Jump to content

Talk:Rocket/Archive 2

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

Commercial Applications

I've temporarily removed this for gross inaccuracy. WolfKeeper 14:51, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
Don't confuse bad writing with gross inaccuracy. :) Let's go through this step-by-step, and see where we're miscommunicating. --Miketwo 15:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At present, the commercial market for rockets is limited to deployment of satellites (orbital) or testing of microgravity equipment (suborbital). These rockets range from the relatively small, ~20 ft amateur class to the incredibly large Delta IV and Atlas V rockets, made by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, respectively.

of course this is quite wrong, rockets can be bought over the counter (fireworks), there are rockets used for military purposes etc. etc. WolfKeeper 14:51, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
Ok, my use of the words "commercial market" differ from yours. Can rockets be bought over the counter? Yes. Can they be sold to the military? Yes. The statement I was trying to make was that the commercial rocket industry doesn't routinely ferry people around in any way yet (eg. New York to Hong Kong in 1 hr). I was attempting to make a contrast between the relatively routine placement of satellites and the lack of the same for moving people. It was bad writing, but not an incorrect statement. --Miketwo 15:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In addition to satellite servicing and microgravity time, a new commercial market dubbed as space tourism may emerge in the next 5-10 years. These rockets will carry paying passengers on short suborbital joyrides.

the space tourism market is already there, it's just not very high volume... and it's not limited to suborbital WolfKeeper 14:51, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
Well, that's somewhat true. Again we're using different definitions for the same word. Space tourism has consisted of a couple millionares getting $20 Mill together for a russian orbital joyride. That's not a "market", per say. What I'm referring to is the possibility that the average Joe Blow may be able to hop on a suborbital ride in the next 5-10 years, and that profits in this market will skyrocket. Check out the last Space and Aeronautics Subcomittee meeting here to see what I'm talking about: http://www.house.gov/science/webcast/index.htm (Look for "Future Market for Commercial Space") --Miketwo 15:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All rockets that are not classified as amateur must be licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST), located in Washington, DC.

um no. That's only true for America; and not even there. For example XCOR didn't need to talk to these guys when they built their EZ-rocket plane, and NASA doesn't need to talk to them, and neither do the existing launchers.
Well, yes and no. You got me in that I wasn't being detailed enough. Trust me on this info though, I work for AST. Any non-amatuer rocket owned and operated by a American-based company must have license to launch, regardless of where it launches from. The reason XCOR's EZ-rocket flights don't need a license is because it didn't meet the suborbital rocket definition - that thrust must be greater than lift for the majority of powered flight. The reason NASA doesn't talk to us is because we don't do government on government regulation unless they request it (same for NRO and DOD launches). However, all Boeing and Lockheed rocket launches for commercial purposes are licensed by us, as well as XCOR's other (unbuilt, future) rocket launch, and Scaled Composites' SpaceShipOne X-Prize launches, so I don't know what you mean by "neither do the existing launchers"? --Miketwo 15:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So let me try a rewrite of that section to capture your comments, and see how it goes. --Miketwo 15:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

... GliderMaven (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Article images and formatting

There was major image stackup, resulting in images being very far away from the sections they belonged to. Ideally, we will just write more text, and we can move the images to being right-aligned again. I am very open to my formatting being discussed/reformatted/removed. Added a photo of rocket engine noise suppression, plan on doing a writeup about it in the near future.

Going to look for an image that displays various propellant combinations Isp as a function of Mach # (if I remember the image correctly. From Sutton possible?).

I think some images should just be removed until we have enough text to make them fit nicely.

So my personal to-do list, unless someone wants me to work on something else:

  • Write more information into the noise section
  • Write more information into the hobby, sports, and entertainment section
  • Find images of actual rocket plumes to replace or help the image in the 'Net Thrust' section
  • Find image of Isp for various propellant combinations to replace the table that is currently there (would solve citation problem there as well)
    • Image found, but was not what I remembered. Image is actually found in the Specific Impulse article. Changed Specific Impulse template to include a rocket name, exclude exhaust velocity, and include references. I chose the Space Shuttle mostly because I think it is a great representation of various motors and engines. Couldn't find a graph that I thought existed, so I may create it myself.
  • Update Safety, reliability and accidents section
  • Add additional governing agencies. Separate into two sections, one for government agencies, and another for amateur rocketry associations or similar
  • Add additional links under information sites
  • Include many more links in See Also

That should be a good start. I am new to editing wikipedia so please give constructive criticism to my edits as necessary.

