Talk:Comparison of super heavy lift launch systems

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of super heavy lift launch systems redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Inaccurate/unconverted capacities

You guys need to look over the capacities in the source documents vs whats listed in these tables. In the case of Ares V the mass to LEO stipulates 188,000 KG, but the source says 188 Tons. The source also calls out how many pounds to orbit. Well either convert the tons, or the pounds to KG and foot note the conversion, or find a real source that calls out the exact KG. The foot note should have used #1 not #3 for the source. 160.149.1.36 (talk) Darren Hensley, 10 Mar 2011, 12:05 CST

If you give the calculation results here I can try to implement something along these lines, but so far I'm not sure I understand what changes are needed. Alinor (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this something about "long/short/metric" ton (each is equal to different kg amount)? Alinor (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm asking is use the sources correctly, show consistency in the table, and if calculations are used, note it, and use the same source number type like Kg, and the result like Lbs. vise-versa for lbs to kg and so on. Just so you know 188 tons does not equal 188 kgs, this just confuses readers like me who know the weights are never the same in tons vs kgs(metric vs Am Std) except at 0. Darren Hensley, 13 May 2011, 11:05 CST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.149.1.36 (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon 9 Heavy

Is the Falcon 9 heavy really associated with the United States as it is a private company launching it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.2.198 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX is American, therefore I'm pretty sure you would consider the rocket to be "American".--Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question in general - should we put flags on launchers that are funded solely by private companies? (I don't know such - maybe some initiatives in the 20th century...) What about such that get "limited" government funding, but still are "mostly" privately funded? What about such that are "mostly" government funded, but have also a "limited" private capital invested? How do we define "limited" and "mostly" (as % of funds)? What types of government contracts are considered "funding" and what "purchase on commercial terms, just like any other customer" (e.g. is SpaceX COTS contract "just one of SpaceX customers" or "government funding"?). Alinor (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alinor. It is a great question, and one that probably ought to get a good airing on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight Talk page.

I had been thinking a bit about the subject on a number of spaceflight articles... And then, just today ran into an edit on List of current and future lunar missions where an editor (User:Mdwh) had recently removed a flag on a private mission (with Russian technology) and marked it "(Private)". There, I went ahead and just continued that direction on that article, dropped a couple more national flags (from US-based companies doing private missions), and called it good, for now. Someone want to kick off a more general discussion on the spaceflight project? N2e (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, I think that the U.S. flag on the Falon 9 or any of the SpaceX vehicles is very much well deserved, as even U.S. government funds are being used for their development. Unlike many of their competitors, SpaceX is not using a cost-plus funding model, but there is some substantial government support. It also goes beyond SpaceX merely having the U.S. government as an additional customer, but flat out subsidies just for getting the vehicles built in the first place. Perhaps it is a bit less than RKK Energia is getting for their rocket development from the Russian Federation, but it certainly is comparable and I would put the two companies at roughly the same level of government control, financing, and product development involvement. That both Energia and SpaceX stand in stark contrast to ESA, Boeing, and ATK is more a testament to how involved the governments are for those rocket development programs. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are better images available for the thumbnail, I can generate one from my 3DS drawing if necessary. See attached link for Space X's reference image http://www.orbiter-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7095&d=1302090863. Let me know. 160.149.1.36 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Darren Hensley, 9 Jun 2011:1551[reply]

should it even be considered a super-heavy when it lifting capacity is only as much as the EELV? the EELV and its counterpart are not listed here and are merely considered as "heavy" not super-heavy... Akinkhoo (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Energia launcher performed two times successfully

I'll try to explain the reasons for and against the 1/2 Energia record. If you're not agreeing with a certain point, let's discuss that point, in order to get to agreement on the whole issue.

1. Energia is a two-stage rocket.

This, to me, should mean that we should focus on performance two Energia stages in order to determine the launcher - not the mission and not the payload - success or failure.

2. Energia is designed to bring payload to

2.1. a close to orbit trajectory, or, which is the same 2.2. a suborbital trajectory which differs from an orbital one by a small - say, 100 m/s - speed difference, or, which is the same 2.3. orbital trajectory with perigee low enough that the payload can't complete an orbit.

