GW… 06:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


GW, I am still waiting for your response on my comment made on 13 March 2009. Your way of dropping discussion with me contradicts to your statement on 9 March 2009 "I am happy to discuss the issue". I propose either to proceed with the discussion as we earlier agreed or to initiate mediation. Which one do you prefer? Gadinaaa (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I felt that comment had already been adequately addressed by earlier discussion, and later contributions by other editors. Since a compromise solution is now in place and there have been no other comments regarding this since its implementation, I fail to see the need to mediation, unless you are just trying to make a point. --GW/P… 15:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I disagree with "your feeling" that "comment had already been adequately addressed"; 2. A "compromise" not accepted by all parties cannot be considered a compromise. 3. The point that I am trying make (and that you failed to discuss so far) is that the way you apply the definition of the "launch system" to Energia contradicts common sense. 4. This is the second time you drop the discussion with me. Together with your discussion style it makes me suspecting you in Wikilawyering. 5. A year of running in circles without achieving an agreement is a valid reason in initiating mediation . Gadinaaa (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that the number in question is no longer displayed on the page if you do initiate mediation you will do nothing but look silly. --GW/P… 07:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently, I am questioning the underlying principle while the number (though being the nucleation point of the "discussion") was rather a consequence. However, I came to the conclusion that further discussion makes no sense and the issue should be escalated to mediation/arbitration stages. However, if I am the only one out of the active opponents contributing to this exchange, then I consider the issue to be gone. What others are thinking? Do you agree with the current status or this issue should be escalated? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadinaaa (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 September 2009

Arbitrary Section Break #2

Is there any scope to find a compromise solution to this? --GW… 07:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see a single person pushing a fringe viewpoint, whose only managed to get their view represented on the page through being more willing to engage in a revert war than anyone else. Myself, Avmich and Gadinaaa agree with external reputable sources that the Energia stack worked as intended both times it was launched. You are reverting against this clear consensus, for reasons I am too new to this page to figure out.

You are arrogant enough to think that your version is the one that should remain (despite you being the only person pushing it) until this is resolved, and that anybody changing it in line with the consensus is vandalism. This attitude is not helpful for an encyclopedia.

