Difference between revisions of "Talk:List of Launch Systems and Vendors"

From Lunarpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(key phrase statuses)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
----------------
 
----------------
 
I just don't think proposed vehicles shouldn't be in the same category as existing ones. I just put in a draft version where the boosters are separated; take a look. Yep, separating cancelled,discontinued, etc, also should be done. Another categorization might be suborbital vehicles. [[User:Geoffrey.landis|Geoffrey.landis]] 14:21, 12 January 2007 (PST)
 
I just don't think proposed vehicles shouldn't be in the same category as existing ones. I just put in a draft version where the boosters are separated; take a look. Yep, separating cancelled,discontinued, etc, also should be done. Another categorization might be suborbital vehicles. [[User:Geoffrey.landis|Geoffrey.landis]] 14:21, 12 January 2007 (PST)
 +
 +
Hi Geoff,
 +
 +
Thanks for your many contributions (both here and elsewhere!).
 +
Yes, I would like us to agree on some key-phrase statuses (stati?), rather than give a complete history of each vehicle.  The key-phrases I suggest to standardize on are:
 +
 +
- Currently in service
 +
- Future Development
 +
- Orbital Launch attempted
 +
- Suborbital Launch Attempted
 +
- Retired
 +
 +
So by those criteria, Energia would be Retired
 +
 +
What do y'all think?
 +
 +
[[User:Cfrjlr|Charles F. Radley]] 14:22, 12 January 2007 (PST)

Revision as of 15:22, 12 January 2007

ok, thanks for setting this up J. Charles F. Radley 15:42, 11 January 2007 (PST)


Any time :D -- Jarogers2001 15:44, 11 January 2007 (PST)

Real and paper

Cool. This might be a bit more useful if it were separated into historical, existing, and proposed-- it's not really fair to compare something that is launching today with something existing only on paper. Geoffrey.landis 13:32, 12 January 2007 (PST)


The "status" field is meant to denote that difference. The way I have the table set up, it is possible to color code the first cell in each row if necessary. However, there is a whole plethora of things that can go into that field. cancelled, discontinued, in use, suspended, proposed, under development, etc etc. Should we make a standard key to avoid confusion about status? My only concern with coloring is that it is buggy and tends to look bad. Jarogers2001 14:15, 12 January 2007 (PST)


I just don't think proposed vehicles shouldn't be in the same category as existing ones. I just put in a draft version where the boosters are separated; take a look. Yep, separating cancelled,discontinued, etc, also should be done. Another categorization might be suborbital vehicles. Geoffrey.landis 14:21, 12 January 2007 (PST)

Hi Geoff,

Thanks for your many contributions (both here and elsewhere!). Yes, I would like us to agree on some key-phrase statuses (stati?), rather than give a complete history of each vehicle. The key-phrases I suggest to standardize on are:

- Currently in service
- Future Development
- Orbital Launch attempted
- Suborbital Launch Attempted
- Retired

So by those criteria, Energia would be Retired

What do y'all think?

Charles F. Radley 14:22, 12 January 2007 (PST)