Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Let's break the table into four sections

Based on comments in the above sections, may I suggest we have four sections:

  • Orbital Launches by Launcher Family
  • Active Launch Vehicles (even if they have not had a launch yet, but are available for launch)
  • In Development (are not yet available for launch)
  • Retired (officially retired from service)

Most of launchers now in the list would be in the Retired Section.

What does everyone think? user:mnw2000 21:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be a large improvement. As a minor improvement to this proposal, the number of launches could be marked as '126 (12, 50, 30, 34)', in the same order as the variants. This is relevant as for example, although Ariane 5 is in the Ariane family, it is also a completely redesigned launcher, for example.CyrilleDunant (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

To see what this article would look like with four sections as proposed, I created a markup site at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mnw2000/test. Let me know what you think. user:mnw2000 03:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. It makes merging the Delta and Atlas launchers not quite as necessary, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I am inclined to support putting a table in for families, but I still feel that splitting the main table makes the article harder to navigate, and defeats the object of making it sortable. I also really don't like the idea of listing successes, failures and partial failures in this article. As I have said before, these are open to interpretation, and will do nothing but cause heated discussions and controversy. You have proven this point yourself by using the new table to stealthily introduce your preferred versions of the Energia and STS success rates. --GW… 06:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The numbers of Energia and STS success rates look correct to me, since we are describing _launch_ systems. Energia launched two payloads, one of which orbited and returned, the other of which (Polyus) failed - but the Energia part of the launch system succeeded. The STS shows only one launch failure, which is correct - the other failure was in re-entry, not part of the launch system (would you say there was a failure of Saturn V, because Apollo XIII's command module blew up? I wouldn't). A summary table is not a place for every possible detail, it's for a representative summary, where finicky details are relegated to footnotes if anywhere. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Q.E.D. --GW… 07:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Classification source found and merge reversed. See Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems#Merger reversal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.87.244.157 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Boundaries between Small/Medium/Heavy/Super-heavy lift

There is a source mentioned above, in the Talk page subsection entitled "Merger reversal", that offers the following source (NASA Space Technology Roadmaps - Launch Propulsion Systems, p.11) with a set of mass boundaries for the four classifications: Small 0-2t; Medium 2-20t; Heavy 20-50t; Super Heavy >50t. I have no problem with the source (which I have not yet read), and I start with the presumption that it is a reliable source. Moreover, kudos to the IP editor at 95.87.244.157, who found the source and brought it to our attention. A number of us have been looking for such sources for some time.

Having said that, I would think that source might make for a wonderful citation for some article that discusses (in prose) the nature of orbital launch systems in general. Beyond that, it might be useful as a source for one definition of "heavy lift" (e.g., in Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle), or it may be relevant in List of orbital launch systems or #Category:Expendable launch systems, etc.

But since this particular article is about a Comparison of orbital launch systems, and since the boundaries are apparently not fixed by any sort of international de jure standard, nor even by any sort of de facto usage, I think it is premature to utilize those boundaries, per the one NASA source we now have, to re-split the article into five, or four, (or three, or two) articles. As it stands now, this article allows a comparison of all notable orbital launch systems, regardless of what side of any particular dividing line they fall on. If we were to (re)split the article, then it will be more difficult to compare any launch system that falls, say, two percent less than the (abstract, and somewhat arbitrary) dividing line with one that is two percent over the line.

Also, as noted in the discussion in the "merger reversal" section, these terms have been used by many space commentators and space agencies in many reports over the decades. It would therefore, in my opinion, require a specific proposal on the single topic of descriptors for types of lift (based on payload mass) before Wikipedia should reify these terms in our encyclopedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that for launchers that are "near" the 2/20/50 border it would be useful to be compared with both up/down categories. But there is no use comparing Vega to Proton. Also a combined article doesn't allow for some other comparisons such as the examples I gave above.
About the dejure/defacto usage. Looking how long it took to find the NASA source I don't expect that we will suddenly get sources for what classification other users (and NASA is one of the most notable users) utilize. Also, I don't think that there is a "international dejure standard". So, in any case - the article(s) should reflect the classification (I prefer separate articles as in the status quo, but if a really merged article with table split of retired/canceled + active/available + development is made, then coloring can be utilized for small/medium/heavy/super-heavy; other solutions are also possible). Jeffsapko (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A more manageable table!

The tablet is now just too unusable. Here are the launcher "families", I suggest we list with (not every configuration). Here is suggestion on how to group the current list of launchers. (Especially where the only different would be strap on boosters). Note that all these "launchers" have their own articles on Wikipedia.

Angara, Ariane 2, Ariane 3, Ariane 4, Ariane 5, Atlas G, Atlas H, Atlas I, Atlas II, Atlas III, Atlas V, |Titan III, Delta 0100, Delta 1000, Delta 2000, Delta 3000, Delta 4000, Delta 5000, Delta II, Delta III, Delta IV, Dnepr-1, Energia, Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, GSLV Mk.III, H-II, H-IIA , H-IIB, H-II, Long March 3B, Long March 5, N1, Proton, PSLV, Rus-M, Saturn IB, Saturn V, Space Launch System, Space Shuttle, Taurus II, Titan IIIC, Titan IIID, Titan IIIE, Titan 34D, Titan IV, Zenit-2

Some may suggest we go further to summarize the table such as grouping all Titan launchers into one "family" listing. This may work for retired and in development launch families like the Titan and Angara, but for launchers that are currently active in some form such as Ariane, Atlas, Delta, and Falcon to name a few, we should keep the family broken as suggested. Of course, this list is not exhaustive since it is missing some major launchers such as Soyuz, Thor, etc. However, it is a start.

