Talk:Comparison of super heavy lift launch systems/Archive 1

Archive 1

Definition of success

The question of how to define the launch success record is coming up once again, and people are proposing complicated definitions of "success," leading to difficult discussions of what should be counted as a success. I think that it is desirable to keep the definition as clear and simple as possible. Therefore, I'd like to suggest that launch success is defined by a single criteria: did the booster succeed in placing its payload into orbit, or did it fail to place its payload into orbit? This is, I think, about as clear and unambiguous a definition of "success" as can be come up with. I am very skeptical about use of more subtle definitions, because it seems to me that too many people have an interest in tinkering with the definition in order to make one company's booster look good, or bad. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• By that criteria, the launches of satellites such as Orion 3, Arabsat 4A, USA-142 and USA-143 would have been a success. In all of those cases the spacecraft achieved different orbits to those planned, and as a result they were rendered completely useless. None ever entered service. How can that be considered successful. --GW… 22:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The top-level requirement here is for clarity and understandability: the definition used has to be simple and unambiguous enough to be understood by a non-expert in the field. I'm not sure what definition you propose that would be less ambiguous or more clear-- Successful Launches to Orbit on U.S. Launch Vehicles, for example, uses the definition used here. For the details on the launch, it would be appropriate to include a footnote, or better yet, a link. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think that listing missions that put spacecraft into completely incorrect orbits is particularly clear either. By analogy, if you were going on a holiday to Egypt to see the pyramids, and you ended up in Algeria instead (and didn't see any pyramids), then you wouldn't call your holiday a success simply because you ended up on the right continent. In my opinion, these articles follow a stupid format for listing outcomes, in that anything that was not 100% successful is considered an outright failure. Perhaps the easiest way to make this clear and understandable is to simply eliminate the success/failure aspect of the launch record, and have as straight count of rockets launched. The merits of various missions and their outcomes can be handled in detail in their respective articles, and we can avoid displaying potentially controversial information in such a black-and-white way. --GW… 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"you wouldn't call your holiday a success simply because you ended up on the right continent." That's not the question. The question is whether you would say that the airplane crashed. The answer is no. The navigator failed, perhaps. The vehicle, however, succeeded.

You are right that the definition of failure can be complicated. This is, paradoxically, exactly why I think a Wikipedia article needs to use a simple, unambiguous definition.03:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A rocket doesn't have to crash in order to fail. To use another analogy, suppose you are driving from London to see a concert in Birmingham. You get to Birmingham, however your car breaks down on the outskirts of the city, but still some distance from where the concert is being held, and as a result you miss the concert. You haven't crashed, you've just not quite reached your destination. You wouldn't call your trip a success merely because you'd reached the correct city.

I agree that we need to make these articles accessible to readers with limited knowledge, however I believe that doing this based simply on whether it reached any kind of orbit or not would be a case of dumbing it down so far that it would corrupt the meaning of the data. I also feel that it would be unintentionally introducing bias in favour of the rocket manufacturers - yes it is currently biased against them, but two wrongs don't make a right. That is why I think we should simply do away with listing numbers of successful launches altogether. --GW… 16:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll chime in with a thought. And potentially, a solution. I will, for now, remain agnostic on the question of how success/failure ought to be defined. But I will say that nearly all of the claims on success/total-launches, that are used in one column of a table in all of the Comparison of ______-lift launch systems are totally unsourced and therefore not verifiable. Moreover, even when sourced, they are often a synthesis of multiple different sources which is not in accord with Wikipedia policy. So I tend to agree with the suggestion by G that we "do away with listing numbers of successful launches altogether."

Alternatively, and this is the potential solution, if we can find an outside reliable secondary source that provides the data on number of lauches, and number of successes, etc., then, voila, problem solved. We use the outside sources definition and data, and we no longer have to debate the criteria for success, which at best allows other editors to synthesize the claims in the Wikipedia article. Whadayathink? N2e (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As we saw during the Energia dispute, it is possible to find two reliable sources that give different data based on different assessments. Therefore, even if we insist on inline references for absolutely everything in that column, it would not resolve disputes. If anything, it could make the situation worse as it could result in uneven standards if different sites with different definitions of success and failure are used for different rockets. Therefore I stand by my proposal to eliminate the success record. If users want details like that, they should fall back on the articles, where everything can be explained and referenced. --GW… 20:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are taking something that is inherently simple, and by examining it with a sufficiently powerful magnifying glass, making it appear complex. There is a very clear distinction between a rocket that blows up on launch and one that makes it into orbit. Yes, I can suppose you can say that if you are on an airliner and there is a failure of the navigation system and it lands at the wrong airport, this is a "failure," but nevertheless, this is not going to go into the airliner records as a crash. This should not be controversial. I suppose, if you want to look at a fine enough comb, if the soft-drink dispenser on the space shuttle dispenses drinks at 10 degrees C when the specification is for 8 degrees C, that's a "failure," but that really is not what we are talking about. At the top level-- and this is an encyclopedia, not a manual of rocket engine design-- what people want to know by "succeed" is, did it put its payload into orbit, or destroy it? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that putting a DBS satellite into low Earth orbit is as good as destroying it. Your $200m spacecraft is completely useless, and will probably be deorbited fairly quickly. If the temperature of your drink is a few degrees out, at least you can still drink it. --GW… 07:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the case for the Apollo 6 launch discussed, in which the launch put the Apollo into an orbit slightly higher than required, and quite manifestly did not destroy the spacecraft. Since the actual requirement on altitude of the parking orbit for that mission was "high enough to check out the spacecraft," that, in itself, had no effect on the mission. (The engine's failure to restart in space did have an effect on the mission-- but that was not a launch failure.) If you did define failure as "The booster either failed to put its payload into orbit, or else put it into an orbit in which the payload was unable to achieve its mission" (which is more complicated, and it adds an element of subjectivity), it would have no effect on the launch statistics for this article, since none of the launches of any of the vehicles here put payloads into that borderline state of in orbit, but still not usable.