Kees08 (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Recommendation to remove Oberth effect from article

I think this section fits the definition of straying from the topic. It is much more suited to the Orbital maneuver article, and in fact is already located there. I think the outline of this article needs reorganized in general, but I believe this would be a good start. Thoughts, opinion, objections? Kees08 (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that would be a bad start. Oberth effect applies strongly to upper stages of two stage rockets, they have far more performance than there is chemical energy in the upper stage.GliderMaven (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Mach Number

It looks to me like the Mach number referenced in Spaceflight is calculated at sea level. In reality, the Mach number in the exhaust jet is typically much lower, as the temperature of the gas is very high.

I would very much rather not get into any kind of edit war over this, but I keep seeing this error over various Wiki articles and decided its best to start fixing it in this one. Various folks have been calculating the jet exhaust Mach number using atmospheric conditions; this is an extremely incorrect way to calculate the Mach number. This website shows how to calculate it using various area ratios and k. By this short example, it can be seen that obscene area ratios would need to be used to create jet exhaust Mach numbers as high as quoted in this article. http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/articles/noz_example1.pdf

I am not an authorative source and am willing to discuss, but please find me some sources or math that show that the jet exhaust will have hypersonic (> Mach 5) jet exhaust.

Here is a tutorial by NASA on the matter as well. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/isentrop.html

Kees08 (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear - you don't disagree with the exhaust velocity being up to ~4500 m/s, just with the local mach number within the hot exhaust stream? Maybe it makes sense to just drop the mach number from the sentence, since mach number does indeed change with temperature and the exhaust in a supersonic bell is far from isothermal. VQuakr (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Correct, and thats a reasonable solution. Mach number in the jet is ballpark Mach 3 to Mach 5, depending on a lot of variables. Kees08 (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Ummmm it's an adiabatic expansion. Kees08 you really don't know anything about this, do you? I have never ever heard of a rocket jet being as high as 3 even; 5 would be completely impossible. It's almost like you're bullshitting or something. If you're talking about the speed of the exhaust, it's around twice the speed of sound at the throat, depending on the nozzle coefficient which is usually about between 1.7-2.2. If you're talking about the speed of sound relative to the air around it, it's 10-15 as the article said, but you just took this out for what seems to be no good reason. So far as I can tell, you're not interested in edit warring, unless the article doesn't say what you want it to say, while apparently you don't actually know anything about the topic.GliderMaven (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Quick reply, I'll reply in more detail when I get time. I didn't remove it from the article, another user did based on the discussion that had occurred on this page. All I ever did was add a tag to the article to alert readers there was a discussion occurring here about the issue. I would appreciate if you didn't remove those tags without discussing it on the talk page in the future.
As for the Mach number, a properly designed de Laval nozzle is subsonic prior to the throat (M < 1), sonic at the throat (M = 1), and supersonic after the throat (M > 1). No one in industry ever refers to the velocity of the jet relative to the velocity of the air it is in because that is an irrelevant fact. Check out the A/A* graph for a little more clarity. http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/th_nozz.html
I am also a little confused as to why you mentioned that it is an adiabatic expansion. You said that, but then didn't really relate it to anything we were talking about. The fact that the calculations are done with the isentropic equations leads to the results I pointed out in the first paragraph.
I would also ask that you don't result in personal attacks, such as accusing me of 'bullshitting' and 'not knowing anything about the topic,' and instead provide sources or calculations to prove your position.
Take a look at the three links I posted above and the article on de Laval nozzles. I look forward to your reply, let me know if there is any more confusion on the matter, thanks! Kees08 (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The confusion is apparently all yours. The specification of the exhaust jet velocity relative to the air as a mach number is entirely appropriate for several reasons. 1) the jet is actually travelling through the air as it leaves the nozzle, and actually has a mach number around 10-15. 2) it's being compared with orbital velocity and the fact that it's comparable to orbital velocity is important, since if (for example) it was much smaller than orbital velocity, no rocket would be able to make orbit 3) this is an article on rocket vehicles, not rocket engines; it is therefore inappropriate to compare the exhaust speed with some internal speed which has no external consequences. If you have more lack of knowledge or understanding please do feel free to use this talk page as an education service.GliderMaven (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@GliderMaven: your tone reflects poorly on yourself. Fix it please. Back to the content, why are we using mach numbers as a stand-in for velocity, anyways? Just report the typical rocket exhaust and LEO velocity in m/s and be unambiguous. VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

'unlimited maximum altitude' phrase in lede

There was—and now is again—a problem with the use of the phrase "unlimited maximum altitude" in the lede:

Multi-stage rockets are capable of attaining escape velocity from Earth and therefore can achieve unlimited maximum altitude.