What does everyone think? user:mnw2000 15:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to hear a good description of what makes the table "unmanageable", besides opinion. Could folks list specifics? I find a unified sortable table, with launch variants divided by capability to be perfectly usable. Lumping families together makes sorting by capability impossible unless you add sortable columns for both minimum and maximum launch capability. This is especially problematic in modern times, when each system can have half a dozen booster and upper stage configurations for different missions (i.e. Altas V).
Family designation is also problematic: is the Naro KSLV an Angara variant because its first stage is Russian? Is the Minotaur a Pegasus variant because some of its stages have Pegasus heritage? Delta II seems to be in the Delta family, but it mostly has Thor heritage and is very different from the Delta IV.
Maybe it would be a good idea to start from first principles: who is the audience of the table and what information should be easily conveyed to them? I get the impression that GW_Simulations weights historical use most highly, whereas many of the people complaining about the merge care more about current and future systems. --IanOsgood (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Good points. I guess it does depend on what field you would prefer to sort on. Right now, sorting on the number of launches is virtually useless with so many different configurations listed. For example, It would be more informative to say that there were, for example, 98 launches of the Atlas V. We could compare that so say, 112 launches of the Delta IV. That is more useful than to compare 2 launches of one configuration, to 3 launches of another.
A more important question is what defines a launcher? Is the Atlas V with 5 strap on boosters a different launcher than the Altas V with 2? Maybe we can agree to merge all launches for a launcher that only differs in the number of strap on boosters. (We could keep the -Heavy versions separate as well.)
Maybe that is why we should use multiple tables - one that would list all configurations, one that would list a summary list. user:mnw2000 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
user:mnw2000 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I would have an issue with setting a criteria based on number of boosters and then exempting "heavy" configurations. I think that it would leave a significant grey area of where to draw the line between larger boosters and a heavy configuration. That said, I agree with your point about numbers of launches. How about moving this to comparison of orbital launch system configurations, and leaving it in the current format (containing all configurations of all launch systems), and then creating a new article at the current title to cover wider groups, if a consensus can be reached on a non-arbitrary way to define them. --GW… 23:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
While I dont normally approve of duplication I think concensus is leading us towards two different formats with the difference in presentation and 'the story' I guess, people want different things from the page and one design isnt going to satisfy everyone. My experience however tells me that often different wiki pages on the same or similar subject will evolve in different directions over time to meet the needs of both the maintainers and the readers. WatcherZero (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not opposed to having a combined list (we already do have similar at List of orbital launch systems), but I'm opposed to the non-consensus merging of the "class" articles - small/medium/heavy/super-heavy (see here). Jeffsapko (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I propose that we keep both - the status quo separate small/medium/heavy/super-heavy and the new "Comparison of orbital launch systems" - where the proposal above can be implemented. Jeffsapko (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the past four years have proven that the categories did not work. They were abolished after a valid merger discussion, and I'm sorry if you can't accept that, but I would appreciate it if you would stop disrupting further discussions here because of your personal lack of experience with Wikipedia policies and inability to accept the outcome a discussion that you didn't get a chance to participate in. I see no advantage to splitting back to that system, and it would defeat the object of making a complete list for comparison and sorting if that list were to be split. The tables are sortable, so why can't that be used to allow users to find launch systems of a given capacity? --GW… 07:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that the categories "did not work". And the "valid merger discussion" primary reason for "let's merge" decision is the lack of source for the 2/20/50 classification. A few days later such source was found, so there is no reason to proceed with the merge. An also, the so far implemented steps are not simply merging - they are also making other non-discussed and non-agreed changes. And in any case "successful launches" is an important metric and should not be deleted simply because there is one case (1st Energia launch) where it's debatable.
I don't see comparing Vega to Proton as such big advantage. I think it's better if similar launchers are grouped together - then there is more sense in comparing them. Also, the 2/20/50 classification gives a general overview such as "Currently China's first Heavy launcher is in development where the USA has 2 active heavy launchers and Russia and ESA have 1 each". Maybe if the classification is shown trough sections/color/column... but then you still can't sort "inside" a particular class (and this is important for the longer lists of small and medium). Jeffsapko (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The consensus was to merge and I dont dispute that, indeed I supported it with reservations, however the overwhelming post merger consensus is that the merger was a failure failing to live up to expectations of a reasonable user experience. We have to chin up, admit we were wrong and obey the new consensus or we are failing in our duty. WatcherZero (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hardly overwhelming nor a consensus. Just a few vocal anons. The merged sortable table is a vast improvement, the epitome of manageable! We now just need to finish filling it out with the medium and light launchers. --IanOsgood (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
At a scratch count, original proposal was supported by 5 editors, since then 6 new editors have come out against while only two of the original supporters are still defending it and one original supporter now against, to me thats a massive shift in opinion. WatcherZero (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
So, identifying a lack of consensus on making a change isn't what we need to improve Wikipedia. Heck, there is always a lack of consensus on any variety of ideas: say, on the idea that Santa Claus' annual orbital rides ought to be added to the orbital launch tables. Rather, what is needed to improve Wikipedia are attempts to develop consensus on narrow, focused proposals, something that we can perhaps build a consensus around. So, ... do you have such a proposal? If so, recommend you make it in a new section on this Talk page. There does not seem to be a consensus to move forward with the idea(s) that started this section. N2e (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
In any event, we can't infer anything about any shift of opinion by silence of original supporters anyway. So far, the original merge has been capably and articulately defended by other supporters. If there was nothing to add why would the original supporters feel any need to chime in?Zebulin (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

How about using "2011 in spaceflight" as a way to improve this article

The article, "2011 in spaceflight" has a format that could work and improve this article. In that article, there is a list of every flight in 2011, then a summary section that as a summary chart by family, type and configuration.

How about we have these sections:

  • All Orbital Launch System Configurations
  • By Family
  • By Type

That way we can leave the chart as long as needed to list every launch configuration for active and inactive orbital launch systems. Then, we can have a summary charge that many have requested. If there is any question as to the definition to the "family" or "type", we can use the articles out there that already have defined this.

user:mnw2000 13:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You might need an extra level to accommodate all launch systems over a period of time. Otherwise a few systems (Delta II and Atlas V particularly) won't fit. The TLS list gets around this because two levels are always the same at any given time, but over longer periods of time that won't work. For example: Thor/Delta -> Delta -> Delta II -> Delta 7925. TLS gets round this by merging Delta into Thor/Delta, but for the 1960s rockets you still need that subcategorisation, so Delta becomes the type and the specific Delta configuration becomes the variant. You get the same problem with Atlas, Proton, and several others. There are also a few odd types like Kosmos and Juno which straddle two families. --GW… 17:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Energia

Don't know if this has been discussed yet, a variant of the Energia rocket (with more Zenit boosters) is capable of lifting 175-200 tons into LEO.

  • [1]
  • [2] (claims 200t at 50 degrees inclination, and 172 tons at 90 degree inclination)
  • Jane's Space Directory 1999-2000, Soviet Era Heavy lift launch vehicles (claims 170t LEO and 28t GEO)
  • New scientist, Volume 171, Issues 2298-2303, page 54 (claims 200t)

Is there a reason why this isn't included in the article payload? 141.0.8.158 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the proper tense is "might have been capable", if it had ever been made. As it stands, that version of Energia was pure vaporware, never was and never will be built. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes. That can go at most in the "previously proposed and later abandoned" section. Jeffsapko (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Easy way to improve this article

How about adding lines for rocket families in the table. When you sort by name, it would lead the individual configurations. For number of launches, the value would be a total of the rockets in that family and would be very useful information. The table below is an example using the Ariane family.

Vehicle Origin Manufacturer Mass to
LEO
(kg) 		Mass to
other orbits
(kg) 		Cost
(Mil US$) 		Cost/kg
(LEO) (US$) 		Launches Status First flight Last flight Vehicle
ARIANE  Europe Aérospatiale 198 Active: Ariane 5 1979
Ariane 1  Europe Aérospatiale 1,400 1,830 to GTO[1] 11 Retired 1979 1986 Ariane 1
Ariane 2  Europe Aérospatiale 2,270 to GTO[1] 6[1] Retired 1986 1989 Ariane 2
Ariane 3  Europe Aérospatiale 2,650 to GTO[1] 11[1] Retired 1984 1989 Ariane 3
ARIANE 4  Europe Aérospatiale 112 Retired 1990 2001
Ariane 4 40  Europe Aérospatiale 4,600[1] 2,740 to SSO
1,900 to GTO[1] 		3[1] Retired 1990 1993 Ariane 4 40
Ariane 4 40 H10+  Europe Aérospatiale 2,020 to GTO[1] 1[1] Retired 1995 1995 Ariane 4 40 H10+
Ariane 4 40 H10-3  Europe Aérospatiale 2,105 to GTO[1] 3[1] Retired 1995 1999 Ariane 4 40 H10-3
Ariane 4 42L  Europe Aérospatiale 7,000[1] 4,500 to SSO
3,200 to GTO[1] 		1[1] Retired 1993 1993 Ariane 4 42L
Ariane 4 42L H10+  Europe Aérospatiale 7,000[1] 3,350 to GTO[1] 1[1] Retired 1994 1994 Ariane 4 42L H10+
Ariane 4 42L H10-3  Europe Aérospatiale 7,000[1] 3,480 to GTO[1] 11[1] Retired 1995 2002 Ariane 4 42L H10-3
Ariane 4 42P  Europe Aérospatiale 6,000[1] 3,400 to SSO
2,600 to GTO[1] 		2[1] Retired 1990 1992 Ariane 4 42P
Ariane 4 42P H10+  Europe Aérospatiale 2,740 to GTO[1] 4[1] Retired 1992 1994 Ariane 4 42P H10+
Ariane 4 42P H10-3  Europe Aérospatiale 2,930 to GTO[1] 9[1] Retired 1994 2002 Ariane 4 42P H10-3
Ariane 4 44L  Europe Aérospatiale 7,000[1] 6,000 to SSO
4,200 to GTO[1] 		11[1] Retired 1989 1992 Ariane 4 44L
Ariane 4 44L H10+  Europe Aérospatiale 7,000[1] 4,460 to GTO[1] 5[1] Retired 1992 1994 Ariane 4 44L H10+
Ariane 4 44L H10-3  Europe Aérospatiale 7,000[1] 4,720 to GTO[1] 24[1] Retired 1995 2003 Ariane 4 44L H10-3
Ariane 4 44LP  Europe Aérospatiale 7,000[1] 5,000 to SSO
3,700 to GTO[1] 		7[1] Retired 1988 1993 Ariane 4 44LP
Ariane 4 44LP H10+  Europe Aérospatiale 7,000[1] 4,030 to GTO[1] 6[1] Retired 1992 1995 Ariane 4 44LP H10+
Ariane 4 44LP H10-3  Europe Aérospatiale 7,000[1] 4,220 to GTO[1] 13[1] Retired 1995 2001 Ariane 4 44LP H10-3
Ariane 4 44P  Europe Aérospatiale 6,500[1] 4,100 to SSO
3,000 to GTO[1] 		2[1] Retired 1991 1991 Ariane 4 44P
Ariane 4 44P H10-3  Europe Aérospatiale 3,465 to GTO[1] 9[1] Retired 1995 2001 Ariane 4 44P H10-3
ARIANE 5  Europe Aérospatiale 58 Active 1996
Ariane 5ECA  Europe EADS Astrium 21,000[2] 10,050 to GTO[3] 220 [4] 20,000[5] 31
[note 1] 		Operational 2002 Ariane 5ECA
Ariane 5ES  Europe EADS Astrium 21,000[2] 8,000 to GTO[6] 20,000[7] 2 Operational 2008 Ariane 5ES
Ariane 5G  Europe EADS Astrium 18,000[6] 6,900[6] 16[6] Retired[8] 1996 2003 Ariane 5G
Ariane 5G+  Europe EADS Astrium 18,000 7,100 to GTO [6] 3[6] Retired[8] 2004 2004 Ariane 5G+
Ariane 5GS  Europe EADS Astrium 18,000 6,600 to GTO [6] 6[6] Retired[8] 2005 2009 Ariane 5GS