The difficulty in defining success based on the criteria you seem to be proposing is that it rates "failure" based on the precision of the predicted orbit. If one booster predicts an orbit of, say, 250 nm plus or minus 5, and another booster predicts "we'll get it into some orbit, we can't say which", and they both perform identically, there's no objective reason to call one launch a success and the other a failure-- you're saying that companies can improve their success rate by simply making worse predictions. I don't see the point in this-- the definition should be based on the rocket, not the prediction.

In short, I really don't see the problem in making a simple, concise, and (most importantly) unambiguous definition, and writing it down explicitly. Those people who do want to use a different definition will be able to read it and clearly understand that the definition being used is different from whatever definition they use; that is, the article should be clear in what it is saying. And, the vast majority of readers, for whom "did it blow up?" is what they understand by the word "failure," will have a top level understanding of the success rate.

The main requirement here is that the definition of failure needs to be simple (simple enough to be understandable by non-experts), it needs to be objective (not based on subjective evaluations), and it needs to be explicitly written down, so that everybody understands what it means. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Since whatever criteria is selected will have to be implemented across all lists, your point that this discussion would have no effect is irrelevant. I don't think that your criteria are unambiguous, and I believe that non-experts may believe that launches were completely successful based on your criteria, when in reality they were not. Also, we should not forget about people who do know something about the subject - the article needs to be accessible to them, and not condescending. Since there are launches, Apollo 6 among them, which cannot be simply classed as "success" or "failure", I think it is stupid to display such statistics without explanation. Since this is not compatible with the structure and format of these articles, I believe it has no place in them. Therefore I would suggest we remove the number of successful launches altogether. --GW… 19:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"I think it is stupid to display such statistics without explanation." At no point did I propose putting in such statistics "without explanation." Actually, it was the fact that you deleted my explanation that initiated the present thread. In this thread, as far as I can tell, you are the only one who are arguing that explicitly defining launch success as "the number of times the launch vehicle successfully launched its payload into orbit, divided by the total number of attempted orbital launches" is "ambiguous".Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

By "explanation", I was not referring to an explanation of how you synthesised the data, I was referring to detailed explanations of what happened on specific launches. I would also argue that "you are the only one who are arguing that" your position is not "ambiguous". --GW… 08:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there was some support for, and no direct objection to, my proposed compromise, and since a user has made unilateral changes to these figures, I have removed the counts of successful launches from this article. --GW… 19:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the fact that I've been busy with other things and have not had time to engage in long discussions on Wikipedia lately. I see no evidence for your assertion "Since there was some support for, and no direct objection to, my proposed compromise". As far as I can tell, the only person supporting your "compromise" of deleting useful information from the article is you. "Detailed information on the specific launches" can be found in the links in the notes.

I am afraid I can do little more than to repeat what I already said. What was originally written was as correct, concise, and clearly explained as possible. Although apparently people (meaning you) might say that the statistic quoted was not the statistic you yourself like to use, the text clearly and unambiguously explained what the quoted statistic meant.

Basically, you are attempting to delete information that is correct and useful, on the basis that it is not the information that you yourself find useful. I don't understand why you want to do this, but please don't. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

N2e also stated support for my proposal, and you had not commented on it, let alone opposed it, although you did continue the same tired rhetoric. You claim that my position lacks support, yet you are in a minority of one, and your claim that I am "attempting to delete information that is correct and useful, on the basis that it is not the information that you yourself find useful" is hypocritical because you are changing established information to your own synthesis on the grounds that it is what you prefer. Since you claim to work for NASA, I would say that you have a conflict of interest here, in that artificially inflating the number of successful launches would portray Saturn, and other programmes, as being more successful - hence giving NASA and associated contractors a better image to those who view this page. I'm not saying that you are being deliberately non-neutral, but I think you need to consider whether it could affect your view. --GW… 07:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Saturn V launched 12 times and placed its payload into orbit each time without destroying it. N1 launched 4 times and destroyed its payload all four times. Don't you think that that just a little bit of information is being left out of the article when all that is said is "Saturn V: 12 launches, N1: 4 launches"? The purpose of the article is to convey information-- not to hide it.

By the way, I don't see that N2e was "supporting your proposal." In any case, your reply to him was to tell him you didn't agree with his suggestion, so apparently you don't think think he was supporting your proposal.

I disagree with your assertion that I am trying to "artificially inflate the number of successful launches." I am trying to produce an article with information that is clear, concise, useful, and where the statistics given are clearly and explicitly defined, with links given to the detailed articles with further information. Since I have no idea who you are-- you are editing under a pseudonym-- I obviously have no way to know if you have a conflict of interest or not. However, the net result of your edits seems to be that you are deleting (correct) information, and making an article that is less informative and less useful.