'Altitude' is not used in describing the position of a vehicle in the regime where 'escape velocity' becomes important. We don't, for example, describe the position of, say, the Apollo spacecraft, in terms of altitude as it leaves the close vicinity of the earth. Instead the term distance from the earth or from the center of the earth. The position of the Voyager spacecraft that achieved escape velocity from the solar system are described in terms of distance from the earth, not in terms of altitude. The lede is, in my opinion, better without this sentence. I hope that this expansion on my edit summary is more understandable, and that one of the reverters will agree, and either remove the sentence or (preferably) rewrite the lede. @Andy Dingley and GliderMaven: — Neonorange (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe the point is to compare the capabilities of rocket vehicles with vehicles like aircraft, of which some can manage perhaps 90 kft. I am certain that generally manned rockets do provide coordinate modes that display altitude, in addition to baryocentric coordinate modes. Altitude is useful for navigation, particularly reentry, and I'm sure that the term 'distance from earth' is not routinely used. This article does not have a lede, it has a lead. Please stop using the 'royal we' in your explanations.GliderMaven (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Points are better made with correct terminology and correct concepts. 'We' indicates the voice of Wikipedia. 'Lede' is valid terminology; see the cite in Lead paragraph. Articles are improved by collaboration. If you disagree, then at least try to be civil. — Neonorange (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
You don't speak for wikipedia, so do not use royal 'we'. And no, it has been established that the term 'lede' is only used for news articles, and wikipedia doesn't have news leads. It is incorrect terminology, pretentious and wrong. Use correct terminology and completely cut that arrogance.GliderMaven (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm happy that the whole sentence has now been removed, as it just didn't seem to fit in that section.
However the definition of escape velocity is based on the altitude achievable. It certainly does belong there, if the sentence stays at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor Apostrophe Error

Remove apostrophe from "Delta-V's" in the "Delta-V (rocket equation)" section. This is incorrect usage of an apostrophe. 174.103.198.59 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2017

""Please do not put anything enclosed by the double quotes in the article. I would like to put the URL below in the Wikipedia article 'Rocket' under the 'External links' section of the article. The string below between [ and ] has the URL and then a space and then the title or header I wish to denote the URL in the Wikipedia article. Thank you. ( blanked)

BASIC programs for rocketry and space travel Idouglas1304 (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Does not meet the requirements for external links. The copyright status of the program listing is not clear.
It is not a good idea to post personal contact information information to Wikipedia; I have blanked that information in your post. You should consider whether you wish your personal contact information redacted since it is now still accessible from the page history. — Neonorange (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017

Add a section on Toy Rockets:

In line with using Newton's 3rd law, a variety of toys are possible. The simplest one, is to use a balloon attached to a straw, with a thread running through the straw; when the balloon deflates, it moves along the thread. Another simple toy is popularly referred to as 'matchstick rocket', which uses a matchstick head as a propellant, wrapped in an aluminium foil; the matchstick head reaching its combustion point creates a tiny explosion. To do this, a flame (like from a candle) is used to heat up the foil, and since the aluminium doesn't catch fire and is a good conductor of heat, it transfers the heat to the matchstick, till it reaches its combustion point. Even a simple PVC pipe combined with soft-drink bottles can be used to build toy rockets. In these toys, water is filled in both the bottles and the mouths are connected with pipes; kids jump on to one bottle and the water gushes out through the pipe, into the other bottle, sending it flying. Bharath1704j (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks for your interest in expanding the article. Unfortunately, there are multiple problems with your proposed addition. The most basic is that the devices you describe do not appear to fit the definition of "rocket" as it's described in the lead sentence of the article. Your text also appears to be original research, which isn't permitted; all content must be verifiable using reliable sources. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

mention rocket powered ammunition in military section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.14.42 (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2018

Edit the initial picture of a rocket instead to the picture of the saturn V seen at the beggining of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V , and a picture of the electron rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_(rocket) seen at the beggining of that page, to show two rockets of extremely different sizes. LordLimaBean (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Not a bad idea, however per MOS:IMAGE it's generally custom to only have one image in the lede section. Thanks anyway — IVORK Discuss 22:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing inaccurate or speculative images of medieval "Rockets"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocket&type=revision&diff=870193980&oldid=864610336

Removing illustrations from manuscript and another image that were mislabeled as examples of medieval rockets as images were of a scattershot cannon and a spearhead, see citations on their source page.  Ohsin  03:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Soyuz MS-10 abort to the Rescue section

Page is protected and I can't update the rescue section with the latest abort by the Soyuz MS-10 where the LES performed it's task perfectly. Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

