Talk:Missile launch facility
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Missile launch facility article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Group2Guy.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Configuration
[edit]I'm replacing the sentence "Personnel would access the LF and LCC through tunnels connecting the two." in the paragraph; the sentence is important since early ICBMs were physically located next to the operations personnel. Only in the Minuteman system were the ICBMs moved far away from the C2 site. TDRSS (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting site pictures on Google Maps
[edit]I doubt there are good and free satelite photos released for printing, but many interesting areas can be seen from above, thanks to Google Maps. By entering one of these locations in Gooogle Maps, there are several clusters of rocket silos well visible at Kastrikum, Urup, Kuril islands, Pacific Russia.
- loc: 46.208,150.517
- loc: 46.212,150.530
- (User @ No.Wiki) - TorSch (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Above the sea
[edit]Is launch facility capable to operate above the sea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.49.30 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Proposed merger
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The apparent consensus was Do not merge. (sdsds - talk) 05:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: One article focuses on underground facilities (missile silos), the other on above-ground facilities; one on military ICBM's, the other on military and civilian missiles/rockets more generally with an emphasis on spaceflight. Seems distinct enough to me to warrant two articles. Morgan Riley (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, per the above. A crappy idea; they are two completely different subjects. And the propposer, Codename Lisa, has not given any reasons for it. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose because both are entirely different things. Moreover, Codename Lisa has not given any reason for the proposed merger. - Jayadevp13 15:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Article name
[edit]The name "Missile launch facility" does not seem to exactly match this article's content. (Not all missile launch facilities are described.) Instead the more familiar term "Missile silo" might be a better option.... That might have helped prevent the good-faith merge proposal above. (sdsds - talk) 05:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- Start-Class weaponry articles
- Weaponry task force articles
- Start-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- Start-Class Rocketry articles
- Unknown-importance Rocketry articles
- WikiProject Rocketry articles