Frankly, I find these useless long edit wars are tedious. You end your previous message stating "I think you need to consider whether it could affect your view." OK, let me end my message stating that you should think harder about how can I make the encyclopedia article better by incorporating information that is correct, useful, clearly written, and accessable to a non-expert; rather than one that is either missing important information or is unclear and misleading?" Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Mercury-Redstone 1 spacecraft wasn't destroyed? Would you consider that launch to be a success? --GW… 04:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, by searching the history records of about twenty thousand orbital and suborbital flights, you managed to find a borderline case. Let me point out that this article is about orbital flights of super-heavy lift launch vehicles-- please go ahead and nitpick the page of suborbital flights of very small launch vehicles, to which this has relevance. Since the explicit criterion written here was that "success" required the booster to deliver the payload to orbit, I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the discussion at all. At best, you've found a borderline case in which an expendable launch vehicle launched but wasn't expended (and, was, apparently used again). To use a quote, "just because sometimes it's twilight, that doesn't mean that there's no difference between night and day." I am sorry that you can't see any difference between a rocket that blows up on launch and one that places its spacecraft in an orbit that is usable but not the orbit originally planned, but I assure you that there is a difference, and that it does, in fact, make a difference to people whether a rocket blows up or not. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that whatever format changes are made to one of these articles have to be made to the rest as well, and your dismissal of concerns by stating that they do not apply to super-heavy launch systems is not valid. With that in mind, what about Optus B2?--GW… 07:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Good God, you actually went to all the other articles and deleted all the information about launch success! You are really taking your personal vendetta against NASA to an extreme. I'm sure you consider this a good thing, but, frankly, I find deleting that much information from wikipedia to be indistinguishable from vandalism. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If I have a "personal vendetta" against NASA, then so must most of the other people who keep launch records. Now are you going to respond to my point, or do you just want to make ad hominem comments and personal attacks? --GW… 21:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your point being your question "What about Optus B2"? Do I understand that you are intending to comb through the entire launch record of every flight, orbital or suborbital, to see if you can find a borderline case, and then shout out "look, here's a borderline case"? OK. I accept that there may be borderline cases. So? The correct thing to do, then, would be to add a footnote explaining why it's a borderline case. I already did add a footnote. I really don't see your point. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you feel your proposal should not be subjected to scrutiny and testing - isn't that basic scientific method? Is it because you do not believe it can stand up to it? Your attitude seems to be that you want to implement a faulty system, and ignore the consequences; you seem more concerned with means than ends. --GW… 16:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have utterly lost track of what you are talking about. Are you still talking about Optus B2? I don't know what your point here is, since you never made one. Are you talking about something else? My proposal was to write a clear, concise, and explicit definition of success and use it in this article. Your response was to delete all mention of success (not only from this article, but from all the Wikipedia articles on launch vehicles). I think that "did it work?" is useful information. You apparently do not. Is there something I'm missing here? Do you have a proposed edit that is different from your last edit, deleting all references to launch success or failure? I'd like to come to a consensus here, but I don't see any sign you're interested. I've added explanations, footnotes, citations-- do you have some other suggestion? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Did it work" is useful information, but it is not synonymous with "did it reach orbit", which it what you replaced the column with. I only removed the information as a compromise because no consensus could be reached over what should be presented, and the information seemed too complex to display in a simple numerical format, and in light of your failure to respond to it at the time, it appeared that there were no objections to doing so. I have nothing against using a "clear, concise and explicit" definition of success, however I believe the one you have proposed is misleading. I have suggested changing it, but you seem unwilling to do so. Under your definition, launches such as those of Orion 3, Luna E-6 No.2, Mars 96 and Arabsat 4A would be considered successful, despite the spacecraft failing to become operational or complete their missions as a direct result of the underperformance during launch. I also believe that you will not be able to find references for the majority of launch systems in the other articles, and I would contend that your definition is original research. For the record, it was only the articles in this series from which I removed the disputed information. --GW… 19:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I think that there is a distinct difference between an airplane that blows up on take off and one which lands at the wrong airport (which is your metaphor.) You don't seem to. Since you don't seem to have anything new to add, or a proposed rewording, or any citations, or any other information to add, at this point I really don't think that there's any point in my continuing to reply to your posts. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss the issue, you aren't. You just go on restating your case, and when I enquire about possible problems with it, you just stonewall. The analogy I used might not have been a very good one, but attacking that rather than the point about the spacecraft is an obvious straw man fallacy. My proposed rewording is "successful launches are defined as those where the spacecraft was placed into its target orbit, and no signs of significant damage induced by its launch system were detected. Feel free to cease contributing to this discussion, however if you do so, and your definition remains unsourced for seven days, I will remove it as original research and put the article into a form for which citations can be found for all records.--GW… 22:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at this from another angle. To take a hypothetical situation, suppose you are the CEO of an upstart satellite communications company. Now say your company has just bought its first satellite; it costs $400 million, and you are paying the LSP $150 million to launch it, with a launch to GTO specified in your contract. Now this is a slightly older model of satellite, with a solid apogee motor. The carrier rocket's upper stage misfires, and your satellite ends up in low Earth orbit. Because you can only fire the apogee motor once, the spacecraft cannot raise itself into geosynchronous orbit, and instead you end up deorbiting it. What do you tell your insurance company about the outcome of the launch? --GW… 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I said I wasn't going to respond to your provocations anymore, but I guess that is just impossible.

I think the basic problem here is that we have different ideas of what is required here. I am attempting to work on this article. You are apparently attempting to write a general definition of "success" that can be applied to every article on rockets on wikipedia. I'm not interested in that goal. I am attempting to make this article clearly defined, so readers understand what is written in this article. Coming up with a definition of success that can be applied to commercial geosynchronous transfer launches is fine, but it's not relevant or required for this article-- it would make a much longer article.

Why don't you write your criteria for success in a different article, and we can then argue about it there, where it's not so completely off topic?Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken some time to think about the issue, and whilst I can see where you are coming from, I cannot agree with your position. I would say that since this article is part of a series of articles, they should all comply to the same standards. I am not talking about every single article on Wikipedia, just the "comparison of XX launch systems" ones. Since the articles are otherwise virtually identical I feel that an inconsistent definition would be more confusing than a slightly more complex but comprehensive one. The Aerospace Corporation defines a launch failure as "an unsuccessful attempt to place a payload into its intended orbit...up to and including spacecraft separation"[1] - perhaps we could use that as the basis for a new definition. --GW… 21:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any clarity in your argument that it's confusing to have no standard definition across all other articles in this series, but not confusing to vary the definitions in other articles on space boosters. In any case, though, this then brings up the question of where it is appropriate to place the definition of success (and where it should be discussed). Presumably not here, since I can't see any logical reason that anybody would come here to find out that definition.

