Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 22:05, 20 December 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Rocketry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Spaceflight Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

SLS Block 1 says it had a 50 ton payload in 2022

But the Orion article says the Orion plus service module is nowhere near 50 tons. Is this inaccurate? I think this article should be more like the "heavy lift" article in that it includes exactly the heaviest load is, rather than a Yes/No. 72.76.72.238 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

ICPS+Orion is ~50 tons. Redacted II (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

50 metric tons? I see no evidence of this anywhere. Combined weight of 30 metric tons seems more accurate. Could you elaborate where you see this number? 72.76.72.238 (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Orion: 10400+15461=25861 kg.

ICPS: 32748 kg

25861+32748=58609 kg

Almost 60 tons. Redacted II (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Comparison Table

Just a note that it would be nice if it was sortable. Doyna Yar (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

An editor broke the table yesterday. I'm working on fixing it (EDIT: ITS FIXED). Redacted II (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Human Rated

Does Human Rated mean that its rated for launching crew (Saturn V, SLS Block 1), or just transporting them (Starship HLS)? Redacted II (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's just launching, with the definition specifying "rocket that can lift to low Earth orbit..." The SHLLV designation is irrelevant after orbit is achieved. Narnianknight (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for answering (though this gets a bit confusing because the ATV was human rated, and the line between spacecraft and rocket for starship is a bit... blurry, to say the least). Redacted II (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the Starship rocket/spacecraft distinction is a bit messy, though I don't think it would ultimately affect anything (Super Heavy would have to be crew-rated, not just Starship). Anyway, Ariane 5 wasn't human rated because of the ATV. It was for Hermes, but then again, that would have launched with crew aboard. Narnianknight (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The whole topic of human rating is a complete mess.

You're probably right in saying that its just for launching. Redacted II (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Orbital?

I have concerns about this edit by Redacted II (talk · contribs). The claim made here is that because the flight may have a transatmospheric orbit it would constitute an orbital spaceflight; however, it is my understanding that the flight will have a perigee below that which would make an orbit of the planet possible, and thus it would not meet the definition of an orbital flight. I have not reverted this edit because sources I have found are contradictory; however, I think it should be discussed further and verified, if possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

After IFT-6 flies, we'll know whether or not it was suborbital or transatmospheric.

(It will almost certainly be suborbital before the Raptor Relight, given that it is targetting about the same spot as IFT-3, IFT-4. and IFT-5) Redacted II (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is whether or not there is a Raptor relight, it will still (deliberately) be on a splashdown trajectory. That means it isn't an orbital flight, regardless of whether or not it is transatmospheric. It would be different if the relight was specifically to deorbit Starship from a stable orbit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

For a flight to be orbital, perigee has to be above 0 m. It can be .0000001 nanometerts and still be orbital.

So long as the trajectory doesn't intercept the surface (ignoring atmospheric drag), it is orbital.

Transatmospheric earth orbit is an orbit. Its not suborbital. Redacted II (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not understanding what I am saying. My understanding (based on admittedly conficting sourcing) is that with or without a Raptor relight the vehicle will splashdown in the ocean. So yes, that would make the perigee 0 meters, intercepting the surface. Only with future vehicles, when Raptor relight has been proven, will they initiate a launch trajectory that does not automatically result in a splashdown. Ergo, this is not an orbital flight. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Update from SpaceX (emphasis mine):

Starship’s upper stage will fly the same suborbital trajectory as the previous flight test, with splashdown targeted in the Indian Ocean.

I think that is fairly definitive, would you not agree? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

A transatmospheric trajectory WILL splashdown in the ocean. Because the perigee is within the atmosphere, and once starts to reenter, it'll slow down.

We'll see in less than two days. Redacted II (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This is 100% original research.

According to Jonathan McDowell, the apogee was lower, at 190 km.

Assuming the semimajoral axis was the same, then perigee is 7 km.

Which is above 0.

Thus, IFT-6 was transatmospheric Redacted II (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Its confirmed:

https://planet4589.org/space/jsr/latest.html

Perigee 50 km Redacted II (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

From SpaceX:

The ship successfully reignited a single Raptor engine while in space, demonstrating the capabilities required to conduct a ship deorbit burn before starting fully orbital missions.

It was not an orbital flight. It could not possibly maintain orbit at that perigee. Our own article states that orbital flight with a perigee below 80km is more or less impossible. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, transatmospheric is an orbital flight.

An orbit doesn't have to be stable to be an orbit. It merely need to have a perigee above 0.

The Transatmospheric orbit article states: " transatmospheric orbit (TAO) is an orbit around a celestial body in which the perigee of the orbit intersects with the defined atmosphere" Redacted II (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources calling this an orbital flight. None whatsoever. You have taken the perigee number and used original research to claim it is orbital. For the purposes of this article, "orbital" means it orbits the planet at least once, which this didn't do. Please support your assertions with reliable sources before changing the article again. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Where does the article say that it has to complete an orbit?

And https://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/latest.html lists the launch under "Recent Orbital (and near-Orbital) Launches" with a perigee of 8 km (later 50 km).

That is transatmospheric.

Also, see What is not original research:

"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. See also Category:Conversion templates.

Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote.

Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies."