user:mnw2000 20:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you collapse the members under the family, such that they only appear when the family is selected? The main issue with the table is simply there are _too_ _many_ entries, so adding more entries only helps if we can hide entire groups. I don't know enough about Wiki capabilities to know if this is even possible in a table, but I'm thinking of things like Hernán_Cortés#Ancestors, where by default it's one line with the rest showing up if you click on "show". Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That would probably compromise the sorting function. From my perspective, the list is not too long, and the only problem is that some data is better sorted by type, and some better sorted by configuration. Therefore I still prefer the proposed compromise of having one list for types, and another for configurations, however that does leave the question of what is a type and what is a configuration. I'm not sure about the value of putting families into the list as often the specifications evolve so much that it would be impossible to compare them. --GW… 06:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that a family with the same name (Ariane, Delta, Atlas, etc.) or same number withing a name family (Delta II, Delta IV, Atlas V, etc.) would qualify. I think the fact that there are 150 Delta launches is a valuable piece of information, especially when you sort by the number of launches (largest first). We can then see which family has the most launches? Also, this minor update would only add a few lines to the list, but give so much additional usefulness to the list. Another idea, raised once before, is to simply have a family summary section. user:mnw2000 13:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to note that sometimes the same name is utilized for non-related vehicles (e.g. some of the Ariane launchers). It's generally safe inside the same number (e.g. Ariane 5), but Ariane 1 has very limited relation to Ariane 5. Jeffsapko (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Second "vehicle" column

Can I suggest we remove the second "vehicle" column from the table. It makes the table too wide to display on monitors with a standard aspect ratio, even at fairly high resolutions. --GW… 07:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It just compacts the other columns, doesn't seem to serve a particularly desperate need. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Jeffsapko (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The table is too wide as is, and this redundant column would appear to be the easiest to eliminate. N2e (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Additions to Launch Vehicle List

The comparison list should be checked for completeness

As of 14 September 2011 the following two launch vehicles (and perhaps more) are missing from the list
  • Juno I USA; 3 successful 'payload injection to LEO' (Wikepedia article Juno I)
  • Juno II USA; 3 successful 'payload injection to LEO', 1 successful Lunar flyby to Solar orbit (Wikepedia article Juno II)

Neonorange 19:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonorange (talk • contribs)

So if you have good sources for your claims, and can add a citation for any claims, then be all means add them into the article. After all, anyone can edit Wikipedia. If not, the Juno rockets should stay off the list until sources are found. N2e (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

STS substituted by Space Shuttle

In the old Comparison of super heavy lift launch systems article, STS (Space Transportation System, the system employed to launch shuttles) was at the second place, with 105 t. Now it has disappeared, substituted by "Space shuttle" with just a 24 t payload. Note 7 explains "The US Space Shuttle Transportation System and the Soviet Energia-Buran system, consist of launch vehicle rockets and returnable spaceplane orbiter. Payload values listed here are for the mass of the payload in cargo bay of the spaceplanes, excluding the mass of the spaceplanes themselves." You seem to be confusing two concepts here: the payload (which is the weight that is launched into LEO, including that of the vehicle) and the bay payload (which is the weight of actually useful load the vehicle can carry). If you applied the same judgement to every launch system, Saturn V wouldn't have 118 t but only the 5 t of the Apollo Lunar Module. -Ignacio Agulló — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.79.218 (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. That is one of my complaints above - see here. Jeffsapko (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
IIRC, STS was present in both the heavy and super-heavy lift lists at the time of the merger. Since in both cases the orbiter is required to reach orbit, surely it should be considered part of the launch system, not the payload. To be comparable with other systems used to place payloads into orbit, only the mass that is carried as payload should be included. --GW… 07:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
So, you're accounting astronauts not as payload but as part of the launch system. Doesn't that look wrong to you? -Ignacio Agulló — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.79.218 (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus to delete STS, just as for the other deletions resulting by the merge (following an IMHO rushed decision - regardless whether by wikilaweyring it can be proved "legitimate"). Also, no objections are raised against the STS at the Super Heavy page before the merge.
Regardless of merge or split STS-as-super-heavy should remain. The payload of the STS is a reusable spaceplane + what's inside its payload bay. The spaceplane is then returned to Earth and reused. As you can see in other discussion around here readers ( User:Tmckeage ) are coming to this page EXACTLY for this information - to compare the new SLS to what has been before. And that includes the STS. And when you compare STS to SLS you should look at total LEO mass delivered, not only on Shuttle payload bay contents. Jeffsapko (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

price per kg to leo, price per launch, sls calculus

can be usefull to fill a lot of voids (ref 8) http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/10998.pdf prices per vehicule at the end, but we have to make the calculus for the price/kg

Does someone knows how to calculate the price per kg to leo of the SLS ? http://spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1845:the-nasa-nuimbers-behind-that-wsj-article&catid=67:news&Itemid=27

I used option 1 (the president one) for 4 flights at 70 metric tons, found 72 303 $ per kg using the sls line can someone confirm ? --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Template for status?

It would be nice to have macro templates for status (retired, active, development) for a few reasons:

  • to set the table line color in one place
  • to limit the sortable portion to exclude notes and references
  • avoid misspellings
  • possibly sort differently from alphabetical, if desired.

--IanOsgood (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The sorting bug should be fixed using one of the sorting key templates:

  1. {{sort|Active|Active}}
  2. Prefix {{hs|Active}}

--IanOsgood (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, apparently these sorting templates don't really work as intended. I've left a bug report on Template:sort. The workaround appears to be to add a table column just for notes and references, so as not to pollute the table cells with unsortable reference data. --IanOsgood (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion Breaking the table into 3 table

For readability purpose, wouldn't it be better to split the table into 3 table (active, proposed, retired) ? --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

  • This has come up before. I strongly oppose it because the same effect can be achieved using the sortable table, and splitting would render all other forms of sorting useless. --GW… 07:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
ok, i did not know --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that the same effect can be achieved with the sorting table. If you sort by active/proposed/retired, you preclude sorting by (e.g.) payload. So finding what you want in this mess of a table is made harder by all the obsolete junk and vapor proposals. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure you can. Sort by Payload, then sort by Status gives you the desired sort order (except for fixable bugs I mention above). --IanOsgood (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that works. But it's pretty obscure - I'd tried the other order and obviously that dosn't work. I still say the table is too cluttered with meaningless detail, and there is no need to mix in obsolete, vaporware and real launchers. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Restoring status quo (split)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
:This RFC has used a lot of people's time with no clear conclusion. Supporters of demerge were concerned about the large size of the table and loss of information, and the fact that the merge had not been completed. Opposers stated that the one table is far more useful and comparison articles should compare all the alternatives. The result is no consensus to demerge. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

See #Merger reversal above. The recent merge of launcher articles was made primarily because the payload capabilities borders 2/20/50 were without a source. Now we have such a source from a NASA report[3], so I propose that we restore the status quo/revert the merge (the merge was never finished anyway). Also, together with the so-called merge the editor implementing it made some deletions (of rows and columns/parts of these) - without discussion. Merged result has also other issues - see above discussions.

