Talk:SM-65B Atlas

Merge dicussion

Convair X-12 → SM-65B Atlas

Rationale: None given. (I am completing the process started by another editor, who did not give a reason in his edit summary.) - BillCJ (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• OpposeSupport, assuming given sources pan out - No evidence in either article that there are the same missile, or closely related enough to be on the same page. The SM-65B Atlas appears to be more closely related to SM-65 Atlas, and chould probably be merged back to that page instead. - BillCJ (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• They are the same. See this page. This article is related to SM-65 Atlas, but that article is more about the family, while this is about one specific variant. This article and X-12 are about the same thing. The title SM-65B Atlas should be used over Convair X-12, as this follows the naming convention for missiles, not aircraft. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 14:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Gee, what a mess! Would it not have been easier to move X-12 here in the first place, so as to keep the original history? This is why it's recommended that thorough searches are done before creating an article, though I do understand it might not have been clear they were the same missile when you created it - it wasn't even clear last night! A hist-merge might still be possible at this point, but I am not sure - I would have to ask an admin who does hist merges to look into it. Anyway, the SM-65 page needs to be renamed CIM-16, as that is the later/primary designation. CIM-16B was apparaently assigned to this one after it was out of use, so SM-65B seems appropriate. X-12 seems to have been only a temporary designation applied before SM-65B, but the given online sources are unclear on that. That has nothing to do with aircraft or missile naming conventions, but rather which designation was the primary one used while the missile was "in service". - BillCJ (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• I only discovered the X-12 article today, whilst I was researching something else. I noticed the statement about confusion over whether it had been launched or not, and looked for launch information. This led me to discover that it was an alternative designation for the Atlas-B. I've also discovered the same problem with the Convair X-11 and SM-65A Atlas articles. I don't think a histmerge would work - I think they're only for straight cut-and-paste moves, with identical content, but you'd probably have to check with an admin. With regard to CIM-16 vs SM-65, I tend to see the SM designation used more frequently than the CIM designation, but I think either way, the same one should be used for all articles. I don't really mind which. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

X-12 probably not the same as Atlas B

I believe Mark Wade (astronautics.com) might be wrong about calling the Atlas B "X-12". X-11 and X-12 were names of test missiles specified in 1953, after the Millikan commission recommended a slow paced schedule of test missiles. X-11 would be a single engine missile burning LOX an alchol with the Rocketdyne 120K engine. X-12 would have three engines, to test the 1.5-stage concept, and finally the XB-65 missile would have five engines. A couple years later, the Atlas was redesigned to have three engines (more powerful kerosene-burning engines), and A, B and C versions of the missile were designed to test it in stages. A was two engines, and B had all three engines. But I don't think it's correct to equate the B version with the old X-12 concept. Can someone find a primary or secondary source that supports the claim? I'm looking at some primary Convair documents now (XSM-65 B Standard Missile Characteristics), and it never mentions X-12. DonPMitchell (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

AMERICAN X-VEHICLES.NASA says that X-12 no build. --Los688 (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)