Nice to cite a reference (there are about a dozen to chose from; I probably would have gone with Isakowitz although that depends on which edition you use). Unfortunately, this particular definition turns out to be nearly unusable in practice, and where it is usable, requires a lot of judgement calls. Until the fall of the iron curtain in 1992, for example, Soviet launches never announced what their target orbit was, or, for a large number of launches, even what their mission was. (Sputnik 7 is a prime example of this. After the launch, it was announced as "test of heavy Earth-orbital platform." It was later amended to "test of Earth-orbital platform to launch interplanetary spacecraft," and then only years later as "failed attempt to launch a Venus probe.") Many, but not all, of the old Soviet launches have had space historians go back and dig through the old records to see what they actually were, but not all of that information was still around. Using this definition would mean that for pretty much every rocket launched by the former Soviet Union, you'd have to state "the success of this booster is unknown, since the mission target orbit was not announced before launch." It's a good definition for commercial satellites (but here you can just define success as "did the insurance company pay out?), but fails for NRO launches, where the target orbit is typically announced as "yes, we launched something. We won't tell you what it was, or what orbit it's in, or whether that is what we intended or not, or what it's intended to do" (although presumably The Aerospace Corporation, a FFRDC belonging to the Department of Defense, knows.) The second sentence of this definition clarifies it-- "This definition includes all catastrophic launch mishaps involving launch vehicle destruction or explosion, significant reduction in payload service life, and extensive effort or substantial cost for mission recovery"-- but now brings up ambiguity and arguments-- "destruction or explosion" is quite clear, but how significant does reduction in payload service life have to be to call it failure? How do you measure how "extensive" a mission recovery effort is, and how do you even know? What cost is "substantial"? The following sentence, about transfer stages, adds even more ambiguity and judgement calls. All of these questions would have to be argued out, and all of the judgement calls would have to be clarified and explained for a history of nearly four thousand orbital launch attempts-- and in four thousand launches, there are going to be borderline cases requiring a judgement call. And each of these cases are going to have nitpickers. If the article includes a discussion of launch failure that covers every launch of vehicles that aren't in the category, it's going to be a very long article that, for the most part, is irrelevant to the topic.

Do you see why I prefer a definition of launch failure that is clear, specific, unambiguous, and (as far as possible) requires only information that is available even for classified launches? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see why you prefer it, however I still can't agree to using it as a definition of success. I would be happy to accept your definition as a compromise if it were moved to a separate column and presented as a count of launches reaching orbit rather than as a success rate. I think this would need some ironing out, however if we can agree on a way to do this then it might resolve the dispute. --GW… 19:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the phrase "success rate" had been removed from the article several iterations back. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is still present, just not in as many words: "launch record is defined here as the number of times the launch vehicle successfully placed its payload into orbit" --GW… 07:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have deleted the word "successfully", changing the phrase "the number of times the launch vehicle successfully placed its payload into orbit" to read "the number of times the launch vehicle placed its payload into orbit." I do not see how this improves the article in any way whatsoever, but apparently any implication of the word "success" or any adjectival form of it gives you problems. Can I say again, I don't think your time is currently being well spent? Why don't you go delete the word "success" from the Falcon 9 article, instead of continuing to try to fine-tune this one? At least you could argue with different people for a while.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That was only a suggestion, not a final proposal. There are issues still to be discussed. I still feel that it should be in a separate column, and I think better wording for the footnote would be "This is the number of launches which have been catalogued as having reached orbit, regardless of the outcome of the launch." I currently have no issue with the Falcon 9 article, and since I'm going through a fairly inactive phase with regards to editing at the moment anyway, it does not affect how well my time is spent. My issue with calling it success is that by your own admission, the term "success" is ambiguous, and I feel that with your proposal certain information could be misleading if it presented as a success rate. There is no entirely neutral way to present a success rate with only two numbers, which is why I advocated its removal earlier in this discussion. If we use your data, but present it at face value rather than trying to dress it up as a success rate, then I feel it would be more neutral, less ambiguous, and more accessible to the non-experts you are so concerned about. --GW… 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, actually I said that your definition of the word success was ambiguous. I have now deleted the word from the article. It doesn't make the article better in any way, but it satisfies your need to make sure that the word success is not used in the article. 18:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to find a compromise here, but it is difficult when you seem so unwilling to make concessions. Yes, you have removed the word "success", but it has not changed the meaning of the sentence, and without a rewrite and without splitting the columns, the same meaning will always be implied. I think my offer is quite fair, and I am making a reasonable concession, but in return I won't settle for less than the concessions that I have asked you to make. Otherwise we can keep arguing round in circles - I am trying to find something that we can both agree on but you don't seem interested in listening to my side of the debate. As for your claim that the word "success" is not ambiguous, I think this discussion speaks for itself. --GW… 20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is that I don't believe that your proposed changes will make this a better article. You are apparently trying to add into this article things that will hypothetically be useful to people reading other articles. I don't believe your changes will make those articles clearer, either, but in any case, I don't think that matters-- I am trying to make this article clear. There's really little left to say.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And the bottom line of my argument is that I believe your definition does not accurately represent the data. Yes, it is easier to explain to people who are not experts, but some might say that the plum pudding model of the atom is easier to explain than the nucleic model. That doesn't make it right. There is no way that launches such as that of Orion 3 can be considered successful, but under your system they would be. I also doubt that this will make it easier for "non-experts" to understand the article, as I doubt whether they will be able to grasp the difference between "[allegedly] successful launch to orbit" and "successful launch". Remember, many of these non-experts have difficulty grasping the difference between orbital and suborbital spaceflight. --GW… 07:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We are, apparently, at an impasse. You seem to be uninterested in the clarity or accuracy of this article, and apparently think that this article somehow makes other articles ambiguous. I disagree. I want this article to be clear. If people want to know about Orion 3, they can go to the Orion 3 article. There are thousands of launches of non-super heavy lift launch systems; I don't think that they should be discussed in the super heavy lift launch systems article. You tell me that I am "unwilling to make concessions," however, let me point out that I have worked hard on a definition that is unambiguous, I have rewritten it when you objected to the original wording, I have added explanations, footnotes, links to other articles, and citations for where readers can find full information in case the readers are still unsure. This seems like useful editing to me. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My interest in the clarity and accuracy of this article is the reason I am still objecting to your proposal. I agree that you have made one concession, a minor rewording of the description, however this did nothing to change the meaning of the description, and did not satisfy the terms of the suggested compromise that I had offered. I suggested additional changes that might satisfy those terms, however you have completely ignored them choosing instead to attack my position on other issues. You seem to cherry-pick the points you respond to, and you are still leaving many of my questions unanswered, which comes across as evasive.