I don't care what your motivation is. You are wrong, the consensus is against you, the sources say you are wrong. The compromise is for you to give it up and move along. GrampaScience (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I see three against three. That is not a consensus. I am not the only person supporting it, and I am simply keeping the text in question as it was until a consensus emerges, if it ever does. Your edits to the article have by this definition been disruptive. You seem to be quite an inexperienced editor, so I suggest that you refrain from enforcing Wikipedia policies until you develop a better understanding of them. --GW/P… 10:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, how about just removing the column. It doesn't really add much to the article, and it would eliminate this entire dispute. --GW… 14:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I too oppose using "2/2" as a summary of the launch record for this vehicle. No pair of numbers can completely express the launch record of this (or most) launch systems -- there are always details! In this case I suggest having no numeric value in the column at all; just a link to a footnote that explains the launch record using complete English sentences! (sdsds - talk) 15:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, my-- this discussion again. OK, I'll weigh in.
The first flight of Energia failed. There really shouldn't be any room for discussion here, except that it was a military payload, the Soviet Union didn't acknowledge it, and they claimed a "successful" suborbital flight, rather than an unsuccessful orbital flight. Logically, then, the record is either 1/1 (one flight to orbit, one success, with the first flight a suborbital test) or else 1/2 (two attempts to reach orbit, one success.) But it cannot possibly be 2/2-- either 1/1 or 1/2.
By these criteria, then, the shuttle record has to be listed as 124 launches, one failure. I noticed that this was discussed above as well, with the conclusion that, as a launch vehicle, the record is 123/124, but the correct number apparently got deleted. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Explain to me, please, at what point in the Polyus mission Energia failed in any way. Your 'logic' is anything but. GrampaScience (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a simple yes/no question: was the first Energia launch intended to reach orbit? If the answer is "yes," then it failed, and the success record is 1/2. If the answer is "no," then it wasn't intended to reach orbit, and can't count toward the success record, which then is 1/1. But in neither case is the success record 2/2.
As it happens, the answer is "yes," and it failed. You can, if you like, then go into exactly what part failed. For example, the recent Taurus launch failed because the payload shroud failed to separate. That was a failure on the shroud, not the rocket. But it still can't be counted as a success. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I see you've not answered my question: At what point did Energia fail? What component of it didn't work as intended? What time in the mission did this failure happen. And no, Polyus is not part of Energia. Writing 1/2 is plain dishonest. GrampaScience (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
And by the same logic saying that the Energia can inject a payload into LEO is also "plain dishonest". --GW… 11:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Since it didn't succeed, you can't call it a success. The question of why it didn't succeed, and what part failed, is a good question for technical discussion, but it doesn't affect the final result. Did it succeed in launching its payload to orbit? No. Since it did not succeed, it's not a success. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • In order for it to have reached orbit, the payload was required to perform the final phase of the ascent. Therefore, if this is considered part of the "launch system" then the result of that flight of the launch system was a failure as it did not reach orbit. If it is not considered part of the "launch system" then the LEO payload is zero, so it does not qualify for inclusion. --GW… 21:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Wrong again. In order to read the intended orbit of Polyus, the payload had to use its own engines. You do not know that it wasn't already inserted into orbit when the guidance system malfunctioned and slowed it down, deorbiting it.
But you've already decided Russian technology is shoddy and inferior, and no silly 'facts' are going to get in the way of your rationalisations of this opinion. GrampaScience (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The proof that it hadn't already been inserted into orbit is that if it had been inserted into orbit, the core of the Energia would have been tracked as orbital, but it was not, so it did not reach orbit. Your synthesis about my opinions of Russian technology is grossly inaccurate and a blatant ad hominem argument. For the record, I do not have any bias against Russian technology, and I even acknowledge that at least in this area it is greatly superior to my own country's. I should also note that a number of similar incidents on US rockets are also listed as failures. --GW… 11:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
If Energia followed a flight plan similar to the US shuttle (difficult to say, but quite likely) then the core would've been deliberately deorbited. Recall that there were suggestions early in the Shuttle programme to use empty external tanks as structural components for a space station seeing as they would without intervention reach orbital velocity along with the orbiter.
Polyus cannot be considered to be an upper stage for Energia, it was clearly a payload. Consider that Polyus had a lower mass than the Buran orbiter, which even you concede made it to orbit without any significant amount of its own thrust - it is highly unlikely that before it started decelerating itself Polyus was not in *an* orbit. Therefore you've made an extraordinary claim (that a system shown orbiting a 105t payload for some reason didn't accelerate a 80t payload to orbital velocity) without providing extraordinary proof.
Upper stage failures of heavy lift systems are not comparable because the upper stages had not already been accelerated to orbital velocity. The Polyus mission was a failure because of attitude control, not because of a problem with the launcher. GrampaScience (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
In calculating success record, it's irrelevant why it did not succeed. Did it succeed? No. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Point out what point in the missions Energia failed, or stop editing.GrampaScience (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That is a straw man and you know it. --GW… 17:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Energia flew both times suborbital, releasing payload at speed somewhat short of orbital. Polyus had to use its own engines to reach orbit, and that part failed because of faulty guidance system. Buran had to use its own engines to reach orbit as well (see http://buran.ru/htm/flight.htm , left from the first video), and succeeded. In both launches the second stage of Energia didn't reach orbit.

The question here is interpretation. If one considers "flight of the rocket" as "flight when something reaches orbit", then the record should be 1/2. If one considers "flight" as "process from liftoff to release of payload with planned height/speed", then the record should be 2/2. These are main, but certainly not the only possible criteria; for example, one may consider "flight success" as "mission success", from liftoff to landing or to completion of tasks in space. Or one may require that rocket should release payload on orbit - in which case Energia, strictly speaking, doesn't qualify, as it was designed and flew with bringing payload on suborbital trajectory. Or we may talk about two different systems, Energia-Polyus and Energia-Buran.

Now the question is what criteria is more suitable for encyclopedia. I think it's important to differentiate between the mission and the rocket launch, as we're discussing rockets here, not their missions. Then we must admit that both times it flew Energia rocket performed what it had to successfully. Even though it may seem hairsplitting to casual observer, this means that the record is 2/2 for the rocket, as the rocket was used with the same results with different payloads, both faulty (no orbital speed achieved) and workable (orbital speed achieved).

Other interpretations are too imprecise. Does it make sense to talk about two different systems (Polyus and Buran)? No, the rocket is essentially the same, and we don't, for example, differentiate between different Protons. Does it make sense to consider whole missions (till landing or completion of the mission in space) instead of launch? No, the missions aren't the rocket only business, and, for example, Apollo-13 failure shouldn't mean Saturn-V failure in that launch. Should one require that something reaches orbit? No, as sometimes rockets don't work up to orbit (Energia), and sometimes they work more that to orbit (Saturn-V).