The non-merged/status quo/split versions are the following: small, medium, heavy, super heavy, dab, template.

So, should we revert the merge and restore the status quo classification utilizing the NASA source provided recently? Jeffsapko (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose frivolous nomination and wikilawyering by an SPA. Nomination is clearly about the nominators grievances with the previous discussion than improving the article - no rationale whatsoever to support a split list being better. And for the record, the status quo is a single article, the nominator just cannot accept the outcome of the merger discussion. --GW… 07:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    The split is not wikilawyering - the proposal to split/revert the merge/restore the status quo is because the primary rationale for merge is not valid anymore and thus the merge is not needed anymore. The supporters of the merge are wikilawyering that they have consensus and that nobody should touch the partial-merge and the parts of columns and rows they deleted in the process. Jeffsapko (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    As your reply illustrates, your case for splitting seems to be based entirely or primarily on the fact that you believe the original discussion to be invalidated, rather than which state would be most beneficial to the article. "Relying on technicalities to justify...actions" is one of the definitions of WikiLawyering. But in any case, I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion of said technicalities. As I have outlined above, I do not believe the new source changes anything, since sourced or otherwise, the numbers are still arbitrary and there is no evidence that they are representative of the industry as a whole. They are also not historically relevant - most older launch systems end up grouped into the lower categories as payload masses have increased over time. --GW… 17:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, the previous merge discussion is invalidated. And the actions of the editor doing the merge include deletion of rows/columns/parts of these - this is not discussed and not acceptable! If the deleted information is not put back the merge will be reverted regardless of this discussion.
    But it addition the merged format makes comparisons harder - it lumps together too many launchers and thus it makes comparisons harder. There is no use in comparing Vega and Proton. Jeffsapko (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Integrated, sortable table is more useful. 2/20/50 split is an arbitrary construct, not supported by the statistical modes or market realities, only one nation's space agency in a draft planning document, which is possibly a circular reference back to Wikipedia! Table column normalization is well reasoned, see discussion above. --IanOsgood (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    If you question NASA notability and claim that the NASA report is WP:CIRCULAR and utilizes Wikipedia - please refer to issue to WP:RS/N or other appropriate place. Jeffsapko (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    It is not the notability of NASA itself that is in question, it is whether or not a draft of a single minor document for a single country's space agency (which just happens to include a set of values almost identical to some which a group of Wikipedia editors pulled out of thin air several years prior to its publication) is sufficient to base the entire categorisation system on. --GW… 17:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    NASA is the biggest of all space agencies (its budged is ~50% of all space budgets combined), so it's not simply "a single country's space agency". And again - please stop with your WP:CIRCULAR insinuations here - please utilize the proper place for these. Also, we have the example with the 50t border - it was put in Wikipedia AFTER appearing in the Augustine report and I don't see anything strange in subsequent NASA report utilizing it. Jeffsapko (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    In point of fact, USSR/Russia dwarfs all other space endeavors in terms of launch tempo, both historically and present day. Since the table is about capacity and number of launches, agency budget is irrelevant.
    I am less concerned with the 50t border, above which lie only historical and proposed systems and for which there is negligible worldwide demand. I am more concerned by lower splits which do not jibe with the historical and present day data. The 20t split is busted by the recent introduction of the H-II family, from which you can argue a split a the 15t or 17t border, depending on how you want to categorize the H-IIA. Again looking at the modes of the launch data, a split at 5t is just as meaningful as that at 2t. The point being that such divisions are not clear-cut and prone to obsolescence, despite what a NASA report posits. So why have them? --IanOsgood (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We can improve this article by adding a summary section or by putting all configurations of a launch system (i.e. Delta IV, Atlas V) together. I think the problem is that the number of Delta or Atlas configurations has increased the size of the chart. However, classifying a launch system as medium or large is difficult to gauge and some systems would have configurations in multiple classes. user:mnw2000 10:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    When a launcher has configurations in two classes then it can have two entries specifying the configuration (e.g. Delta IV and Delta IV Heavy). Jeffsapko (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The merger process has stalled with no progress on the merge since 3 August, Wiki policy is that these kind of transitions should be rapid and smooth and with a change of this magnitude a page should be prepared in namespace at a complete or near complete stage before change process is begun. WatcherZero (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The merger process stalled a a result of the discussion which started halfway through it regarding the scope of a unified list. If this had not happened, it would have been completed within two or three days. I would have been happy to continue performing the merger, but was not willing to spend hours adding systems which would only be removed if the ongoing discussion resulted in a consensus to do so. Consensus now seems to be in favour of adding a summary, so as soon as we can get this discussion out of the way I will finish conducting the merger. --GW… 16:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Whatever is done, please take care to restore rows/columns/parts of these that were deleted. The previous merge discussion doesn't give authorization for such deletions. Jeffsapko (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Everything that justifies the existence of articles on this topic is better served by a unified article. Nothing is accomplished by splitting the articles and information relevant to the topic is effectively hidden from casual readers by splitting the article up. Fundamentally nothing can be accomplished by splitting the article and it's content into separate articles.Zebulin (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose As has already been explained a number of times, the consensus is to merge and that decision was quite clearly based on a variety of reasons. Your statement that "The recent merge of launcher articles was made primarily because the payload capabilities borders 2/20/50 were without a source." is blatantly false as anyone can see from the merger proposal above. Most comments referred to the fact an integrated article is preferred rather than simply it being a case of a lack of a sourced categorisation. As GW has explained to you, just because some values can be sourced does not mean it makes sense to use them to structure Wikipedia articles. The source used is clearly not universal, even within NASA, it is a definition pulled out of thin air to conduct a study. I assure you there is no standard definition of launch vehicle payload categories, indeed you can google arguments all over the web as to what counts as "heavy-lift". Secondly it has no functional effect, there is no significant difference between a 19 ton launcher and a 21 ton one, being in one category doesn't necessarily affect the type of payloads launched for example or the type of rocket used.
Either way, that isn't the point here which is a decision has been made by consensus which has been attempted to be unilaterally overthrown, and I'm concerned by this disruptive behaviour. I hope this is the end of this and we can actually move forward. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose For a comparison article, best to have all the major designs in a single table, as it best supports that comparison, and doesn't separate rockets with a couple percent different payload mass into two separate tables with arbitrary dividing lines. That is not to say that the classification terms the proposer uses may not be relevant anywhere in Wikipedia, as has been discussed previously. However, for comparison, best to keep a unified list, per the previous merge proposal and discussion. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    As I said above - even if we proceed with a merged article it should somehow reflect the 2/20/50 classification given in the source. Jeffsapko (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Can we all agree that the reason the table has become so large is because the term "launch systems" are being defined as every single configuration being a separate launch system in the table. Could we all agree that there should be one entry for all configurations of launch systems like the Atlas V, the Delta II, the Delta IV, etc? The thrust numbers would be a range rather than a single number. user:mnw2000 20:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Under that system, to give one example, the Delta IV's mass to LEO would be given as "8120-23040". Firstly this is not representative because of the huge gap in performance between the Delta IVM+(5,4) and the Delta IVH. Secondly, how do you put that into the sorting mechanism whilst maintaining the primary purpose of the list - comparing the capabilities of launch systems? How do you deal with overlapping ranges? Also, I would argue that using the system's name as an inclusion criteria is still somewhat arbitrary since in some cases you can get virtually identical rockets flying under different names (eg. Atlas G and I), or completely different rockets flying under the same name (GSLV particularly, also Delta IV to a lesser extent). --GW… 21:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have a single list, let's just make it usable. Splitting on arbitrary tonnages makes no sense, the splitting which would make sense is on obsolete/active/development. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    single list, especially the one made so far, has various shortcomings - see above. Another one is that it's requiring small launchers to have empty TLI columns just to give meaningful comparison for super heavy launchers (or vice versa - depriving super heavy launchers of the TLI data just to remove a column that isn't meaningful for small launchers and is empty for them). Jeffsapko (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    That's why the TLI column was removed (as was the GSO column), and replaced with a column for "other orbits". If you had actually read the section on column changes and normalisation (or, indeed the article in it's current state), you'd know that. Instead you just came in criticising the changes and removal of columns without knowing what you were talking about. --GW… 11:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    When I speak about removal of information I mostly refer to deletion of Atlas V Heavy, STS -as- super heavy, number of successful flights, and potentially other information deletions that I haven't detected yet. None of these deletions are appropriate. Jeffsapko (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    Atlas V Heavy doesn't meet the inclusion criteria (it has been effectively cancelled), I don't understand what you mean about STS, number of successful flights was in the proposal, and had also been agreed upon in two previous discussions as there was no way of neutrally presenting the number of successes, or presenting them without creating an arbitrary definition of success. And how can you deem something you don't even know about to be "inappropriate"? I'm starting to think you are more interested in stirring up problems than in making improvements. --GW… 12:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    Atlas V Heavy - do you have a source for "cancelled"? The source we have in the article is for "available, ready if someone wants to use it". Nobody used it yet, but that doesn't mean that it's cancelled.