First off, point of fact: the launch escape system did not "perform perfectly". This abort occurred at high altitude, after the LES was jettisoned. The Apollo and Soyuz spacecraft launch escape systems are only carried for lower altitudes; after a particular point in the launch, the capsule is capable of aborting from the launch rocket by itself. (The single instance where an LES was used, on Soyuz T-10, is already referenced here.)
Secondly, the MS-10 abort is already referenced in several other articles. I don't think it's actually necessary to add it to this article, which is supposed to be very general about rockets. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me but where do you get your facts from ? The back of a cereal packet ? The low quality MSM in America ? I quote directly from the S.P. KOROLEV ROCKET AND SPACE CORPORATION «ENERGIA» which builds and operates the Soyuz and R-7 launch vehicle for the Russian space agency "The LES flawless performance in the off-nominal situation during launch of Soyuz MS-10 that enabled the crew to return safely to Earth has kindled keen interest of the media in the system which had been developed at RSC Energia in cooperation with other companies in the industry." QED. Looks like you stand corrected comrade! OK so it's a general article fair enough. https://www.energia.ru/en/news/news-2018/news_10-16.html Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Turns out that information on the Russian Space Agency website is flat out dead wrong. Either they're drunk on vodka or just hopeless with the english. Sorry for being rather abrupt and rude JustinTime55. Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Testing of sub-components is a critical part of safety before any rocket launch. The Artemis NASA project uses the Space Launch System (SLS) to evaluate and test of stage components.

"One way NASA ensures the safety of astronauts and the success of the Artemis missions to the Moon in preparation for future missions to Mars is by testing the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket structures." NASA SLS Rocket Testing Ensures Astronaut Safety, Mission Success E28is drifter (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested merge 23 April 2020

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.
There is a rough consensus to merge to rocket. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Rocket launch → Rocket – The rocket launch article is messy, and cleaning up the mess would make the article a stub. Therefore, it is better to merge to rocket than cleaning up the mess. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 17:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose A very large amount could (and should) be written about rocket launch so it is inappropriate to merge it here. The topic has independent notability. GliderMaven (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support if there is anything even worth merging. The rocket launch article is so overly broad I don't expect it to ever be useful. Maybe if it was sectioned out like 'shoulder fired rockets', 'orbital rockets', etc, but do people really refer to shoulder fired rockets as "rocket launches"? Kees08 (Talk) 05:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

"Acceleration" isn't a count noun, so it can't properly be pluralized. Please change "accelerations" to "acceleration" in the introduction. 64.203.186.91 (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It can be both, and here, I think it makes more sense the way it is. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Two out of three dictionaries I consulted indicated that it can be pluralised. Here we're talking about an acceleration performed by each of multiple vehicles, I think I would count that as 'accelerations', and it seemed to be cumbersome to reword it. So yes, I agree, with not done. GliderMaven (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Dispute

Pendulum rocket fallacy

This section gives but one example of a rocket going off-course, and does not adequately cover the subtopic. Deletion may be in order...? averagejoe (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

how about an addition

Roberto Valturio at about 1450 AD in his work with the title "De re militari" supports that at the reign of pope Leo VI (886-911 AD) the Byzantines used fire tubes that were opened at both ends to launch rockets. Marcus Graecus in his treatise with the title "Liber ignium ad comburendos hostes" that is dated between the years 1225-1250 AD notes however that the methodology and the technical knowledge of rocketry was very old and already known since emperor Leo III (717-741 AD).

Here are some references:

  • Paul Hamlyn, "The encyclopaedia of space", page 19, 1969.
  • Frederick Ordway III and Wernher Braun, "History of astronautics", page 47-49, Larousse, 1969.
  • F. Matschoss, "Geschichte der dampfmachine" (History of the steam engine), page 27, Berlin, 1909.
  • Λέων VI (Leo VI), "Τακτικά" (Tactics), XIX, 57, Bonn, 1926.
  • Λέων VI (Leo VI), "Περί θαλάσσης" (About sea), 60, 61, 64, 65, Bonn, 1926.
  • Ανώνυμος ή Ήρων Βυζάντιος (Anonymous or Heron of Byzantium), "Πολιορκητικά" (Sieges), XXII, 5-10, page 262, Imprimerie Imperiale, Carl Wescher, Paris, 1867.
  • Γεώργιος Ηλιόπουλος (Georgios Iliopoulos), "Η χαμένη πυραυλική τεχνολογία των αρχαίων Ελλήνων" (The lost missile technology of the ancient Greeks), Ιχώρ (Ihor), 27, Greece, 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.236.18.59 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

From the view history page:

@Þjarkur "....likely not meant to be a conflict of interest request" maybe it is likely meant

