Template talk:Orbital launch systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Rocketry (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Rename?[edit]

The SpaceX Falcons are not technically ELVs, seeing as they are re-usable, and the whole meaning of the term "ELV" denotes that the rocket in question is not reusable.

Therefore, I suggest that the template is renamed to cover all rockets capable of launching satellites into orbit. This would also allow the Space Shuttle, and other re-usable launchers to be included. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(OPPOSE)--aceslead 03:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I dropped this proposal and now support the current system, per discussion below. I have reverted edits by Dojarca (talk · contribs) to the effect of implementing this proposal, per the opposition of this proposal. Please start new discussion if you want to contest the current arrangement. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus, default Not moved. —Centrxtalk • 02:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:ELVsTemplate:LVs – Prevent disputes about Semi-ELVs, make template cover all Satellite Launch Vehicle articles, not just expendable ones. This would allow it to cover the Space Shuttle, and the SpaceX Falcons (the latter are already, incorrectly, included) to name a few. GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 21:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(OPPOSE)--aceslead 03:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I already removed partially reusable launch vehicles from the template. I think that a template for Reusable launch vehicles and Partially reusable launch vehicles should be created.--aceslead 03:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Reusable launch vehicles Category:Partially reusable launch vehicles

Ares and Falcon[edit]

Please stop adding Ares to the "in development" section. It is partially reusable, and therefore not an ELV. Falcon does not qualify either --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the latest changes made by NASA, the Ares I would become a true ELV due to the deletion of the SRB recovery system, thus the SRB-based first stage will end its life on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean like all other American ELVs. Ares V, on the other hand, will still be partially reusable. Rwboa22 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. Do you have a cite?
  2. Is it official or just a rumour?
A lot of rumours have been going around about Constellation. If they were all true, we'd be seeing a spacecraft called Alitair being launched from LC-34 (or was that LC-37A, LC-40, or LC-39C) at Canaveral. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Shavit?[edit]

The page for Shavit says that Israel plans to use Indian rockets in the future. Does this put their own launcher in the past? Potatoswatter 15:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Reusable Rocket Template[edit]

I think a semi-reusable rocket template should be created and that the Shuttle, Ares V, SpaceX Falcons, and the Energia rocket would be given their proper placement in Wikipedia. If anyone asks "Why Energia?", the response will be that the four liquid-fueled boosters (which became the Zenit ELV rocket) were reusable and that a fully-reusable Energia was in the works before the collapse of the USSR. Rwboa22 23:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done - see Template:RLVs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not include:[edit]

Ares - Partially re-usable
Falcon - Partially re-usable
Jupiter-C - A sounding rocket. Some were converted into ELVs, but these were called Juno I.
Redstone - A sub-orbital missile. One or two were used as ELVs, but under a different name. The Project Mercury versions don't count as they were also sub-orbital.

This list is incomplete, based on things that have been added in the past. Please add to it, but sign your changes. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Pegasus is not an ELV: L-1011 is re-usable.--80.223.18.180 20:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That is like saying no rocket is an ELV because the launch pads are re-usable. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Titan I was a missile, and was never used for orbital launches, so should not be included. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Title change[edit]

How about changing the title to "Expendable launch systems" to keep it in line with the main article? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 09:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

N.B. the category name is Category:Expendable launch vehicles. (sdsds - talk) 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I would advise renaming the categories, as "expendable launch systems" is common to both American and British English, whereas "Expendable launch vehicles" is American English (albeit that it is sometimes used in the UK). The correct British English term is "carrier rocket". --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 09:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
While doing the above, I saw that the parent category for both categories is Space launch vehicles; should that also be redirected, to "Space launch systems"? Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
PS There's also Partially reusable launch vehicles and Shuttle-derived launch vehicles -- redirect those too?
I would do them all except SDLVs. That is an industry term, and has no neutral alternative. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Expanding scope[edit]

A few years ago I proposed expanding the template's scope to encompass all orbital launch systems, not just expendable ones, however the discussion couldn't find a consensus either way. I'd like to propose it again now. In reality this seems to be a more useful categorisation since, as has been seen with Falcon, the line between reusable and expendable rockets is somewhat blurred. The only past or present orbital launch system which is not currently included in this template is the Space Shuttle - it is included in the reusable launch systems template, and could continue to be listed there as well, however that template's scope has significantly altered from being a version of this template for reusable and partially reusable launch systems. It would make sense to have one template for all vehicles capable of reaching orbit rather than exclude the Shuttle simply because it is partially reusable. --W. D. Graham 07:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)