Talk:List of Launch Systems and Vendors

From Lunarpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

Hi, Charles,

Yes, those are good distinctions. I do think, though, that the distinction between "doesn't exist yet" and "has been launched" is a very fundamental one. I agree, Energia is retired (although only recently Energia was still trying to sell it!) I did want to list it because several Lunar and future space mission proposals have suggested using it as a low-cost HLV. Ultimately, I think suborbital vehicles should be a separate entry in the Lunapedia; they are different in basic nature from orbital launchers (just as orbital boosters are different from in-space vehicles) Geoffrey.landis 14:34, 12 January 2007 (PST)


I took the liberty of changing the headers and commenting out a few things (and changed insert language in used rows to say 'vendor needed.'

Technically, the =level one= header is supposed to be used only for article titles, but I went ahead and left the level two headers as level two, requiring manual use of level one.

Also: how do we want the tables to be structured? As the presently are the centered topics don't look very good to me. We could however format them in a way where it might be appropriate (although uncentered may still look better).

Booster Operational Status Vendor
Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) Currently in service Indian Space Research Organization
Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) GSLV III Currently in service Indian Space Research Organization

Booster Operational Status Vendor
Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) Currently in service Indian Space Research Organization
Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) GSLV III Currently in service Indian Space Research Organization

Please feel free to spend more tinkering than I have to spare today (the sandbox is a good place for this). An incomplete guide can be found here. More useful information may be buried here somewhere. A good CSS cheatsheet could also come in handy. I'd spend more time here, but I'm kind of indisposed for the time being. -- Strangelv 15:58, 12 January 2007 (PST)

Aha! Thanks! Sadly, I know nothing of CSS. Only HTML. On color: I kind of like the black background. On seperating suborbital, orbital, and vehicles: Should we create new lists? It would be easier for me to add a fourth column to designate the category.. Here are some ideas

  • Suborbital launcher
  • Orbital Launcher
  • Suborbital Spacecraft
  • Orbital Spacecraft

On Proposed/Existing: I think we should leave proposals in as Future Development until the proposals are cancelled or no longer feasable. I think we should condense as many lists as possible while creating additional Categories the articles can be tagged with. Sort of a master index with links to the seperate categorical indexes which would narrow a reader's search. -- Jarogers2001 18:16, 12 January 2007 (PST)

I would like to rename the category "Existing and Historical Launchers" to simply "Existing Launchers". We already have a page for Historical launchers at this page, which already represents quite a lot of work:

List of Discontinued and Cancelled Boosters

Charles F. Radley 20:53, 12 January 2007 (PST)

Looks much better!

Looks much better- the page is really beginning to shape up. 08:17, 16 January 2007 (PST)