Difference between revisions of "Talk:List of Launch Systems and Vendors"
Jarogers2001 (talk | contribs) m (→Real and paper) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Real and paper == | == 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. | + | 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) | 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) | ||
| + | ---------------- | ||
| + | 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) | ||
Revision as of 14:21, 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)