This article is one part of a six-article series. I think that since the six articles follow similar formatting, an issue such as this affecting one would affect them all. Why do you feel this article should be "clear" and not the others in the series? Why do you single this one out for special treatment? The explanations and footnotes you have provided do little to offset the inherent bias of the definition itself, and the internal links add little or nothing of relevance to this issue. To restate my position, my preference is to put things back the way they were, but with additional references, and my second choice would be to delete the success rates entirely since they are subjective and controversial. I object to your proposed definition, however I am prepared to withdraw my objection if and only if you make the concessions that I have requested. I am prepared to discuss alternatives, however I will not accept the proposal in its current form. I would also like to note that since you agree there is no consensus, the status quo should be maintained per WP:BRD, which means reverting to the original definition and values. This should have been done at the start of the discussion, however since you wanted to make an edit war out of it I let your content stand temporarily as a sign of good faith. In the same spirit I won't remove it yet, as I am still hopeful that we can find some form of agreement. --GW… 19:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the edit history. The "status quo"-- before you started changing it-- listed the launch record of the Saturn V as 12/12. Since the article was first posted, you changed that five times (downward three times; deleting it entirely twice). Four editors had written 12/12, and you changed or deleted it five times. Let me point this out explicitly: Nobody other than you has changed that number downward. You account for all of the attempts to revise the record downward.

My adding a note saying specifically what was meant by the "launch record" column was an attempt to clarify what the column said, and to explicitly state that other definitions of success do exist. It was an attempt at compromise: putting in the 12/12 record, but noting that other definitions do exist. If you think that this attempt at clarification failed, and the article should be "put it back to the way it was," this would mean that the article would list the launch record of the Saturn V as 12/12, but with no explanation or discussion of what that means. That's fine with me; it would at least end this discussion. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That might be plausible, but I am still concerned about the current arrangement forcing the launch outcomes to be presented in black-and-white - they are either considered successful or unsuccessful where in the real world they my not be completely successful but still result in the payload being at least partially usable. How about adding a third number for "partial failures"? --GW… 09:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, time for another voice once again. Despite whether GW, or GW plus n other editors, have identified the lack of clearly defined claims of "successful" launches, or have made changes to the article to reflect that the assertions in the article are perhaps more explicit than sources support, that does not change the fact that, in general, I haven't seen any verifiable reliable secondary sources that support the Successful/Total claims that are extensively present in this article. That alone would argue for their removal, after due time of course for discussion on the Talk page. For certain, it makes the issue of who is making the change moot. Let's discuss the edit and not the editor, focus on the contribution not the contributor. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that this issue is hard to resolve, and want to give only a side note - currently on the different lists (small/medium/heavy/etc.) the launch record is written in a different ways - only launches or launches vs. success/failures and then in one column or two separate columns (various combinations). I think that there should be consistency across the lists and the same criteria for "launch attempt" (development/test attempts included?) and "success of the launch attempt" (launch vehicle reaching desired orbit, regardless of payload separation/later fate?). I propose a single column (with a footnote describing the criteria applied) with double numbers - 65/70 meaning "success 65 times of 70 attempts", with footnotes explaining the special cases. Alinor (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning for the attempt/success definition that I given in my comment is the following: this is a list of launch vehicles, not of space programs in general or of particular payloads. That's why I think that every attempt to launch should be counted (including test launches) and also that every time that the launch vehicle achieved the required destination its job is completed successfully - regardless what happens to the other elements (separation mechanism failure, payload propulsion failure, other payload failure).

If I am not mistaken there are only three special cases - Energia, Space Shuttle, Brazil VLS-1. Energia launched twice, but in one of the launches the payload propulsion failed (thus Energia has 2 successful launches); Shuttle launched 132 times, in one case it failed at launch, in second case it failed at re-entry (thus Shuttle has 131 successful launches); VLS-1 launched twice (both failures) and had a third rocket in preparation that exploded days before the scheduled launch attempt (thus VLS-1 has 2 attempts and 0 successes). Of course appropriate notes for the special cases should be kept so that everything is clear. Alinor (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I forgot Saturn V - it has one partial failure launch, but since the sources cited count it with the successful launches, then I guess the current explanatory note is enough. Alinor (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, see my proposal below. Alinor (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass to TLI with refuelling

I think the column title "Mass to TLI with refueling" is too vague. If an upper stage is refuelled enough times, then it theoretically could put any mass that it is capable of carrying into LEO into any orbit. If a technique for refuelling without reaching a stable orbit could be made, then it could be even higher, depending on the structural limits of the rocket. Therefore, mass to TLI would at least equal mass to LEO. Now I know in this case the column refers to a specific proposal, but some readers may not. --GW… 23:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Also, there is a red link to a potential future article about in space refueling, where these issues could be explained in detail. Alinor (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Super? HLLV

Just saw this: China is Planning a large Heavy Lift Rocket, dated July 27, 2010. Supposedly "about as powerful as Energia" so this might be the article for it. Or if not, then maybe the heavy lift article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

BBC News site. The Yeti (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Falcon X and XX removal

Falcon X and XX are mentioned both as being super heavies. However they are just concepts, just like the Atlas Phase Studies. So, why is it nescessary to include them? Yeah, if they start development of them, they can be kept, but I don't think they're at that stage yet. Maybe in the proposed section, but not in the main section. Sound reasonable? 66.67.22.212 (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the information at this news source, and the accompanying video of an interview with Elon Musk, may offer the best reason for not including the SpaceX super-heavy-lift stuff yet. According to that source, "Elon emphasizes that the SpaceX heavy lift slides shown at the recent propulsion conference are just rough concepts and not part of any grand long term plan." Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Now the same story is being published by the mainstream aviation and space media. Basically, Musk has clarified that the stuff on which the Falcon X and Falcon XX claims are based was merely "brainstorming." Here is the article on the clarification from Aviation Week and Space Technology: Musk Clarifies SpaceX Position On Exploration, August 11, 2010. Key graf:

"Musk says provisional concepts for a deep space architecture were outlined as “brainstorming ideas” by Markusic. “The only thing SpaceX is intending to do for sure in the long term is to try to move toward super heavy lift,” Musk says. The key element of this, as outlined in Markusic’s presentation, is development of the Merlin 2 engine. “Part of it depends on NASA and its willingness to fund a portion of that."