    STS - it's capable of lifting 105t, but that row ([4]) is deleted and not present in the partially merged article. Instead we have only a 24t Space Shuttle row and it looks like the last >100t US launch was in 1973, where it actually was in 2011.
    number of successful flights - this is a major metric for launch vehicles and is mostly unambiguous. There is no consensus to remove this metric. In fact there is only one flight that seems in debate - Energia-Polyus (and maybe another one if I missed something). A simple explanatory note in this case is sufficient IMHO and the status quo articles already have it. There is no need to remove this information only because of this one case where sources disagree between each other.
    I will pass by your remarks about who's stirring up problems. What I see here is that some editors are willing to disregard a NASA source supporting the status quo that they don't like and they try to claim it's WP:CIRCULAR without actually raising the issue at the appropriate place. In the process of their merging activities they also delete data from the articles (deletion is not a merge; even if their blitz-merge-discussion passes some wikilawyering schedule rule they utilize for breaking the status quo). In the end we have a worse setup of articles (impractically merged) and important comparison data deleted. That's inappropriate IMHO, but maybe you know better. Jeffsapko (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    What constitutes "reasonable grounds" for launch vehicle size classification is the common usage within the launch vehicle industry. That common usage is manifest primarily in articles appearing in magazines such as Aviation Week & Space Technology which is the trade journal for the industry. The launch of geosynchronus communications satellites constitutes the single largest market for commercial launch services. Launch vehicles are loosely classified in comparison to the mainstream launch vehicles used for launching these GTO communications satellites. The mainstream GTO workhorse LVs include Sea Launch Zenit, Atlas V, Proton M, Long March 3, and H-2A, among others. Launch vehicles optimized for the launch of a single GTO communications satellites are generally thought of as "medium" launch vehicles. "Light" launch vehicles are those considered to be too small for launching mainstream GTO communications satellites. In the U.S. these light launchers are mostly solid propellant launch vehicles which typically have low Earth orbit payloads of about 2 tons or less. The "lights" also include the liquid propellant Falcon 1 and several smaller Russian and Chinese launch vehicles powered by storable liquids. The common usage "heavy lift" LVs originated with the Saturn IB, Titan III and Proton launch vehicles developed in the 1960s to place very large satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO). These LVs started out with 20,000-38,000 lb LEO payloads and eventually grew to the 47,000-55,000 lb payloads of later Protons, Titan IVB and Shuttle. There is a certain overlap in these groups. Proton is considered a heavy lift LV when used to launch large LEO spy sats or space station modules. It is the LEO payload of a launch vehicle which is now most commonly used for classification purposes. The break points (<2 tons for "light", >20 tons for "heavy", etc.) are therefore NOT "arbitrary" as asserted, but simply referenced to past experience. The 2/20/50 classification you are now using seems quite reasonable to me and not arbitrary as asserted. I believe the current breakdown should be left alone, or, at most, only minor adjustments should be made when they seem appropriate.Magneticlifeform (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    Magneticlifeform, thank you for this explanation! I understand your comment as support for keeping the status quo/reversing the partial merge. Now, besides the classification source for 2/20/50 break points we have explanations for each of the three breakpoints. I think that this should be reflected in the articles. Jeffsapko (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    How, exactly, do you get consensus to split from 7-3 against? That's a pretty clear consensus not to. --GW… 06:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? I haven't made any counting or such. What I said above is that we now have explanations for each of the 2/20/50 break points, along with the classification source that utilizes them all. Jeffsapko (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    What you lack is a consensus to make this change. --GW… 13:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    You don't have consensus to delete successful flights, STS, Atlas V Heavy (and other things I didn't saw yet?). In addition the NASA source showing small/medium/heavy/super-heavy should be reflected (by one of the following ways: article split, table sections, table column, line background color, etc.) Regardless whether the articles remain split or become merged. That's what I said above. Jeffsapko (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
    The "NASA Source" you mention (assuming you're referring to the one mentioned a few sections back, under "Boundaries between...") was a casual mention on page 11 of a roadmap article, not a defining standard. As such, it's interesting that someone at NASA uses that classification, but nothing there tells me NASA as a whole uses such a standard. Thus there is no particular reason to genuflect to that particular classification methodology. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
    Removing success counts was in the original proposal, therefore consensus exists. I'm particularly concerned by your comment about "other things I didn't saw [sic] yet", which indicates that you are more interested in means than ends - regardless of whether these edits (which you admit to knowing absolutely nothing about) have improved the article or made it worse, you feel they should be reverted because of your opinion regarding the outcome of the previous discussion. As far as you are concerned the means justify the ends, I am actually concerned with improving the article, and if you don't want to contribute constructively please leave now as there is no place for you on Wikipedia if all you want to do is try to ensure that every policy and guideline is enforced to the letter (even though in this case it actually has been followed anyway), and whine about every change that, in your opinion is wrong. The vast majority of editors do not want to pollute this list with arbitrary classifications, no matter how well sourced, and therefore none of the "options" which you have presented are acceptable. I notice that you have still not made a single edit to Wikipedia which is not related in some way to this article, and in total you have only made two constructive edits to the site - both minor. Please either start doing something constructive and useful, rather than sitting here in judgement and trying to make changes against the will of community in general, and in particular the editors who have maintained this list for far longer than you have "contributed", or just leave now. I am completely sick of your continual restating of the same, tired, argument, and your inability to accept the views of other editors. --GW… 06:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
    GW, your attitude is appaling - I don't need your judgment about the value or quantity of my edits.
    About issue of 2/20/50 classification - some editors want this removed others don't. And whatever the current section shows - the previous merge discussion wouldn't have concluded with merge (and maybe wouldn't been proposed at all) if the classification source was found earlier. Anyways.
    Let's make the other issue clear - the deletion of successful flights, Atlas V heavy and STS is not suggested in the merge discussion above. So, this should be corrected regardless whether the articles are split or merged. And this should be done right now (it requires a small effort only), regardless of what further changes are currently discussed or decided in the future. What do you disagree here? Besides "I think you are not constructive so I will oppose everything you say". Jeffsapko (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    RTFP. It was in the section on the technical considerations of unifying the different formats and issues of the lists. As I stated there, and in the STS discussion a few months ago, and in the Energia discussion last year or the year before, and in the Saturn V discussion at around the same time, there is no single set of criteria for establishing failures, and several of the lists used separate systems. Since the object of the merger was to eliminate arbitrary criteria, and since in the previous discussions there had been support for removing the numbers of successful launches, this was the logical thing to do. You keep saying that "there is only one flight that seems in debate", but that is not true. In addition to Polyus, there have also been extremely heated discussions regarding STS-107 and Apollo 6. Elsewhere there have also been discussions regarding the outcomes of the launches of DM-F3, F1 DemoFlight 2, STSAT-2A, USA-194 and HLV-OLDSP amongst others. That is just the tip of the iceberg. It is impossible to present this data neutrally within the confines of a list of this nature. That is why the removal of success counts was included in the standardisation section of the merger, and that is why they should not be included. The inclusion of cancelled launch systems such as Atlas V Heavy was also included in this section of the proposal. As for your other points, maybe if you stop assuming bad faith and attacking me, and start discussing issues rather than refusing to see anybody else's point of view, I won't be quite so hostile towards you. Finding the classification source would not have affected the proposal being made, other than perhaps making it slightly less urgent and therefore causing it to happen later rather than sooner. I proposed it to get rid of a classification system that was arbitrary and added nothing to the lists, as much as to get rid of the then-unsourced foundations of the articles. If it had been used, the issue would have been the undue weighting of an obscure document, rather than the lack of sources. And I think this discussion shows there is no consensus to go back to the way things were. --GW… 09:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    If you have a source stating that Atlas V Heavy is cancelled - OK, but otherwise - it should be kept.
    Successful flights is one of the most important metrics for the launch vehicles and can't be removed only because there are a few cases of disagreement - I think that the status quo footnotes are sufficient for explaining what's counted. If you think they aren't - then please propose how to improved them, but the metric successful flights should remain.
    STS-as-super-heavy (e.g. showing its total lift capability of >100t) - I don't see any discussion about deleting this (correct me if there is such) and I don't see any reason to delete it.