8>0 is a routine calculation Redacted II (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not a "routine calculation" because 8km of perigee is not a stable orbit under any definition. You have no support for your edit, and yet you reverted in violation of WP:BRD. You keep banging on about "transatmospheric" but that is not a determining factor of whether or not a vehicle is in an orbit. Let me repeat, the vehicle would NOT have orbited the planet whether or not it relit its Raptor, ergo, it is suborbital. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Transatmospheric is orbital.

Its literally in the name: Transatmospheric orbit.

The stability of the orbit is irrelevant to the fact that it was orbital. So long as perigee is above 0, it is orbital.

Your removal of it durign the discussion was violating BRD. I set it back. Redacted II (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree that Redacted II once more used a non-reliable source (Jonathan McDowell gives no sources for his doubtful data, and why should that be WP:RS anyway) to assume some pseudofacts (transatmospheric orbit) and then boasting those personal WP:OR in the article as if they were facts.

A typical misunderstanding of orbits and that not everything that gets transatmospheric enters an orbit...

The same problem is in the articles for ITF-1+2 where it is stated that they were intended for orbit (with no working source), always with the same dubious sources that mostly do not work anymore as McDowell does always change his page and not archive it.

And now Redacted II put "orbit" into IFT-6 as well.

Btw, I just caught him with Original Research here. But as predicted, he reverted that again (during discussion, so far as to his "violating BRD" accusations), see talk page, and put in more nonsense. 47.64.128.79 (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

McDowell 100% archives his pages. They're all here: https://planet4589.org/space/jsr/back/ -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

50km~ perigee is definitely not a sustainable orbit, and it definitely will lead to splashdown, which is what happened and was planned. However, it is still considered transatmospheric orbit. For the vehicle to actually have orbit, it only needs to have a positive perigee. Whether it is a stable orbit or not is irrelevant in this case. This has already been mentioned above. User3749 (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that Starship flight 6 was not strictly suborbital. However, I agree that it did not yet meet the criteria for being listed as having a "successful orbital flight." I would argue for a "common" definition of orbit, the ability to maintain a relatively stable orbit around the planet. A Transatmospheric Earth orbit certainly does not meet that definition. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The definitions of orbit that I have been able to find:

"an orbit (also known as orbital revolution) is the curved trajectory of an object" - Misplaced Pages

"a path described by one body in its revolution about another (as by the earth about the sun or by an electron about an atomic nucleus)" - Merriam-Webster

"the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution." - Google Search.

Note only the third definition lists stability as a factor, and it isn't listed as a requirement.

So, a "common" definition (if such a thing can be said to exist) does not appear to require the trajectory to be stable.

However, I only grabbed three definitions. There are likely others that list stability as a requirement. Redacted II (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, the first Energia flight, which is the one listed for the first successful orbital launch, was not orbital. Or even transatmospheric. It had a perigee of -15 km. Very close to that of IFT-3, but with a lower apogee as well.

So, a positive perigee (much less a stable orbit) is not a requirement to be listed as a successful orbital flight. Redacted II (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I'd argue for de-listing the first Energia flight, not for listing Starship. When most people think of something being "sent into orbit" they are thinking of a spacecraft going up, circling the Earth at least a few times, and then coming back down. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I think at minimum Starship should be listed as partial, given its transatmospheric nature.

(And energia would therefore be listed as NONE, since both flights were suborbital: the payload circulaized on the second, and accidentally "deorbited" on the first) Redacted II (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

So long as we change the template from failure to partial, I'm good with your note. Redacted II (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Btw, energija was never listed as having been orbital. If one reads thoroughly, the article only claims that on the 2nd flight the payload (Buran) was delivered into orbit. Neither Energija nor the 1st flight payload ever reached orbit, nor is that assumed in the article. 47.69.162.76 (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"Maiden Successful Orbital Flight"

1988 Redacted II (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Starship payload to orbit

There is some descripancy between this article: 100 / 150 / 200 ton payload, and Starship article, where it is listed N/A / 100+ / 200+ tons. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thats mostly due to inconsistent messaging from SpaceX.

Block 1 is both 40-50 and ~100 tons.

Block 2 is 100+ tons, which has in the past been synonamous with 150 tons.

And finally Block 2 is ranging from 180 tons to 200+ Redacted II (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but should we list the same in both? Smeagol 17 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah.

I'd aim for listing the numbers here rather than on Starship, as I believe they're more accurate. Redacted II (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

"as I believe they're more accurate" - ??

As if that was a criterium.

WP:NOTOR#Conflict_between_sources: If equally reliable sources disagree, present all of the information 47.69.162.76 (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And when there is only room for one?

From equally reliable sources? Redacted II (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Since when is there a space limit on WP pages? But, I just quoted from WP:NOTOR. We are to present all of the information, not just the "truth" you like best.

"How not to handle conflicting sources: Do not choose which one is "true" and discard the others as incorrect, except in the unusual instance that one source can be demonstrated to be factually erroneous"

You are distorting the evidence when unilaterally chosing the facts you, quote, believe they're more accurate. 47.69.162.76 (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• C-Class Rocketry articles
• Low-importance Rocketry articles
• WikiProject Rocketry articles
• C-Class spaceflight articles
• Low-importance spaceflight articles
• WikiProject Spaceflight articles