In my view, the Falcon X and Falcon XX lines in the table should be deleted. SpaceX's super heavy plans are indeterminate, and way too non-specific for even a single line in the table, at least as of what we know right now, in August 2010. N2e (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think they could be placed in the proposed section, but it is too early to place them in the main list. Alinor (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, a working links to [2] and [3] would be welcome. Alinor (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, they are in the main list right now. Does any other editor have a view on this? If not, I'll delete both FX and FXX from the "main list" per Talk page consensus in a week or so. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Chances are, they'll never be built. There are several other super heavy lift proposals that fall in the same boat. --Craigboy (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Both Falcon X and Falcon XX articles have been nominated for deletion. If interested in commenting, then go to the article(s) and click to each articles' AfD page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The decision on both AfD's was to merge the Falcon __ articles into SpaceX. Both merges have been completed. As always, more cleanup is necessary, and will, no doubt, occur over time. N2e (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

N1 capacity

It was changed from 75000-citation-needed to 95,000(102,000) without a source given and without explanation about the two numbers. The N1 wiki article lists 75000, but in the talk page there this is questioned. Alinor (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What tag is appropriate? ? Alinor (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: {{citation needed}} is the one. {{clarify}} is usually used to indicate that the prose is unclear, or makes no sense, or needs a link on a term (or more prose to explain the term). {{dubious}} would be used perhaps when one source might indicate one thing but several others, more reliable sources perhaps, say something else, but you want to offer some time to discuss on the Talk page before deleting the claim, trying to reach consensus on the topic. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked again in the N1 article - at the bottom there is also a 95,000 figure. Also, this looks consistent with other mentions of 93mt/similar values in articles like Soviet Moonshot.

Also there I found that the Soviet moon complex had 40% of the mass of the US moon complex (45028 kg - 30mt Orbital and 15mt Lander), so 40% of 45mt = 18mt (much less than the uncited 30mt in the article here). There is also the claim that soviet lander is 40% of US Lander, and according to the wikipedia articles these are 5.5mt (soviet) and 15mt (US) - close to 40%, so maybe the 40% figure is only about the lander. Alinor (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking here shows that the N1 design with RP-1/LOX has 75mt LEO capacity. There were expectations that a LH/LOX version could lift 90-100 mt. Maybe this is the reason of different values given at different places. As the N1 actually designed, build, etc. (incl. 4 launch attempts) was RP-1/LOX I will change the value accordingly. Also, about the name - in the N1 article it is stated that there was to be a N1F version with more capable RP-1/LOX engines, but it didn't fly. Alinor (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we add to the "proposed, but abandoned designs" the following:

• N1F upgraded N1 rocket with more powerful NK-33 engines.
• An even more powerful would be the N1 with LH/LOX engines (90 - 100 mt LEO capacity)

I suggest not - the first is an update to the N1 (and we have no data about its capacities), the second is an estimation/extrapolation of what would be if N1 uses another type of engines, that wasn't part of the plans back then. Alinor (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Angara 7

In the proposed section (mt to LEO/TLI/TLI with refueling) was added "Angara 7 (118/35-41/?)[9]". In the link the specifications show mt to LEO: 35-41. I can't find 118. Having in mind that it is written in the middle position (for TLI) it seems that this addition is a mix-up. I propose moving Angara A7 to heavy lift (if not there already). Alinor (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If the sources as given do not support the assertion for Angara being in this article, then I support the move to the more appropriate article. Please do carefully cite all claims for Angara in whichever article is appropriate. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Composition of the list (table)

1. Removed the info on Falcon X Heavy and Falcon XX, since those are just proposed concepts that haven't yet reached nowhere near the project stage.
2. Removed the info stating that Saturn INT-21 had one launch. It has never flown, the booster used for Skylab was an actual Saturn V with the 3rd stage modified into Skylab itself. The entry for Saturn INT-21 should probably be deleted altogether, but unlike two heavy Falcons it was under development coming much closer to becoming an operational vehicle, so I'm not sure.
3. Added clarification to Space Shuttle entry that it is regarded here as an integrated launch system, and not a standalone heavy booster, also removed the note stating: 'Like Soviet Energia-Buran system, despite of integrated design of rocket and orbiter, US Space Shuttle may be comparatively considered as launcher for such superheavy payload as manned spaceplane. But it should be noted that the orbiter could not hold more tha 25,000 kg.' Such reasoning is not entirely justified. It may be considered as such only with serious reservations, since Shuttle's Orbiter cannot be replaced with anything else and has to be brought back to Earth, whereas other boosters can hypothetically (or practically, like Saturn V - Skylab case) have the load they put in LEO modified. And certainly the Shuttle system should not be made part of this comparative list based merely on similarity with Energia-Buran (the note says 'like Soviet Energia-Buran system') since Enegia booster could be adapted to carry basically any appropriately configured and balanced payload piggybacked on its side, not just the orbiter.--Alvez3 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag

As most of the issues were resolved (and the rest have more focused individual 'citation needed' or other tags) maybe this tag should be removed? Alinor (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to ask the editor who put the tag on. In my view, the multiple issues tag only works, in the long term, for an article when someone is willing to articulate a rationale for each of the separate subcomponents of the tag. In my view, the article needs more sources, but I would have trouble articulating the case for the three subcomponents of this particular multiple issues tag. Having said that, I might agree with some of them were someone to articulate a rationale for each of them. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And what does the "when" tag on Saturn INT-21 stand for? Alinor (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

All three of the issues in the template relate to concerns I have raised regarding the unilaterally-implemented definition used to determine the success rates of rockets, which is being discussed ad nauseum further up this page. --GW… 20:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That helps GW. I've read a bunch of that, but also skipped a lot. You are correct, it is truly ad nauseum. I cannot follow a debate that has gone on for that many exchanges, largely between just a couple of editors.