It's almost always the case that rocket releases the payload after the last rocket stage is used; sometimes that payload includes more rocket stages, but they are usually not included into what is considered the rocket. So release of payload is a convenient point when rocket task should be considered done, successfully or not, as almost all successful rocket flights include that operation. One may only check if the position and speed of payload are as planned at that moment.

This interpretation seem to correlate to most third-party sources. Once again, http://buran.ru/htm/rocket.htm - "rocket completed the work normally, by putting Polyus on to intermediate trajectory, but the apparatus itself didn't come to the precalculated orbit of satellite due to malfunction of autonomous guidance system after separation from second stage of Energia rocket" (my translation). http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/facts/faq13.html - "Most of the following data comes from _International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems_ by Steven J. Isakowitz, 1991 edition." Energia reliability is quoted as 2/2 in the table. http://www.klabs.org/DEI/Processor/shuttle/birdsfinalcomplete4.pdf , page 21: "The cargo container inadvertently fell into the Pacific Ocean, but the Energiya launch itself was successful.74" Reference 74: See, for example, Marcia S. Smith, Space Activities of the United States, CIS, and Other Launching Countries/Organizations: 1957-1994 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, July 31, 1995), p. 119. These are all third party references, both online and offline. I don't know any online source, except Encyclopedia Astronautica, which lists first flight of Energia as rocket's failure. Avmich (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  • "If one considers "flight" as "process from liftoff to release of payload with planned height/speed"...This means that the LEO payload capacity of said flight would be zero, and hence said flight would not qualify for inclusion. --GW… 07:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It's basically a historical problem. Because the Soviets were unable to admit that the first Energia flight carried a payload (because they were maintaining a fiction that the USSR was not engaged in missile-defense work, and that they were not interested in deploying weapons into space), they instead created a fiction that the Energia launch was a successful suborbital test, not an unsuccessful orbital launch of a weapons platform. This fiction has propagated down since then. It is technically true that it was a successful suborbital launch, but nevertheless, the flight was a failure. You can quibble about which part failed, but nevertheless, it failed. Did it put a payload into orbit? No.
The alternative would be, as GW suggests, to simply state that Energia is not an orbital launcher at all, since it is not intended to put a payload into orbit, but onto a suborbital trajectory. In that case Energia should be deleted from this list entirely. That would be absurd, of course, but it would follow from your logic. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"This means that the LEO payload capacity of said flight would be zero" - careful here, we're discussing rocket launches, not missions. One can talk about LEO payload capacity of a rocket launch (Energia doesn't carry anything to orbit by design), or LEO payload capacity of a mission, and these aren't the same things.

"It's basically a historical problem... It is technically true that it was a successful suborbital launch, but nevertheless, the flight was a failure." - we now know it was an unsuccessful orbital attempt, so I don't see a historical problem here now. Problem is in interchanging the whole flight with rocket launch.

"You can quibble about which part failed, but nevertheless, it failed." - which part is failed is important for proper attribution of the problem. Would you say that Saturn-V failed in the Apollo-13 mission? Remember the Saturn-V task was more than to launch the payload to LEO. Similarly, here payload problems shouldn't affect launcher record.

"Did it put a payload into orbit? No." - that's irrelevant to rocket performance for rockets, designed to release payloads before reaching orbit.

"The alternative would be... to simply state that Energia is not an orbital launcher at all... In that case Energia should be deleted from this list entirely. That would be absurd, of course, but it would follow from your logic." - formally, that is correct, Energia is a suborbital rocket, payload should reach orbit by itself. I completely agree that such an omission wouldn't be the best choice. But it doesn't mean that the rocket, not the mission, record for Energia should list first flight as failure, as rocket performed successfully both times. Avmich (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I should note that on several Atlas-OV1, Atlas-Agena, Thor-Agena and Titan-Agena launches (not Ascent Agena), what you would describe as the "payload" failed to reach orbit despite successful performance of what you would describe as the "rocket". All of these are considered outright launch failures (except one of the Atlas-OV1 launches which was carrying multiple payloads, which is considered a partial failure). The OV1 and Agena were listed as part of the rocket despite being part of the payload. I suggest that we handle this in the same way, by listing two separate entries of "Energia-Polyus" and "Energia-Buran", and including the launch phase performance of both the Energia and the [Payload/Upper Stage] in the reliability figures. Other entries should be split in the same way (by upper stage, I don't think the others had payloads that contributed to ascent).
  • You claim that "[reaching orbit is] irrelevant to rocket performance for rockets, designed to release payloads before reaching orbit...[that] should reach orbit by itself" By that logic we should include Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 as a heavy-lift launch system as it is "designed to release payloads before reaching orbit" (namely Space Shuttles), which then reach orbit by themselves (by launching). --GW… 15:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"on several... launches... "payload" failed to reach orbit despite successful performance of... "rocket". All of these are considered outright launch failures" - encyclopedia should consider them successful rocket launches, if rocket launches, not missions, are considered.