This three variants are the same, expressed in different words, and different space schools use different terms. It is, for example, rather common in Russian space references to list intermediate trajectories as orbits with specific parameters - including those orbits with, for example, perigee below Earth surface. Strictly speaking, Energia is not an orbital rocket, since the last - second - stage of Energia is neither designed to get to full orbit itself, nor designed to get to full orbit the payload.

3. Energia was launched first time to help Polyus to get to orbit - with the plan of Polyus providing the remaining delta-V to get to full orbit. Energia was launched second time to help Buran to get to orbit - with the plan of Buran providing the remaining delta-V to get to full orbit. In both flights Energia performed essentially the same task, with the same results, up until the separation of payload.

4. There are resources, including on the Web (buran.ru website, or a copy of Isakowitz' International Reference) and in paper form, which state that the launcher performed successfully in both launches.

5. There are two arguments for the idea, that Energia launcher flew unsuccessfully the first time:

5.1. the whole Polyus mission was unsuccessful 5.2. the Astronautix.com reference list Energia record as 1/2, and this is used with Wikipedia's NOR principle.

First argument, however, may allow to consider as unsuccessful the Saturn-V flight, which carried Apollo-13. The same case - the whole mission is failure, so the launch is failure.

Second argument is doubtful since, for example, M.Wade in Astronautix.com lists the same Isakowitz' book as a reference, among other references. But the book lists Energia launcher as successful 2/2.

6. There is an argument that Soviet reports on launches were incomplete or wrong, so early versions of books, which considered Polyus flight as suborbital, were misled, and later versions of books didn't include the record.

This, however, doesn't say what those books would write if they'd actually include that record. It could be that the Polyus mission would be considered successful for launcher but unsuccessful for payload. To say that we don't see a particular record in updated versions of books doesn't allow us to assume that it would be one way or another. We should just switch to different references, which list the record.

If those different references differ - as they are - not in facts, but in interpretation, we should explicitly state what is meant by a particular data in particular column. For example, we need to explain the difference between Polyus unsuccessful flight and Apollo-13 unsuccessful flight, and why this is relevant to their launchers. Definitions should be not only obvious to some side, but also formally satisfied across the whole table. For example, Energia could be excluded from the list on the basis that the rocket itself is not supposed to get to orbit - or to get a strictly inert payload to orbit.Avmich (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You state "Strictly speaking, Energia is not an orbital rocket." If this is your argument, then it should not be included in this article at all, since this article is about orbital launchers. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article series is about launch vehicles and sub-orbital flights are also counted (with a footnote denoting it). I think the current Energia footnote is fine and explains both opinions - that the first flight is successful and that it isn't. What we can do is change the count from "1/2[note]" to "2/2[note]" (I support such proposal), but previously other editors objected - see that above related discussion. Alinor (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several ways to be consistent here, but usually an encyclopaedic source tries to be rather understandable, not only mathematically strict. To have 2/2 record with a note seems to me an easiest and best way to be both correct and understandable.Avmich (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if LEO payload is calculated by the same criteria, and hence listed as zero. It doesn't make sense to include propulsion provided by upper stages or payload propulsion when calculating the rocket's capacity, and then to exclude it when calculating reliability. The "easiest and best way to be both correct and understandable" is to apply the same criteria to both. It therefore made either two successful suborbital flights (which should not be included), or two orbital flights; one successful and one unsuccessful. --G W… 13:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's then remove Energia from the list altogether. It would be less wrong this way.95.25.48.217 (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a quite extensive discussion on the definition of "success" about six months ago. At the risk of reigniting said debate, the outcome seems to have been that success = payload reaching intended orbit. This gives Energia a record of 1/2, shuttle 132/133 and Saturn V 13/13. Any definition that gives Energia a 2/2 launch record must necessarily render it a suborbital launcher. That's not the case, and therefore its record is 1/2.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the Energia two times sent the payload to the intended orbit. Yes, with perigee not alowing to complete the circle notwithstanding. Yes, Energia is a suborbital launcher, strictly speaking.