I suggest you write a short, brief, concrete proposal—and do it in a new section (below)—that the various editors who frequent or follow this page might be able to either Support or Oppose, and offer a rationale for their position. Obviously, you should keep the proposal simple and one that you think might garner a consensus amongst editors. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand now.

There is a way to group footnotes (of the ^[11] style) so that sources go in the "References" section and notes in "Notes" section. That way we can avoid having multiple stars ("*****") along with numbers ("[11]") for some entries. If everybody agrees I can try to implement this arrangement. (like here)

I think that the general note about the "launch record" column (that is currently below the table) should be moved to such "[11]" note too.

About the multiple issues tag - I propose that we replace it with some tag in the heading of the "launch record" column - for example a {{dubious}} tag linking to the appropriate discussion on the talk page. Alinor (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we change the current description of launch record in this way:

• The column launch record is defined here as the number of times the launch vehicle achieved a desired orbit (final payload orbit or an intermediate transfer orbit) divided by the total number of attempted launches.
  Launches into a useless orbit (i.e., an orbit from which the payload is unable to operate) are excluded from success, as is the case of a launch in which the payload was destroyed before the launch vehicle achieved a desired orbit. Success of the launches is determined by the performance of the launch vehicle itself and classification is not affected by subsequent failures of other elements like payload separation failure, payload propulsion failure (not reaching a desired payload final orbit from the desired transfer orbit), other payload failures (including re-entry failures). Other definitions of launch success may result in different values for the launch success record (see notes where applicable).
  The total number of launch attempts includes development and test launches (and sub-orbital launches if so noted), but pre-launch failures are not included.

This will give us Shuttle (131/132), Energia (2/2), Saturn V (13/13), Falcon 1 (2/5), VLS-1 (2/2), Black Arrow (2/4). Alinor (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to see somebody new try to resolve this issue; which has been argued for ages with little resolution. I don't think you can credit a 2/2 record for Energia, though, by a definition including the criterion of "number of times the launch vehicle achieved a desired orbit," since it did not achieve orbit. I will also point out that any definition incorporating "desired orbit" is going to be difficult to use in many of the articles in this series, since prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, none of the Soviet launches ever announced their desired orbits, or what the mission objectives were (nor, for that matter, did military launches in the US). Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Energia launch vehicle achieved its desired orbit. It was the payload's own propulsion that failed AFTER this orbit was achieved. So, Energia launcher is successful, but the Poluyz payload itself failed - see in their articles.

About the secrecy - I don't see any other disputed entries in the lists, so it seems there are no other problems than those that we discuss here above. Alinor (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Energia launch vehicle achieved its desired orbit." Sorry, no. Energia's first launch did not achieve orbit. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

From Energia#First launch: "The Energia stage itself functioned as designed, but the Polyus payload required a burn of its own engines to reach orbit."

From Polyus (spacecraft): "The Energia functioned perfectly. However, after disconnecting from Energia, the Polyus spun a full 360 degrees instead of the planned 180 degrees."

So, it seems Energia launcher achieved its desired orbit, but the payload independent propulsion system malfunctioned. Alinor (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: the Energia did not achieve orbit. Further down in the Energia article you quoted you will come to this: "The second flight, and the first one to successfully reach orbit, was..." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is circumstantial quote (compared to the other quotes that are direct: "Energia functioned perfectly/as designed") and anyway it is about the payload, not about the launcher. I agree that the payload of the first Energia flight didn't reach its orbit (because of its own failure), but the launcher accomplished its goal without failures.

Anyway, regardless of the Energia count, if we agree on the definition note - let's change it accordingly (and we will discuss Energia number separately). Alinor (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also here [4]: "Energia made two successful flights in 1987-1988." and "The launch vehicle performed successfully, but the payload failed to inject itself into orbit due to a guidance system failure." - why do you insist that Energia failed? Polyus payload failed, yes, but all quotes point that Energia launcher was successful. Alinor (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you want to discuss Energia, we should do it in a different subtopic. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that it is already discussed above. Alinor (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I will remove the general "multiple issues" flag, if nobody objects. Instead we already have the "targeted" flags for dubious/citation needed in a few places. Alinor (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I object to that on the grounds that two disputes are now ongoing, the original one for which I added the tag, and the Energia one. --GW… 22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Energia dispute has its own tag. What is the original dispute about? Alinor (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You can always add a 'dubious' or other appropriate flag on the particular text that you find problematic (what is it, besides the texts that already have individual tags?). But the general article tag seems inappropriate. Alinor (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Saturn INT-21

According to its article it was a study about Saturn V-related launcher. I am not sure (and have no source), but this seems to me much like the multiple NASA/US government sponsored studies about potential launchers (Ares IV, Ares V lite, Jupiter, Shuttle-C, EELV-based-SHLV, etc.). So, was Saturn INT-21 under development or was it only a study paper rocket never chosen for implementation? (if yes it should go to the "proposed and later canceled/abandoned" like Ares IV) Alinor (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass to LEO

What is "Mass to LEO"? Is it payload only? If so, Space Shuttle should be deleted from this list...--Kozuch (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No. In most cases "mass to LEO"="payload", but in the case of Buran/Shuttle we have reusable parts reaching orbit, returning, going back, etc. Mass to LEO shows the lift capability of the launch systems - and they lift the whole Buran/Shuttle, including the equipment in their payload bays. I think the current notes explain this, but if needed it can be elaborated additionally in a footnote. Alinor (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Energia vs Saturn V launch record

