Talk:Centaur (rocket stage)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Rocketry  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

2005-2006 misc. discussion[edit]

There is also possible future use of the Centaur on the new Delta IV (Heavy) rocket, which made its first test flight in 2004.

Never heard of it. Are there any sources for this? --Bricktop 22:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


I believe that the upper stage of the Delta 4 is an increased-diameter centaur anyway. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 12:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

The article claims that Centaur was originally designated "Hustler", however the RM-81 Agena article claims that this was the original designation of the Agena. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the information relating the Centaur to the Hustler, Vega, etc, based on Saturn I, Agena A and Atlas Centaur LV-3C Jrquinlisk 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

I'm not really sure who's watching this page, but if there is anyone who is, what are your thoughts on renaming it to either "Centaur launch vehicle" or "Centaur rocket stage"? I note that "Centaur rocket stage" already exists as a redirect, but I personally kind of prefer "Centaur launch vehicle", except... that name somewhat implies that it's self sufficient, which isn't really accurate. Anyway, I wanted to see if I could solicit any feedback, and see if this would be controversial at all, or if I might need to start a WP:RM, or what. Thanks!
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Stand by, I'm watching and I'll let GW know. -MBK004 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "Centaur launch vehicle" would be misleading because it is only a stage. As for "Centaur rocket stage", past discussions including WP:RND have shown a preference for bracketed disambiguators over non-bracketed ones, so I would say that the current title is preferable. I notice you don't provide any rationale for moving it, why do you dislike the current title? --GW 09:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    Well, I just wanted to stick to the point at first, without obscuring the issue with rationales. Before getting into a specific rational though, what made me consider the issue in the first place was the link here from Abe Silverstein: As Lewis's director, he oversaw a major expansion of the center and the development of the [[Centaur (rocket stage)|Centaur launch vehicle]]. (It's the last sentence in what is currently the NASA Career section). Now, I tend to agree with the sentiment regarding "Centaur launch vehicle" being inaccurate (I wouldn't really say misleading, but it's certainly inaccurate), which I briefly addressed myself in the post above. It's a bit more awkward, but "Centaur rocket stage" actually achieves the same effect.
    V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    To use your example, without changing the wording, wouldn't that link be better as [[Centaur (rocket stage)|Centaur]] launch vehicle", or even "[[Centaur (rocket stage)|Centaur]] [[launch vehicle]]"? There's no need to link additional words after the name. Either of these links could be made using the pipe trick, which means the link can be entered as "[[Centaur (rocket stage)|]]" rather than "[[Centaur (rocket stage)|Centaur]]" thus saving time. Finally, if the parentheses were removed from the title, then the title of the article would be misleading as it would imply that the proper name of the stage was "Centaur rocket stage" rather than simply "Centaur". --GW 18:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    In my opinion the best solution would be to use, simply: "As Lewis's director, he oversaw a major expansion of the center and the development of the [[Centaur rocket stage]]." However, I don't necessarily want to become lost is a specific example. That link is what initially grabbed my attention, but it doesn't... uh, embody the entire problem, to me. Regardless, I take the point about the proper name of the vehicle. I guess that I generally just don't like the use of parenthesized disambiguators, so I tend to look for ways to get rid of them. They are a necessary evil, however. I'll probably go back to my original plan in dealing with this and simply create a redirect from Centaur launch vehicle, eventually.
    V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Where is it built? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.140.60 (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"unflown" on space shuttle?[edit]

In the infobox, the Centaur is listed as unflown on the shuttle, but it was flown on Shuttle Atlantis for the Galileo mission, so unless I am missing something the infobox should be changed. Not an expert so I'm just suggesting the change here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRat262 (talkcontribs) 20:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Galileo was designed to be deployed by a Centaur, however an Inertial Upper Stage was used instead after it was decided the Centaur was too dangerous for the Shuttle to carry. --W. D. Graham 22:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Development History[edit]

I don't think the Centaur project started at Lewis. I believe administrative control began at Convair, then got transferred to Marshall (von Braun hated it, but he put a good man in charge), then finally it was transferred to Lewis. That's the administrative control. Physically, the Centaur was built at Convair. Also, according to astronautix.com, the first successful Centaur test was in November 27, 1963 (not 1965). He claims that AC-2/Atlas 126D placed a dummy payload into geosynchronous orbit. NASA's website about centaur agrees Nov 1963 was the first success. DonPMitchell (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)