To me, it's more important condition of success for system to perform as planned by designers, not as some later cataloguer expects it to perform. Requirement for payloads to reach orbit isn't applicable for systems, which were not intended to go to orbit, pardon for mixing of terms.Avmich (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Requirement for payloads to reach orbit isn't applicable for systems, which were not intended to go to orbit". Regardless of whether or not this is true, it is true that the requirement for payloads to reach orbit is a requirement of this list, and hence by your own devices in order to prove that the success rate should be listed as 2/2 you must first prove that it should not be included in the first place. --G W… 14:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"But the Energia two times sent the payload to the intended orbit." No. The intended orbit of the launch was altitude 280 km, inclination 64.6°. Use of the Polyus stage was required to reach this orbit. The orbit was not achieved, and the payload was destroyed. It is not correct that the payload was "not intended to go into orbit." It was so intended, and it failed to do so.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to decide once and for all what the definition of "success" is, and add a comment to the markup which explains the definition (using ). It might also be an idea to add a banner to the talk page describing said definition, and linking to the discussions at which consensus for it was reached. I think we have consensus to include the condition that "payload reached intended trajectory" (provided that intended trajectory was orbital or higher), and we might want to discuss the condition that the launch system did not contribute to any subsequent mission failure (with such a condition, Columbia's final flight would be considered a launch failure).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A definition is already there; read note one.

Overall, the definition of success is an extremely simple one: did it make orbit, yes or no? As far as I can tell, the only ones with any interest in making the definition more complicated and including more exceptions and loopholes are the people attempting to redefine the Energia failure as a success. There are no other cases-- none, zero-- in which a rocket launched with the intent of making orbit is redefined as a "success" despite failing to put the payload into orbit.

It's worth pointing out-- again-- that the original announcement of the Energia launch as a successful suborbital launch (rather than a failed orbital launch) is only a historical curiosity. The Soviet leadership was concealing the Polyus program: not only did they want to hide the fact that the payload was destroyed, they did not even want to reveal that the Polyus existed in the first place. The correct information was revealed later, and is well documented by now, but that initial misleading release still seems to be still getting repeated. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see we have a factual disagreement here: did Energia achieve the intended orbit on the Polyus' flight or not? One opinion is yes, it did: the intended orbit for Energia is, according to Energia design and achieved in both its flights, a suborbital trajectory or an orbit with low perigee. Another opinion is no, it didn't: orbit can't have a low perigee by definition and we have to count payload performances in the launch success record of Energia - because only when payloads are involved the orbits are reached. I see the root cause here in a terminological disagreement (is suborbital trajectory a kind of orbit?).

I think that correct information, well documented by now in reputable sources, is that in fact Energia launcher performed successfully two times. However, we have both references for success and failure, so this criteria doesn't allow a simple answer according to Wikipedia rules. The initial misleading isn't much of a problem here, and in fact it doesn't apply. Soviets may announce orbital mission, but for Energia all launches were meant to end on a suborbit. To have reaching a (full) orbit as a definition of success in case of a suborbital launcher would make little sense.Avmich (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese moon rocket

There is a mention of a 500 ton to lunar transfer orbit-capacity chinese launch vehicle in the wikipedia article about the chinese space program. This sounds too unbelievable (at least to be a serious chinese undertaking). Can anyone find another reference for this? (I have already found a reference stating that the chinese are at least conceptually concidering a 50-ton to lunar transfer orbit-rocket, but 500 ton sounds too much). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.198.116 (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be a better idea to bring this up on the Chinese space progam talk page, or perhaps WikiProject Spaceflight? Incidentally, I agree 500 ton to TLI sounds like someone's made a mistake in translation somewhere... ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no plans for a Chinese Super-Heavy Lifter. The Chinese are only building a new all-liquid Heavy Lifter. Akinkhoo (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some reference to those plans? I also think that if you have some information about the chinese space program, you should edit the chinese space program page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.79.235 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn INT-21 data, an error in its listed Payload capacity.

Why is the Saturn INT-21 payload to LEO listed as 165,000 kg on this page but 75,000 kg on the Saturn INT-21 page? Is there a discrepancy here? It appears someone got their units mixed up as 75,000 kg is listed as 165,000 lb/pounds on the Saturn INT-21 page. I will not edit this error, but let some of the more senior members here do so.Boundarylayer (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The version that flew was 75,000 kg, it seems the design itself was variable (through additional motors) from 76,000kg to 115,800kg. http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs/satint21.htm WatcherZero (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little point of order: the vehicle that delivered Skylab was a Saturn V with a dry third stage, not a Saturn INT-21. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/skylab/ The instrument unit for the latter would have been moved down to the second stage. The baseline performance numbers are indeed the same since the wet stages were common to both. No true Saturn INT-21 was ever flown. OllieWilliamson (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]