Talk:Comparison of orbital launcher families

Initial feedback

What is your criteria for including, for example Atlas A and G in the same category but not Atlas I. And where do such precise payload capacities come from for such a wide range of systems? I also think that including launch outcomes should not be done without discussion, since most of the numbers are questionable and it is impossible to present any data without some combination of original research, inconsistency, unverifiability, bias and inaccuracy. --GW… 14:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

All data are issued from Wikipedia. No original research. It's only a simplification and compilation.

All launchers that shares the same base (as described in relatives articles) are in the same family (like Atlas A and G, but not Ariane 4 and 5) : but my list must be perfected. If you think that a launcher is alone or is a family, please say it.

About the launches count, data are mainly copied from Wikipedia pages.

Finally, perfection doesn't exist, and bias and inaccuracy are inevitable. In French, we say "La perfection n'est pas de ce monde. Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien. Qui veut faire l'ange, fait la bête".

--FlyAkwa (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I like it! It matches well with my own list (I split Ariane 1/2/3, Delta 2000/3000/E, Atlas-Centaur/GHI, Thorad-Agena, Long March 2CD/2F/3/4, Soyuz/Molniya/Voskhod/Vostok, Titan I/II/III/IV, and Tsyklon 2/3). You missed Saturn I. You will need to make any numeric data like number of launches numerically sortable. I would remove cost from this table as it will be hard to verify and is less applicable to a whole family. --IanOsgood (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Saturn I/IB added.

 Done All numeric columns appear to be sortable. Well done! --IanOsgood (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) --FlyAkwa (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Much better than Comparison of orbital launch systems. That table considers any variation to be a different launcher. This matrix is much easier to read and understand. If there is any confusion as to whether a specific "family" should be split, that can be considered on the talk page. How can we take a vote on whether to change the matrix or create a new article with this matrix? user:mnw2000 13:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

They are both good tables. I like tracking reliability and total launches by family, but it is also instructive to see which members of a family get the most use. For example, if you only tracked families and their max payloads, you'd think the Atlas V was a very popular heavy lifter, whereas its lightest configuration (401) gets the most use. And as GW points out, it can be hard to figure out family groupings. --IanOsgood (talk)

Thank you for your comments. Don't hesitate to edit my table.

To avoid any dispute, the idea, as discussed up in this page, is to create a new page, distinct from current list. Its origin and its goal are different.--FlyAkwa (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree that there are both benefits and negatives in conflating families into single lines. For some comparisons it's better, for others it's worse. Jeffsapko (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea is that this shortest list exists together with the actual complex long list. --FlyAkwa (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just my two cents but, Families have a name, "Angara, Falcon, Delta..." Variations have alpha numeric designations, "1,2,3 X, XH, XX, I, II, III, IV... So what is presented here is really not as valuable as it could be. However the stub pages would have to be written in such a way that a family page exists between this one, and the final stub page. ie. Full List--Family--Stub, This list should really be very short when compared to the full list. Again just my two cents. 160.149.1.37 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Darren Hensley, 12:54 2 Mar 2012

I'm afraid I don't understand your idea... --FlyAkwa (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Article needs substantial citations

This article has been recently created, as a result of a discussion and apparent consensus to do so. That is fine as far as having the new article exist.

However, per WP:V we should not be sourcing assertions merely with other Wikipedia articles, nor should we have substantive assertions that are unsourced by reliable secondary sources with inline citations. I have tagged just a few of the assertions that need cited with ^{{{citation needed}}}. Does anyone have a good book that might cite a large amount of info on the older/historical launcher families? N2e (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear N2e, I will be happy that you complete cleverly this article, and find references when it's really needed.
But stop your destructive work on the article and absurd fundamentalism with yours "citation needed", "citation to be completed", etc. else I will systematically undo your modifications. --FlyAkwa (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful FlyAkwa, and assume good faith. I suspect we are both working quite hard to improve the encyclopedia. I know you have worked very hard on producing this new comparative article on rocket launcher families, and I very much assume you want it to be a quality article that withstands the test of time.