    merge/split - I disagree with your opinion here that the split arrangement is unsourced or unneeded. But the present situation of semi-merge/semi-split is not acceptable. The solution is that the status quo is restored (with "merge in progress" tags), the full merge is prepared in a sandbox and implemented fully (not piecemeal like presently) when ready. Jeffsapko (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    I'll dig up a reference for the Atlas V shortly, although to be honest I don't even see the point of including systems that are still in development, since their specifications are subject to change. As for counts of successful launches, my proposal was to remove them, it was part of combined proposal which gained consensus above. Finally, the only thing holding up the merger was your previous objection to it, so since you have stated a desire to see it completed I will get it finished today. --GW… 06:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    That is now complete. Can we close this !vote, and open a new discussion on trying to improve the merged article? --GW… 10:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    Atlas V Heavy is still missing/no source for cancellation is given (if it's cancelled then it should be present in the list of "proposed and later abandoned")
    STS is still missing
    successful flights - this is one of the most important metrics. Please restore status quo footnotes about it (along with the deleted counts) and if needed propose a way to improve them. Deleting this important metric is a drastic measure and requires a separate discussion, not some unnoticable "fine print" comment in a sub-sub-section of another discussion. Please, let's not start a "the real status quo" and "the real consensus" edit war here. If you want these deleted - please make a separate proposal for that.
    I see that almost all "development since" dates are also missing. You can see how I arranged them in your "new" format (first/last flight) in the links on top of this section. Is it OK?
    Having in mind the examples of deleted/missing data above I'm not sure whether something else will not appear after closer examination - I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but generally this whole merge looks more like merge+delete, so my confidence in it is low until I check it cell by cell (and I don't have time for this right now).
    Because of the above I really think that a sandbox should be utilized instead of going live immediately with such unpolished result looks like done only in order to push trough with some edits.
    About closing this discussion - I would like if it's closed by the regular way - e.g. by uninvolved editor that is not invited by an involved editor. This doesn't prevent us from discussing/improving a sandbox of a merged article (or even the rushed live variant you made - as I expect that you will vehemently refuse utilizing a sandbox). Jeffsapko (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Two points. Firstly I note some of the items in the list are in italics, and others aren't. But nowhere is it explained why. Secondly, concerning the initial merger ... although the list as it now stands seems OK to me in general terms, the original proposal to merge a number of substantial pages, and then to a use wiki loophole to decide that the proposal could be closed and proceeded with within 7 days was ill-judged. What was the goddam rush ?? Seriously, it looks as though someone had an idea and with the minimum bare time they could get away with, rushed it through. If a sensible length of time had been given to the initial discussion, those with arguments against could have made them, and then this new proposal would have been unnecessary. Instead, before I suspect many even knew of the proposal, it was carried through on using wiki rules which were more designed for lesser changes and where contention was unlikely. I urge people in future not to abuse the system just to get their own desires. It is hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia. The Yeti (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
    I would suggest that you read this page with regards to your allegations of "abus[ing] the system". The proposal was closed after the minimum acceptable time because at the time it had unanimous support, the articles were founded on a flawed and unreferenced set of figures (whilst it is unlikely that the presence of a source would have changed the outcome, as Jeffsapko contests, it would have made it slightly less urgent), and the articles were in an extremely poor state of repair. I would point out that all other processes, including deletion discussions only last seven days as well. My understanding is that the longer discussion times for mergers are optional, and to enable technical issues to be resolved; if there is a strong consensus to merge after seven days, then that is what should be done. --GW… 07:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I stand by my comments. I have no vested interest one way or the other with how the page looks (which is why I had comment and not support/oppose), and I am entitled to my opinion as I see it. I do not care if that jars with how you saw it. Maybe YOU should Assume Good Faith also. I would also point out that not everyone 'lives' on Wikipedia, and so 7 days is very short for people with real lives and so may not visit constantly, and given the nature of the change, a reasonable length of time should have been assumed. As you were both the porposer and closer of the merger proposal, I cannot see you being unbiased, and were being somewhat literal in using the 7 day rule. The Yeti (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Seven days is the period used for other discussions, including deletion debates, so if you have an issue with debates being closed after seven days, I would suggest you propose a major policy change. As I understand it the longer periods are for resolving disagreements, and trying to build consensus if one does not already exist. Secondly, if you can find an alternative closure than support for a proposal which has unanimous support; therefore it is a situation where any personal biases would not affect the outcome. Finally, please can we stop pointing fingers and arguing fine points of policy, and get on with trying to improve the article. --GW… 08:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You have been criticised by other editors for the haste in this merger. And in addition to quoting AGP policy, merge policy, and now wikilawyering policy at me, maybe you should pay attention to who has the fingers pointing. I am an independant editor to this page, and my 'improvements' are to suggest the other editors not to rush things WHEN THERE WAS NO REASON TO. The Yeti (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The Merge discussion was not closed early. There was unanimous support for the change, and 7 days were waited until the merge was effected. That closure was totally in accord with standard Wikipedia policy. To blame an editor for closing the merge discussion too fast (in a "g*#&@$& rush") is, quite simply, not assuming good faith. Let's get on with improving the article and cut the ad hominem debates between editors. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The NASA source provided is important part of the merge discussion and its lack was mentioned as main reason for merging. The status quo split articles were not in "extremely poor state". On the contrary - the current merged article is in such a state (and I'm not sure how it can be improved). In fact you can see that people who actually read/use the article(s) come here to complain about the merge. They are astonished and call it a "mess". Yes, that's subjective, but it shows that the articles were transformed from usable in unusable state. Jeffsapko (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I came to this page because I was looking for a comparison on the newly proposed SLS. I was expecting a nice short table because I had been here before. What I got was a holy hot mess. Fortunately I know a little about Wikipedia and was able to go back to the old page and get the information I was looking for. I came back to try and figure out how this happened. Once we had a usable group of pages, now we have a big pile of worthless. PLEASE those of you who did this, THINK. Wikipedia has been made worse by your actions. I have no doubt things could be done better, and I seriously look forward to seeing what this page could be, but PLEASE move it to your namespace, and when you have a finished product show it to us to oohh and ahh over. Don't open and close a merge discussion to force editors to make the page better. None of wikipedias rules and standards mater if we are making the pages worse. Tmckeage (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
"...holy hot mess...usable...big pile of worthless...worse...better..." These are all subjective, and don't match my own experience. Could you list some objective criteria for list usability? Could you describe the information you were able to get off the old page (super heavy lift, presumably) that you couldn't get from the merged page after sorting on one of the Mass to Orbit columns? Did you agree on the previous split points? --IanOsgood (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The table is not overly large. Splitting it may be convenient in some regards, but many readers looking at the smaller table-articles may not realize that they are looking at just a subset of the vehicles. One-stop shopping is a good thing for readers. I suppose the table may have a long load time for readers with slower computers/internet connections. I think it acceptable in the merged format. --Noleander (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I used to browse the rocket categories for months, but the page now is unusable.The table is very large, and the scale comparison is lost. Now I have to use search tools in the browser to find something, and I think that the ordinary visitor will go way pretty fast when he see this mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.89.112 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you see the "List of launchers families" I made (below in this discussion page), as a compromise between actual long list and previous separates tables ? --FlyAkwa (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it does a good conflation of families into single lines. If we keep the original articles (4 separated according to payload capacity in the NASA source) - where we can have more granularity (e.g. families broken down into separate models) this table (families combined) will be very good for the new "single table article". What do you think? Jeffsapko (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes,I agree. --FlyAkwa (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (or at least that's how I understand it) - an IP made some not very polite comments that were later deleted by another editor (maybe an overreacting?). I think we should know what sentiments this rushly implemented/wikilaweyring supported merge brings to actual readers who are just passing by to get information (that's the target for whom we make all these efforts, right?). Here is the comment [5]. Allow me to reword removing non polite words: "[Bad] new format: Are you [bad form of address to those who made the merge] completely [bad meaning]? Why did you have to merge some very well arranged useful list into this huge useless piece of [garbage]? Undo it. I know you won't. [Bad wishes] anyway for destroying these nice lists.2.211.66.92 (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Jeffsapko (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support While the current configuration does merge multiple pages, the inability for people to compare launch systems with others of a similar type make the entire article very cumbersome to use. If you must keep it on a single page, I submit that breaking the article up into the classic "Small lift", "Medium lift", "Medium-Heavy lift", "Heavy lift" and Super Heavy lift" systems, would be a fair compromise, giving all the data on one page, yet broken into more usable groups ( much like other articles are ), rather than just one long list. - As to the idea of merging the various families of launch systems, there is the problem that while they are members of those families, often times the changes are based on new mission profile, which changes the equipment, thus making it the equivalent of a cousin, rather than a direct family member. In this case those with significant changes should be given their own entry, rather than lumped with those with just minor changes.--Gregory JH (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