"By that logic we should include Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 as a heavy-lift launch system" - but it doesn't have the lift-off event, so it doesn't qualify for the basic definition of rocket.

Here is another criteria, which seems rather good to me. Do you need to change something in the rocket after a launch to prevent previous failures? If you do, there was a rocket failure; if you don't, there wasn't. The "need to change" is a requirement to avoid failure, not an overall desire to improve a rocket, which might flew well but could fly even better. With Energia, they've changed the guidance program which resulted in a big, but within predetermined limits "nod" of the rocket with Polyus shortly after lift-off. But they could leave everything as it was, since Energia rocket flew successfully. For Buran it would only mean a similar "nod" during lift-off, which still was a normal trajectory. Avmich (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • There have been a number of indisputable failures that have not resulted in changes being made (for example a large number of old Proton and R-7 launches, FLTSATCOM-6), and changes have been made to avoid problems which should have caused failures but did not (eg. ICO G-1, STS-93), so that definition would not work. --GW… 19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So what's with the references provided? Avmich (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we use a reference as a basis for launcher record or use our own reasoning to get numbers? To claim that particular reference is faulty because not enough information was available seems rather arbitrary approach, and calculate numbers by editors may be OR. Avmich (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

--Dbooker (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC) I think what is meant is that the entire orbiter weight be listed as the weight to low earth orbit. You are ignoring the fact that the shuttle orbiter is actually launched to orbit. If you followed the same standard for say the ARES 1, then the payload would only be the weight of the 4 astronauts, not including the weight of the Orion capsule and service module.

Since nothing can be launched into orbit using the space shuttle without the orbiter (it requires the SSMEs and OMS engines), the payload should only include the cargo that can be carried in the payload bay. --Nat682 (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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)
I am nitpicking because the casual reader, reading this article, will think that Ariane 5 ECA - in its current version - can launch 20 tons to LEO. This is simply not true. It is a specialized GTO launcher. I aim at factual accuracy and listing Ariane 5 ECA as a 20 ton to LEO launcher is factually incorrect. Hektor (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't list a payload capacity that it couldn't possibly lift, but until this list can accommodate rockets that have heavy-lift capacity to GTO but not LEO, then it should continue to be listed so the rocket is not removed from the list. --GW… 10:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
My opinion would be : let's list the Ariane 5 ECA rocket, it is indeed a heavy launcher, but let's blank the table box were the LEO performance of 21000 kg is indicated for ECA, because it is simply not true. And keep the GTO performance figure. Hektor (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is stupid technicalities. The simplest solution is to just make single listing for Ariane 5, with the footnote clarifying that ES-ATV is the LEO heavy-lift variant, and ECA the GTO version. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If we can get a reliable source that isn't from a discussion board, then by all means include it. Until then, I'm not sure... -MBK004 22:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
pdf located on nasa.gov author: Phil Sumrall, Advanced Planning Manager, Ares Projects Office Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA hope qualify as reliable source. But IMO Ares I should be included no matter is there source or not... TestPilottalk to me! 12:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Should Ares now be marked as 'cancelled' or is it too soon yet? Aryah (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Space Agency" column