However, it is not enough for any editor to merely make bare assertions in the English Wikipedia. WP:Verifiability is not an optional policy; it is, rather, a core Wikipedia policy. As for who needs to do the work or ensuring citations are added, policy is unambiguous, it is up to the editor who wants to retain material in Wikipedia to get it cited with verifiable sources; it is NOT WP policy that every editor who stumbles upon significant unreferenced material must stop their lives and endeavor to improve THAT particular article, nor ignore that the article has many missing sources. I add a lot of source citations to Wikipedia, as I did on this article to the Krunichev citation in the past 24 hours. But Wikipedia has millions of unsourced claims, so sometimes I simply leave a request and move on. It seems to me to be a simple courtesy to flag such instances for a month or two to see if "the community" cares enough about an article to fix it before material is deleted from Wikipedia for being unsourced. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Article continues to be, in very large part, unsourced. I am challenging a number of claims, and have politely tagged those with {{citation needed}}. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not an article, it is a table. It tabulates information from the individual articles. If readers want citations for the data on any individual rocket, they should click the article on that rocket. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Krunichev source for the Angara launcher family

Thanks FlyAkwa for finding an English translation of the Russian source that supports all the Angara launcher family claims. I had earlier today attempted to improve the original Khrunichev citation by adding standard citation metadata, but did not locate the English-language source URL that you came up with. So thanks for finding that. N2e (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Successes

This article was created to attempt to redress the disagreements arising from the merger of the individual comparison articles. I have just noticed that it includes separate counts of successful and total launches in this article; this has been unilaterally restored and was not part of the compromise proposal (which was simply a table with less entries). I'd like to make it clear that I do not believe that this was a deliberate attempt to create a POV fork, but since this was a point of contention no change should have been made without discussion, and no discussion was held regarding this point. In the absence of a consensus to establish a system for determining a neutral, consistent and verifiable definition of a successful launch, which can be reliably sourced, these figures should not have been restored. I have removed them, hopefully we can discuss the issue here, and come up with a better way of presenting this data, without reopening old disputes and disagreements. --W. D. Graham 22:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm the author of this list, made after the long list of Orbital Launch System. The goal of this list is to be smarter and simpler.

As wrote in the legend : "S/L : Successful launches (that reach space) and total launches (that lift-off)" : it's a simple choice.

You are free to add other columns (such as "successful lauches that don't reach space") as you want, but, please, don't vandalize the page because the definition choosen is not yours.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

So you feel that because you wrote it, you have some kind of right to determine what is and isn't included, and anything else is "vandalism"? I was wrong, this is a POV fork. Now if you want to include a record of how many launches reached orbit then fine, but don't represent them as "successful". A successful launch is one which reasches a usable orbit. By your definition Mars 96 was successful despite getting nowhere near Mars as the result of a launch failure. Now I would question the relevance of such a column, but we could switch to that as a compromise until such a time as we can reach an agreement. But if you're going to take that attitude that anything not conforming to your views is vandalism, then it will be difficult to reach an amicable situation. --W. D. Graham 12:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear WDGraham,

I don't have some kind of right to determine what is and isn't included, but you don't have more rights. If you have a good reason to delete a simple correct data, please expose it.

Because it's interesting to know if a rocket is rather successful or not, then the column "Success (that reach space)" (that is a try to be neutral) has been chosen. Of course, you can add (and fill) "Success (that don't reach space)", "partial success (that reach space)", etc, but the table will be too large.

As said, I will be very pleased that you correct false data, that you add interesting data or interesting columns, but not that you delete correct data.

I don't remember what failed during Mars96, and even if the rocket and/or the probe reach space. But if the rocket reach space (in a large appreciation) and put the probe and its departure stage on orbit, we can say that the launch was a success, but the Mars insertion was a failure. If the rocket didn't reach the space or orbit (as one of the stage failed), then the launch is a failure. It's really simple.