RfC: Did the merger of orbital launch system pages happen within policy and with respect to verifiable sources

Did the merger of orbital launch system pages happen within policy and with respect to verifiable sources? Tmckeage (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who conducted the merger, I would like to point out a few matters of fact. Firstly, WP:MERGE states that "In discussions where enough time has passed (normally 1 week or more), and there has been no discussion or where there is unanimous consent to merge, any user may close the discussion to merge and move forward with the merger", and that admin closure is reserved for "unclear, controversial cases". One week after the proposal was made, five other editors had stated their support for the proposal, and nobody had opposed. Therefore I cannot understand how several users can feel that this is in violation of any policy. Secondly, the reference which seems to support the former classifications was not found until after the decision to merge had been taken, so it did not affect the discussion in any way. --GW… 09:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
GW, please don't take any of this as a personal attack. I strongly believe that everyone here just wants to make this subject mater better. I feel the request for merger went off exactly the way it was suppose to. My concern is that the actual merging process was flawed. What was an imperfect yet usable group of pages has become an imperfect unusable single page. WP:MERGE also states "Merging should be avoided if: 1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky."" I personally feel this article has become too clunky, because that's my personal opinion I requested comment. I also want to throw in that divisions of articles do not have to have references. I'm not saying division in this case was the best option but I know from work on earthquake lists consent was reached to make a cut off of 6.0, no source told us to do that, but that line was a compromise between completeness and usability. I'm sure you can find plenty of similar cases throughout Wikipedia. I hoping we can revert to the old system, create a better merged page in the sandbox, and re-request a merge when that merger improves Wikipedia. Tmckeage (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tmckeage. A shorter list of "Launchers families" will be also good. --FlyAkwa (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
In principal, I don't have an issue with that as long as the definition of the families is not arbitrary, and a full list of configurations is maintained. It is splitting by payload capacity which I am strongly opposed to. --GW… 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok. We could create a new page with "launchers families", distinct from the "full list of configurations". I will think about that list, extracted from the full list. --FlyAkwa (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively, start the page with the table of families and follow it with the complete (and somewhat klunky) table containing everything. Can # labels point to spots in the middle of tables? The point to keep in mind is that this table should be pretty much a table of contents for the detailed pages, and there is no need to mash every possible detail into the table(s). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I just think there is 3 levels : family, model, variante. Actually, the (long) list is a variantes list. Ex:
Family : Ariane
Model : Ariane 4
Variante : Ariane 44L
A strict "Family launchers" has no real sense, because Ariane 4 and Ariane 5 are same family, but fully different. I think we need a "Modeles List", with Ariane 4, Ariane 5, Atlas, Atlas II, etc. without details & variantes. This list could then be an entry for the long list. --FlyAkwa (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Also if you feel my request was worded in a biased or unfair way please go ahead and change it. Or if you are uncomfortable doing that I will take any complaints and reword it Tmckeage (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggest close this RfC and open a new split discussion - I have no opinion on whether the merge was good or not. However, I have some thoughts on process: An RfC typically lasts 30 days, and is intended to get input from uninvolved editors, generally on content issues. This RfC is asking about something that was already done, and is water under the bridge. If some editors want to un-merge, that is okay, but the best way to get that done is to simply propose a split (see Wikipedia:Splitting article and Wikipedia:Content forking). I suggest that the originator of this RfC close it, and open a new section on this Talk page that proposes a split relying on Wikipedia:Splitting article. That new split discussion should go for at least 10 days before a split, if any, happens. Alternatively, the RfC could be re-framed to ask the question: "Should the merged be undone?". --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see there is already a section in this Talk page, from a month ago, above here: Talk:Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems#Restoring_status_quo_.28split.29. That is a probably the way to go: just keep working in that section, and close this RfC. But, if there is a desire to get more uninvolved editors to provide input, then this RfC should be re-framed to focus on the split proposal (rather than the e question of the legitimacy of the merger). --Noleander (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I support Tmckeage in this complaint. Regardless whether the merge is "technically" legitimate it was rushed and not implemented properly (e.g. not all data was merged - some was left/deleted). I don't see the resulting TOO BIG table as any improvement. The main reason for the merge decision passing was the lack of source that is now provided. So I think the status quo should be restored and a proper merge discussion initiated if editors choose to pursue that. On the procedural side of things - this RFC should be kept to draw attention of editors to the split/status quo restore proposal above (or vice versa). Jeffsapko (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I hear you. Maybe the merge was too rushed. But there is already a discussion above proposing to undo the merge that is underway. It is not sensible to have two discussions going-on at once. If the merging editor made a mistake, perhaps they are new to the merger process, and a simple message on their Talk page is sufficient. If you think the merging editor was malicious, then use the WP:ANI process. But this RfC is just going to duplicate the above splitting discussion and cause confusion. On the other hand, if a full 30-day RfC is desired (to get input from uninvolved editors), just close down this RfC, and convert the Talk page split discussion above to an RfC (just create a new RfC and insert it at the top of that Talk page section above).--Noleander (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I reiterate my comments from above ... concerning the initial merger, although the list as it now stands seems OK to me in general terms, the original proposal to merge a number of substantial pages, and then to a use wiki loophole to decide that the proposal could be closed and proceeded with within 7 days was ill-judged. What was the goddam rush ?? Seriously, it looks as though someone had an idea and with the minimum bare time they could get away with, rushed it through. If a sensible length of time had been given to the initial discussion, those with arguments against could have made them, and then this new proposal would have been unnecessary. Instead, before I suspect many even knew of the proposal, it was carried through on using wiki rules which were more designed for lesser changes and where contention was unlikely. I urge people in future not to abuse the system just to get their own desires. It is hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia. The Yeti (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment, as requested: YES, the Merger was done properly, per existing WP:MERGE policy. That is my comment on the RfC. Now, having said that, I think it is perfectly fine to open up a section and suggest making incremental changes to improve the article (or even open a section to suggest making sweeping major changes to improve the article -- but I note that it would appear more difficult to build consensus on the latter). If consensus is obtained, then we would logically make the change, whether large or small. As of now, there has been no consensus emerge to undo the merger, which would be one sort of sweeping major change that could be done going forward. So, as I have suggested before, I think we will be more likely to gain consensus on smaller, more incremental changes to improve the article. YMMV. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Pointless RFC wasting everyone's time. It does not matter a tinker's cuss whether the merger was according to "regulations" or not. The thing that matters is what do you want to do now? Is there anything actually wrong with the article as it is now, other than easily rectified things like items omitted during the merge? SpinningSpark 13:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted (not yet merged) content

The merge resulted in a unwieldy table that's unusable IMHO. This is discussed above already and multiple editors object the rushed merge. Anyway, I would like to again point attention to content that was deleted/is not yet merged:

  • successful flights - highly important metric - see discussion above
  • Atlas V Heavy - editor claims there is a source showing it's cancelled, but I don't see neither the source nor Atlas V heavy in the list of cancelled launchers.
  • STS-as-super-heavy - >100t LEO lift capability of the recently retired STS of NASA - see discussion above

Editors doing the merge - please restore deleted content or reverse the merge. Jeffsapko (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the successful flights column was covered in the standardisation section of the other proposal. The cancelled section will be split to its own article in due course, again in the standardisation section of the proposal, and is only retained here for now to avoid a significant loss of content, it is clearly incomplete. As for STS, there were two entries, one was removed and a discussion as to what should be presented would be far better than your constant demands. --GW… 14:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Jeffsapko -- it would be much easier to address the issues you've suggested, if they were each discussed separately in a Talk page section suggesting a bounded incremental change. As it is, your proposal has three important parts, plus a reiteration for the umpteenth time that you would like to see the entire merger reversed (a proposal that has not come close to gaining a consensus during your previous presentations of that proposal). Thus, any discussion of the merits of the arguments in THIS particular Talk page section are likely to become very confused, as they have before (see prior Talk page sections on the messy, multi-topic discussions). I suggest you pick the item, of the three, that is most important to you, and create a new section on this Talk page with only that single, well-articulated proposal. I will promise to weigh in, as will, I'm sure, many other editors who have tired of the ongoing multifaceted/confusing arguments on this Talk page. And then, after that item is dealt with, consensus gained or not, suggest you make your second proposal. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Another editor has already raised one of these issues above - #STS substituted by Space Shuttle.
What this section is about are not proposals for changes. That is a list of tasks that are yet to be completed, so that the merge is finalized (I hope there is nothing missing in this list - e.g. that there is no other information present in the split articles and missing in the merged article). Eventually, if the editor(s) advocating and implementing so far the merge don't do it, others will. Jeffsapko (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
No, what this section is about is parts of the original proposal which you don't like and which you are trying to reverse. Any changes would require consensus. --GW… 11:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikilaweyring again? There is no consensus do delete these things I listed here. Please stop pretending otherwise. If you want these removed please make such a proposal. In the mean time - please complete the merge by adding those - or reverse the merge completely (I prefer this solution). I don't know what the policy is for completing merges, but we can't remain in such limbo for too long - a merge should either be completed or reversed. Jeffsapko (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
READ. THE. BLOODY. PROPOSAL. I am fed up of repeating myself to you. It was in the original proposal. --GW… 07:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Mean your tone. I am fed up of your beloved proposal. Please understand that not everyone agrees with you on everything. In your proposal it was not written "let's delete Atlas V heavy", "let's delete STS". The only one of these three that is mentioned - in the "fine print" section of your proposal - is that your opinion is that "successful launches" metric is somehow uncountable and not important enough to be presented in the article comparing launch vehicles. I totally disagree - this metric is highly relevant for the article - one of the most important metrics actually - and we should utilize what we had before the merger. You can improve it subsequently, of course. The rushed shaky wikilaweyring consensus you got is for merging the articles. There is no consensus or discussion of the deletions you also want to implement.
So, please - either finalize properly the merge or reverse it. Jeffsapko (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Look, I would be quite happy to discuss this with you if you were more civil about it, but you aren't. You refuse to accept that there was a consensus to merge the articles, you refuse to accept that some changes had to be made to allow the articles to "fit" together, and you refuse to accept that these were stated in the original proposal. I've said before that there is a long way to go with improving the article, and I welcome and encourage discussion of ways in which it can be improved post-merger. But instead of a reasonable discussion, you just keep making demands that the merger be reverted in full or in part. There is still a lot of work to do, It would be much better if you were to help contribute to that work rather than constantly fight against it on points of policy rather than ways it can be improved. --GW… 11:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Where have I been not civil? Also, you don't need my "acceptance" that there is consensus to merge the articles - you already got that through. As seen in the above merge-reversal discussion - there are many opinions both for merge and for split. That's inconclusive and thus no changes are made. The same would've happen to the merge proposal - if it was given enough time and if the classification source was presented earlier. But you managed to switch places and now you can claim (correctly according to Wikipedia policy as interpreted by some editors above) that the merged status is "status quo" - I don't want to waste everybody's time arguing against this logic at the appropriate noticeboards, etc. and seeking administrative intervention (there are examples where in similar cases the "proper" state is restored - but I still AGF and believe that you are a reasonable person - unlike other examples the subject here is not POV-loaded, thus I don't see what's preventing us from working together). As some editors have explained above the rushed merge discussion may follow the letter, but doesn't follow the spirit of Wikipedia.
You know my opinion - the split articles are more useful and even if in a merged table the broad scale from 0 to over 100000kg should be divided somehow (and we have NASA source about such division, so why not use it for a column, sections, color, mark or something else?)
But - the merging of the articles doesn't require deleting these three things I listed in this section. Two more rows won't be a problem for a table so long and neither is a second number in the "launch record" cells. You refuse to accept that Atlas V heavy and STS are not discussed at all in your proposal and that there is no consensus for deleting "success rate" either - after your opinion to delete these is presented the only comment about it is negative (WatcherZero is "against removing success/failures").
So, I don't fight on points of policy - I just require that if the merge is to stay it should be complete. But it seems you refuse to finish it and instead you insist on non-consensus deletions. Jeffsapko (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay. If you can present verifiable, consistent, accurate, non-arbitrary, unbiased and non-original values for successful launches then by all means we can include them. No such values exist. Secondly, if you can provide a citation to back up your claim that the Atlas V Heavy is still actively under development, then I have absolutely no problem with its inclusion, as long as you can prove that it meets the inclusion criteria. Equally with the Shuttle, if you can provide a reference that the orbiter itself was considered to be a payload then by all means provide one. --GW… 15:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
After the merge is finalized you are free to put "citation needed" tags on any item that you feel necessary. Or to propose to delete something.
I see that there were already discussions about the sourcing of the numbers of flights (both attempted and successful) - and I assume that most of the figures that remained in the latest pre-merge version are OK. Also, those that you are most objected to (Energia and others) are some of the best sourced (e.g. because of the contradictions many sources are presented - and the contradiction explained). Again - this is one of the most important metrics and it's stubborn for you to want it deleted simply because you feel uncomfortable about a few borderline flights (whose situation can be easily explained in a footnote).
For Atlas V Heavy we have a source stating that it's "Available" - it hasn't launched yet, because no customer booked it yet. It doesn't say "under development". So, if you insist that ULA is no longer willing to provide Atlas V Heavy to customers - please provide a link about its cancellation/abandonment, otherwise it remains in the table. I have asked for such source above, but you haven't provided it.
For STS - as I already told you - the orbiter is (substantial) part of the mass sent to LEO. That's the defining property of the launch system. Yes, for reusable launchers the useful payload is also important - that's why we have another line at ~24t titled "Space Shuttle". As you can see - another editor was astonished of your STS deletion and also wants it back. And again - first complete the merge - then propose STS deletion - if you want it deleted. Jeffsapko (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So, you don't object to the above, but should we expect the merge to be finalized or should we restore the status quo or should we keep both? Jeffsapko (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest keeping both as compromise, to take advantage of benefits of both formats. As seen in the above discussion there as many people prefer the one as the other. Jeffsapko (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay Gunter, Krebs. "Ariane-1, -2, -3, -4". Gunter's Space Page. Retrieved 2 August 2011.
  2. ^ a b "Ariane 5 Users Manual, Issue 4, P. 39 (ISS orbit)" (PDF). Arianespace. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-11-13. Cite error: The named reference "Ariane5_U_M" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Ariane 5 delivers a record performance with two payloads for new Arianespace customers". Arianespace. Retrieved 2011-04-11.
  4. ^ "FAA Semi-Annual Launch Report: Second Half of 2009" (PDF). Federal Aviation Administration - Office of Commercial Space Transportation. Retrieved August 18, 2011.
  5. ^ "Rising Launch Prices Buoy Arianespace's Outlook". Space.com. Retrieved 2007-01-17.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/ariane5.htm
  7. ^ "Rising Launch Prices Buoy Arianespace's Outlook". Space.com. Retrieved 2007-01-17.
  8. ^ a b c Flight V193 was the seventh Ariane 5 launch of 2009 and used the last of the GS version of the launcher.


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems/Archive_3&oldid=1136334640"