Talk:List of Launch Systems and Vendors - Revision history

Geoffrey.landis: Looks much better!

2007-01-16T16:17:52Z

Looks much better!

Cfrjlr: Rename to only Existing Launchers (historical already done)

2007-01-13T04:53:48Z

Rename to only Existing Launchers (historical already done)

Jarogers2001: /* Formatting */ Color, Category, Seperation etc etc

2007-01-13T02:40:30Z

Formatting: Color, Category, Seperation etc etc

Jarogers2001 at 02:16, 13 January 2007

2007-01-13T02:16:48Z

Strangelv: /* Formatting */

2007-01-12T23:58:10Z

Formatting

Geoffrey.landis: /* Real and paper */

2007-01-12T22:34:22Z

Real and paper

Cfrjlr: key phrase statuses

2007-01-12T22:22:42Z

key phrase statuses

Geoffrey.landis at 22:21, 12 January 2007

2007-01-12T22:21:53Z

Jarogers2001: /* Real and paper */

2007-01-12T22:19:53Z

Real and paper

Jarogers2001: Real and Paper

2007-01-12T22:15:37Z

Real and Paper

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:17, 16 January 2007
Line 84:		Line 84:

	[[User:Cfrjlr\|Charles F. Radley]] 20:53, 12 January 2007 (PST)		[[User:Cfrjlr\|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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:53, 13 January 2007
Line 78:		Line 78:
	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.		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.
	-- [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 18:16, 12 January 2007 (PST)		-- [[User:Jarogers2001\|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]]<BR/>
		+
		+	[[User:Cfrjlr\|Charles F. Radley]] 20:53, 12 January 2007 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:40, 13 January 2007
Line 71:		Line 71:

	--------		--------
−	Aha! Thanks! -- [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 18:16, 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.
		+	-- [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 18:16, 12 January 2007 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:16, 13 January 2007
Line 69:		Line 69:

	Please feel free to spend more tinkering than I have to spare today (the [[MediaWiki:Sandbox\|sandbox]] is a good place for this). An incomplete guide can be found [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables here]. More useful information may be buried [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Editor 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. -- [[User:Strangelv\|Strangelv]] 15:58, 12 January 2007 (PST)		Please feel free to spend more tinkering than I have to spare today (the [[MediaWiki:Sandbox\|sandbox]] is a good place for this). An incomplete guide can be found [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables here]. More useful information may be buried [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Editor 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. -- [[User:Strangelv\|Strangelv]] 15:58, 12 January 2007 (PST)
		+
		+	--------
		+	Aha! Thanks! -- [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 18:16, 12 January 2007 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:58, 12 January 2007
Line 35:		Line 35:
	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)		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)
	[[User:Geoffrey.landis\|Geoffrey.landis]] 14:34, 12 January 2007 (PST)		[[User:Geoffrey.landis\|Geoffrey.landis]] 14:34, 12 January 2007 (PST)
		+
		+
		+	==Formatting==
		+	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 <TT>=level one=</TT> 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).
		+
		+	{\| width=75% style="border:solid #3F0000 1px;background:#EFEFEF"
		+	! width=34% \| Booster
		+	! width=33% \| Operational Status
		+	! width=33% \| Vendor
		+	\|- style="background:white"
		+	\| [[PSLV\|Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)]] \|\| Currently in service \|\| [[Indian Space Research Organization]] [http://www.isro.gov.in http://www.isro.gov.in ]
		+	\|- style="background:white"
		+	\| [[GSLV\|Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV)]] [[GSLV III]] \|\| Currently in service \|\| [[Indian Space Research Organization]] [http://www.isro.gov.in http://www.isro.gov.in ]
		+	\|-
		+	\|}
		+
		+
		+	{\| width=75% style="background:black;color:white"
		+	! width=34% \| Booster
		+	! width=33% \| Operational Status
		+	! width=33% \| Vendor
		+	\|- style="background:white;color:black"
		+	\| [[PSLV\|Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)]] \|\| Currently in service \|\| [[Indian Space Research Organization]] [http://www.isro.gov.in http://www.isro.gov.in ]
		+	\|- style="background:white;color:black"
		+	\| [[GSLV\|Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV)]] [[GSLV III]] \|\| Currently in service \|\| [[Indian Space Research Organization]] [http://www.isro.gov.in http://www.isro.gov.in ]
		+	\|-
		+	\|}
		+
		+
		+	Please feel free to spend more tinkering than I have to spare today (the [[MediaWiki:Sandbox\|sandbox]] is a good place for this). An incomplete guide can be found [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables here]. More useful information may be buried [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Editor 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. -- [[User:Strangelv\|Strangelv]] 15:58, 12 January 2007 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 12 January 2007
Line 28:		Line 28:

	[[User:Cfrjlr\|Charles F. Radley]] 14:22, 12 January 2007 (PST)		[[User:Cfrjlr\|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)
		+	[[User:Geoffrey.landis\|Geoffrey.landis]] 14:34, 12 January 2007 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:22, 12 January 2007
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)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 == 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.    --Geoff [[User:Geoffrey.landis|Geoffrey.landis]] 13:32, 12 January 2007 (PST)
+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.     [[User:Geoffrey.landis|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.  [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 14:15, 12 January 2007 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:15, 12 January 2007
Line 7:		Line 7:

	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. --Geoff [[User:Geoffrey.landis\|Geoffrey.landis]] 13:32, 12 January 2007 (PST)		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. --Geoff [[User:Geoffrey.landis\|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? [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 14:15, 12 January 2007 (PST)