If you want, we can choose a very large appreciation, that if the rocket reach space and/or orbit (depending of the mission), it's a success. The fact that the rest of the mission is a failure don't affect the "launch success".

We can also consider that, while the payload is not lost (by the fault of the rocket), the launch is a success.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear WDGraham, I just see your last edit "RS/TL : Launches reaching space (regardless of outcome) and total launches (that lift-off)." : I think it's a good idea.

As I said previously, we can also consider if the payload is lost or not.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the best solution would be five columns: TL, RS, SO, RO and RT; "Total launches", "Reached space", "intentionally suborbital", "reached orbit", and "reached target orbit", allowing anyone viewing the list to come to their own decision about which launches are successful and which are not. This will take up more space, but not too much. Separate columns would also allow independent sorting be each definition. --W. D. Graham 13:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have split the "launches" column into "RS" and "TL". Do you think it's possible to split into RS, SO and RO ? --FlyAkwa (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I am agnostic, for now, over how many columns the table is broken into to show various degrees of successful or partially-sucessful or unsuccessful launches. However, whatever claims about those numbers that are added to the article, each assertion must have a citation to a reliable secondary source. Most of those numbers have no such citation. Wikipedia editors do not get to make the distinction on our own, from our heads, or from claims that might, or might not, be in other Wikipedia articles.

If an editor wants an assertion to stand in the encyclopedia, then cite it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Why so complicated?

If the launch vehicle places the payload where it was intended to go and the payload separates (or not) as intended, the launch was a success. If the payload winds up somewhere else or fails to separate (or not) as intended, the launch was not a success, even if the payload is in orbit. Once the launch is complete, the performance of the payload does not determine the success of the launch already completed. Don't over think it.Magneticlifeform (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Columns RS through RT are about as useless as tits on a boar, as if you even have that kind of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.15.248 (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I prefer a smart and light table. But, as you can see in history and talk page, there is some fundamentalist who like complicate things, add "reference needed" everywhere, etc.

I made this page to avoid problems of definitions and complexity of the other older article "List of orbital launchers systems", but unfortunately, same guys are always here.

After a certain delay, periodically, I delete the unjustified edits...

--FlyAkwa (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Magneticlifeform's simple definition of success or failure for this kind of overview table, even if it can lead to a bit of ambiguity (e.g. whether to blame Columbia disaster on the launcher or payload spacecraft). Details (which are sometimes difficult to adequately source) belong into articles on particular vehicles or families. --bonzi (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The extra columns are a compromise that no party is happy with, but until an objective, quantitative and consistent measure for launch success can be determined and reliably sourced, they are a necessary evil. In principle I fully agree with Magneticlifeform and Bonzi (although possibly with the additional stipulation that the payload be undamaged), however in practise this is difficult to source consistently, as some organisations such as ILS are quite open about their failures, whereas others such as ISRO try to manipulate the statistics to reduce the apparent number of failures. Bonzi's view that "details (which are sometimes difficult to adequately source) belong into articles on particular vehicles or families." is one which I have held for a while now, and is why I believe that we should simply remove the subjective information, and allow users to make up their own minds from the articles themselves - just list the number of launches, no more. --W. D. Graham 10:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As it appears that WDGraham is alone with its opinion, the extra-columns (full of CN) will be deleted. --FlyAkwa (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

With respect, FlyAkwa, your handling of this discussion has been contemptible. You have been nothing but uncivil and unwilling to compromise. By your own admission this article is nothing but a POV fork which you have been trying to claim ownership of because you didn't like the way the discussion went on the other page. That is not how Wikipedia works - nobody owns pages, nobody can enforce their point-of-view just because they were the first one to create a content fork and a narrow majority (which hasn't even been demonstrated here) doesn't rule. We need to find a solution which is acceptable to all parties. Don't try to misrepresent my position - I don't want the extra columns here any more than you do - they are a compromise - and a pretty crap one at that - because no agreement could be reached. Now if you're backing out of that compromise, I would suggest we remove all mention of successful launches, and just insert a count of how many times each rocket has flown. That, or leave it as it is until we come up with something better and other editors agree with it. --W. D. Graham 11:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Crew capability?

