Talk:Expendable launch system

Talk

Ariane was not ICBM derived and neither were the Saturns. - Roadrunner

Good point. Though it can be argued that at least the Saturn I/IB were heavily ICBM derived (using redstone and jupiter tankage as they did), though they were designed as launch vehicles.

I think some point about the general lack of new designs explicitly for launch vehicles should be mentioned.

Actually, Atlas V and Delta IV aren't terribly icbm derived anymore, either...
Audin 19:42, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A prime example of this is the Titan IV, probably the costliest launch vehicle in history (perhaps following the Space Shuttle). Wasn't Saturn V more expensive? Unless you are talking about cost/mass to LEO, in which case the most expensive launch vehicle would probably be one of the much smaller rockets?--Todd Kloos 04:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Missle or Launch vehicle

The V-2 was a ballistic missile with the payload warhead staying attached so hardly a launch vehicle.

Regarding the Cold War weapons issue the Vanguard rocket was derived from Sounding Rockets rather than operational weapons. The Saturn family began life as the National Booster programme with the aim of creating a civilian space launcher.Piersmasterson 13:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Impossible?

The article currently makes the odd claim that In principle an expendable single stage to orbit vehicle would be impossible. Uhh... why? Jpatokal 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well with current materials it is. With a huge takeoff rocket, you are then trying to carry the mass of the huge rocket to orbit. It just doesnt work. A multi-stage rocket works because it jetisons the mass of the empty tanks.Eregli bob (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

History section

It's a very good history section, and contains lots of interesting and relevant information - if this were an article about the Space Shuttle. For an article about ELVs, the relevance is rather less clear... Rmsgrey (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)