The "Space Agency" column is starting to get silly, and I feel that it was better off as a "country" column, as the flaws with that approach were not as serious as the flaws which this approach has introduced. NASA has nothing to do with the Delta IV and Titan IV and Falcon 9 rockets, other than they have launched/plan to launch spacecraft on them. The field seems to be becoming a place to put the national space agency of the country where the rocket was manufactured, regardless of relevance, and it would seem to make more sense to replace this with just the country itself. I suggest that we list Europe even though it is not a country, as the country of origin for the Ariane 5 to avoid confusion. Two other possibilities would be to remove the column, or replace it with LSPs, but I would prefer to list countries. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Any of those three options seem OK (and any would be better than the status quo), but the best choice would be to remove the column, unless someone can make a coherent claim for why anything like this should be included. That is, "Why would this ever be a consideration when comparing the vehicles?" The column space would be much better utilized with, for example, a "Date of first launch" column. (sdsds - talk) 15:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree, "Country of origin" will be better. As per NASA - they indirectly or directly sponsoring development of Falcon 9(COTS)/Delta IV etc... But design of launch system itself do not belong to agency. TestPilottalk to me! 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Why's the "country of origin" for Ariane 5 listed as the European Union? The EU has nothing to do with Ariane 5. (ESA does, but ESA isn't the EU.) Maybe EU should be changed to "Europe"? But then that isn't exactly a country, is it? It's too bad reality doesn't fit into neat pidgeon-holes! (Imagine if we didn't need this column at all! ;-) (sdsds - talk) 20:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Would "nationality" be better than "country of origin"? Still not perfect, but maybe not as bad? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"Origin"? "Made in"? "Designed in"? "Designed and produced in"? ESL here, so my English somewhat poor. I change for Origin for now but feel free to fix it. TestPilottalk to me! 23:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
A vague term like "origin" may be the only thing flexible enough to serve the apparent purpose of that column header for all of the launch vehicles. We should probably leave it as "origin".Zebulin (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not yet proven capabilities -> listed in italics

Hi,

I felt the need to differentiate between the systems that have actually proved their capability and the one that didn't (yet). Therefore, I was so bold to list the later systems (that did not prove their capability by an actual launch (yet), i.e. status in development or scraped) in italics.

Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Indian Rocket?

That Indian Rocket (Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mk III) shouldn't even by on this page, as it quite obviously doesn't meet the requirements stated at the top of the article ("20,000 kg to low Earth orbit", it only does 10,000 kg). It is therefore not a heavy lift launch system and shouldn’t be on this page, but in the Comparison of medium lift launch systems article instead. I don't really have the time right now to do this, (and to fix up that article, 'cause a lot of the entries are blank) so if someone could please do this, thanks. --Hibernian (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Tried to make a change, and then there is a joker that tried to revert my change and added GSLV III back, except that he/she just doubled the capacity from 10 tonnes to 20 tonnes LEO and 4.4 to 8.4 tonnes GTO......although his own reference states that the capacity is 4 tons for GTO - nothing provided for LEO. Heilme (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that this issue is starting to turn into a small-scale revert war across several pages. Please can we try to calm down and discuss the issue before any further edits are made. --GW… 17:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess there's ultimately 2 issues: a) the actual payload capacity of GSLV III (which is cited in the article), and b) if there's a need to separate rockets into multiple weight classes according to minimum payload critetia which may not be universally accepted. -- Heilme (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Are these rockets classification of GSLV III? If not, launch capability of GSLV III's variant(GSLV IV?) was estimated to be 6 tons (GTO) / 15 tons (LEO) in File:ISRO rockets.JPG or some websites (for example).--Gwano (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I looked at File:Indian_rockets.jpg and it's written there "MSLV" instead of "GSLV"? Is it typo or entirely different class of rockets? In any case, the payload capacity for GSLV III, published online, is 10 ton LEO and 4.4 ton GTO. GSLV IV (w/ 2 additional strap-ons I think) will have approximately 50% more capacity so ditto 15t/6t LEO/GTO capacity. I don't know however, if the GSLV IV is at this point in time in development or more like an idea emanating from the success of GSLV III. -Heilme (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It has been over a year and a "Disputed" tag dated March 2009 is still a banner at the top of the article: {{Disputed}}.
IS ANY DISPUTE REMAINING? If not, let's remove the disputed tag. N2e (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Notation for launch records

I propose this article adopt a notation for launch records of the form "x[+y]/z". The square brackets indicate the +y term is optional. Examples:

  • For a system with a perfect six flight record: "6/6"
  • For a system with two successes on three flights: "2/3"
  • For a system with two clear successes, one "partial or questionable" success and one failure: "2+1/4"

We would agree that every time the "partial or questionable" format is used a footnote would explain the details in complete sentences. (sdsds - talk) 16:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your way of phrasing success rate would be intelligible (I would read "2+1/4" as "two, plus one quarter"), but footnoting the records with questionable parts sounds like a good idea. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not opposed to "6 out of 6" or "2 + 1 out of 4". In fact I would support any change moving this column away from having purely numerical values. (sdsds - talk) 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • How about three separate columns; "Launches", "Core Vehicle Failures" and "Other Failures" (titles could be changed), with mandatory notes explaining the launch records, especially the "Other Failures" column. --GW… 22:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to try again to put in the data as footnotes. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems/Archive_1&oldid=1146435821"