Since man-rating is such a big deal for launch systems, and distinguishes some medium lift systems, such as the Soyuz, from larger cargo-only systems, such as the Zenit. I would think a compact way to show this would be a "Crew capability" column, containing either numbers indicating succesful vs human-killing launches (at launch - Columbia got to space mostly intact), or "cargo only" (e.g. Titan) or "proposed" (as per the Atlas V). There may be better terms, but I think this is important info for comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.56.104 (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of useless columns

Due to extremist fussy peoples, lot of useless columns have been added, months ago. Theses are TL, RS, OL, RO, RT...
This classification is excessively complex and unmaintainable.
Unless there is real good reasons to keep them, I will delete columns in excess to keep only "Total Launch" and "Success launch", as defined by various source sites and launch companies.
--FlyAkwa (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

With respect, opening with an ad hominem argument is hardly civil and isn't going to get you very far. That said, my position is unchanged, I don't like having multiple columns, but until we can accept a consistent, unbiased and common-sense definition of "success", we must have either quantitative metrics or none at all. --W. D. Graham 17:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is an excessive number of columns, but I also remember the edit wars about defining "success," which were what ultimately lead to the large number of columns.

I will, however, propose combining the "total launches" and the (total number of) "orbital launches" columns. (There are only a handful of vehicles for which these columns are different). For readers who don't understand the difference, this is slightly confusing, while for readers who do understand the difference, it is wildly confusing, since many of these vehicle families have thousands of suborbital launches which are not included in this tally.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

-- note: this is now done; see below. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I also continue to be dubious about the "launches reaching space" column-- this column is to account for vehicles that fail, but didn't fail until after they passed 100 km. The only people who have ever seriously proposed "reaching space but not orbit" as any kind of definition of success are the people who continue to try to assert the first flight of Energia as a success. There are something like 50,000 launches listed here; it seems to me a bit of a misdirection to have a column whose use is entirely for justifying a single flight-- can't we just put this in a note, along with the handful of other flights that are ambiguous as to success criteria (I can think of three other borderline cases). Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Colors

Please use more distinctable colors. Active and Development are rarely distinguishable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.22.116.119 (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Falcon 9

Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 v1.1 are technically the same rocket family. v1.1 launched successfully two times, it's time to merge the data. Any objections? Dvasilev (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to be objecting, I consolidated the two lines into one. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Changing some Formats

The acronyms in the column headings were awkward. The columns are wide, and the heading is three rows high, so I saw no reason not to spell out the acronyms- it didn't make the table any longer. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

In general, the same references are used in all the columns. It only makes the table larger to put a separate reference or citation needed on every single figure, rather than one set of citations for each rocket family. So I am consolidating the references into a column. This actually compresses the table width a bit, since multiple "citation needed" are compressed into one, and will make it easier to follow. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Total Launches now = Total Orbital Launches

There were only two vehicles in this listing for which entries in the "total launches" and "orbital launches" columns were not identical. And one of those was Saturn 1, for which the numbers were only there since I put them in earlier this afternoon (it had six suborbital tests). Given that this article is about orbital launchers, I propose merging these columns into one, listing only orbital launch attempts, making the fact that the list does not include suborbital launches clear in the discussions, and putting suborbital launches (for those vehicles which had suborbital launches) in the notes section. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

--OK, I have now consolidated the columns into 1 (and in the process, found a couple of spots where the data was outdated). This brings the table into a little clearer focus.... and also brings out the fact that much of the data haven't been filled out. For many of the vehicles, the data only lists the total number of launches, with no success data at all, much less the detailed parsing of success called for in the three columns. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Add Ariane 6

Please add Ariane 6. --Kizar (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)