"....specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it" hey Þjarkur you misunderstood, the request is not for removing and replacing or changing "verbatim" or ad verbum anything, it is just for adding a paragraph to the history section that's all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.236.18.59 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Please provide the text you want to add, with citations in appropriate places. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022

I want to add a paragraph or two about multi-staged rockets, as they are extremely important to the space industry. I also want to add multi-staged rockets to the list of rocket types. I would basically translate the paragraphs I wrote in the german article about rockets. Drtemplr (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I do not want to change, I want to add. I would, if allowed, write a short paragraph in the design chapter explaining stages, as they are very important for orbital rocketry. Drtemplr (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
If you make one more edit you should be autoconfirmed and can make the edit yourself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent German Science Fiction Film addition in History

I have removed the recent addition of the science fiction film by @Emmett SP: detailed below. Currently this article does not include any science fiction (ie movies or stories) and I do not believe it is relevant to this article. Would suggest it is more relevant to either Science fiction#Film, Science fiction film or Lists of science fiction films. Seeking other Editors comments. Ilenart626 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"In 1929, Fritz Lang's German science fiction film Woman in the Moon was released. It showcased the use of a multi-stage rocket, and also pioneered the concept of a rocket launch pad (a rocket standing upright against a tall building before launch having been slowly rolled into place) and the rocket-launch countdown clock.[1][2] The Guardian film critic Stephen Armstrong states Lang "created the rocket industry".[1] Lang was inspired by the 1923 book The Rocket into Interplanetary Space by Hermann Oberth, who became the film’s scientific adviser and later an important figure in the team that developed the V2-rocket.[3] The film was thought to be so realistic that it was banned by the Nazis when they came to power for fear it would reveal secrets about the V-2 rockets."[4]

References

  1. ^ a b "The Directors (Fritz Lang)". Sky Arts. Season 1, episode 6. 2018
  2. ^ Weide, Robert (Summer 2012). "The Outer Limits". DGA Quarterly. Los Angeles, California: Directors Guild of America, Inc.: 64–71. A gallery of behind-the-scenes shots of movies featuring space travel or aliens. Page 68, photo caption: "Directed by Fritz Lang (third from right), the silent film "Woman in the Moon" (1929) is considered one of the first serious science fiction films and invented the countdown before the launch of a rocket. Many of the basics of space travel were presented to a mass audience for the first time."
  3. ^ "Woman in the Moon – Philip French on Fritz Lang's handsomely restored moon-mission yarn". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 July 2022.
  4. ^ "Watch the Silent Film that Brought Rocket Science to the Masses". Vice. Retrieved 24 July 2022.

Improvements

@JustinTime55: hi there, I'm sorry for reverting your changes. They got caught up in a revert I was trying to make to the edit before yours. I'll explain myself briefly.

"Vehicle that can accelerate without air" is too broad a short description, hence why I reverted this. My bicycle can accelerate without air. The LRV could accelerate without air. Neither of these are rockets. The previous shortdesc, "Missile or vehicle which flies using thrust from a reaction gas engine" was pretty much perfect.

The mention of circularity was in response to the edit before yours, which claimed that defining a rocket as a "vehicle powered by a rocket engine" was a "classic case of a circular definition". This is clearly not true; a rocket engine is defined independently of a rocket (vehicle).

Also, if I were being pedantic, I would suggest replacing "vehicle" in the first sentence of your addition with "vehicle or projectile" or maybe "vehicle or missile", since I'm not sure if a missile is considered a vehicle. But life is too short to care about stuff like this.

Sorry for any confusion. I'll now be reverting the shortdesc (and that only, this time).

Happy editing — Jumbo T (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, understood that you made a mistake. I disagree that the short description should include "missile" so I simplified it. I Google-searched for external definitions of "rocket" and the two authoritative sources, NASA and Encyclopedia Britannica, define rocket as a vehicle, or shorthand for the rocket engine. "Vehicle" includes rocket-propelled missiles. "Missile" is defined as an object or weapon thrown to hit a target, and includes stones, bullets, and artillery shells as well as rockets. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023

49.163.220.26 (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

THe challenger exploded because of the partial of the space scraft and also of this. almost everyone thought that the space shuttle history was over and NASA had to rebuild the space shuttle to continue. and they changed the thing in the rocket

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Gas Core Light Bulb?

I love nuclear thermal rockets as much as the next guy, but I don't think a picture of a uranium gas core rocket (regrettably still in the theoretical domain) is representative for the 'rocket propellant' section. 2A0C:5BC0:40:1A9E:B25C:DAFF:FE32:7DF1 (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rocket/Archive_2&oldid=1253113563"