There is a debate whether Energia's Polyus mission consitutes a failure, but in similar fashion, shouldn't Saturn V's launch record include mention of Apollo 6, where both 2nd & 3rd stages had serious problems and payload failed to reach intended orbit? If anything, that failure was far more serious than Polyus failure, where Energia itself performed as intended, whilst Apollo 6 problems occurred in the launch vehicle. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 6, with its malfunctions, reached orbit and completed its mission. It is not controversial because there is no controversy, it is generally regarded as a launch success. Although I suppose that if you wanted to generate a controversy to further your agenda, you're more than welcome. Though I would want to go with Apollo 13, which is regarded as the only partial failure. Tablecat (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If one wants to generate controversy in this topic, there is plenty of opportunities. The problem is that in different communities the same mission might be "generally regarded" as success or failure - and those different communities meet on Wikipedia and can't find the common ground. The Wikipedia rules are ambiguous, which in some cases leads to endless battles about what is more correct point of view. Avmich (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I would be inclined to agree that Apollo 6 was a partial failure. The failure of the upper stage to restart resulted in the spacecraft having to use its own fuel to correct its orbit, and meant that some mission objectives could not be met. That is the definition of a partial launch failure. --GW… 08:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how anyone (except NASA, to show assurance on the vehicle) could classify Apollo 6 as anything but a partial failure. The payload failed to reach intended orbit and the 3rd stage would not restart. That the launch yielded much useful information should not ignore glaring facts that the rocket did not perform as intended. Whereas in case of Polyus and Apollo 13, mission failures were not caused by launchers. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I still think that Polyus should be considered a launch failure, since the rocket would have been incapable of reaching orbit without the component that failed. I agree with your points regarding the Saturn V record. Since all the participants in this discussion who have raised the issue of the Saturn launch record have agreed there was a single partial failure (even if they can't agree which flight it was on), I will make that change. --GW… 20:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't Apollo 13 a failure of the payload instead of the launcher? nihil (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Energia success record was discussed to death on the previous heavy-lift page. In brief: -if the first launch was considered to be a suborbital test of the Energia core booster (with the Polyus failure considered as a payload failure, not an Energia failure), then since it didn't go to orbit, the success record is 1/1 -if the first launch was considered to be a orbital test of the full Energia launch system, then the record is 1/2. 2/2, however, is logically inconsistent either way you look at it. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

2/2 is consistent for the launcher (the subject of discussion), which brings its payload to trajectory close to orbital. In both flights Energiya did that successfully. Polyus didn't manage to get to orbit, Buran did. Avmich (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Energia First-Launch Discussion, Continued

Copy of relevant comments from a below discution (and my talk page): Alinor (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

...I don't think you can credit a 2/2 record for Energia, though, by a definition including the criterion of "number of times the launch vehicle achieved a desired orbit," since it did not achieve orbit... Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Energia launch vehicle achieved its desired orbit. It was the payload's own propulsion that failed AFTER this orbit was achieved. So, Energia launcher is successful, but the Poluyz payload itself failed - see in their articles... Alinor (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Energia launch vehicle achieved its desired orbit." Sorry, no. Energia's first launch did not achieve orbit. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

From Energia#First launch: "The Energia stage itself functioned as designed, but the Polyus payload required a burn of its own engines to reach orbit."

From Polyus (spacecraft): "The Energia functioned perfectly. However, after disconnecting from Energia, the Polyus spun a full 360 degrees instead of the planned 180 degrees."

So, it seems Energia launcher achieved its desired orbit, but the payload independent propulsion system malfunctioned. Alinor (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: the Energia did not achieve orbit. Further down in the Energia article you quoted you will come to this: "The second flight, and the first one to successfully reach orbit, was..." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is circumstantial quote (compared to the other quotes that are direct: "Energia functioned perfectly/as designed") and anyway it is about the payload, not about the launcher. I agree that the payload of the first Energia flight didn't reach its orbit (because of its own failure), but the launcher accomplished its goal without failures.

Also here [5]: "Energia made two successful flights in 1987-1988." and "The launch vehicle performed successfully, but the payload failed to inject itself into orbit due to a guidance system failure." - why do you insist that Energia failed? Polyus payload failed, yes, but all quotes point that Energia launcher was successful. Alinor (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You quoted a link to the Encyclopedia Astronautica article on Energia. If you scroll down further on that link, at the bottom of the text, Encyclopedia Astronautica lists the stats for the vehicle, including the Energia flight statistics: "Failures: 1. Success Rate: 50.00%. First Fail Date: 1987-05-15. Last Fail Date: 1987-05-15. Launch data is: complete." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is mission failure, not launcher failure. But reading above I understand that the problem is that the launcher desired orbit was sub-orbital. So, we can include a note about sub-orbital flight like here and here ("including sub-orbital flights") and give 2/2 number (with note about the payload failure), or alternatively we can give number 1/1 with note that there was another successful launch, but sub-orbital and with subsequent failure of the payload. Alinor (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the desired launch was not suborbital. The Russians had every intention of putting the payload in orbit! Burning it up over the Pacific was not in their plans. After it failed-- and considering that, for political reasons, they had no intention of ever revealing what the payload was-- they want back and made up a cover story that it was a successful suborbital test, not a failed attempt to launch into orbit. It was never intended to be a suborbital test.

Later, after the fall of the iron curtain, when many of the Soviet space secrets (including the existence of the Polyus weapons system) were revealed, they kept to the "the suborbital part of the launch was successful" part of the story, primarily because NPO Energia was desperately trying to sell the vehicle to anybody that they could, and they wanted to emphasize its success. This would be the only booster in the history of orbital spaceflight for which anybody would ever claim that a launch in which the upper stage failed was a "successful launch." It was not. If you want to go and look for cases where the only failure was that the booster stage worked, but the upper stage failed to place the payload into orbit, and re-designate these as "success," you will find a lot of such cases. (I suggest you start with Atlas-Centaur-- in this case, like Energia/Polyus, the upper stage has a separate name, the Centaur.)

In any case, though, the point isn't to discuss what part failed. The point is to ask, does it meet the definition of the launch record which you proposed? This definition begins: "The column launch record is defined here as the number of times the launch vehicle achieved a desired orbit (final payload orbit or an intermediate transfer orbit) divided by the total number of attempted launches." This is pretty unambiguous. I cannot think of any way to phrase the Energia launch to make fit that definition "achieved a desired orbit."

Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Polyus is not an "upper stage of Energia". Polyus is the payload of the first launch attempt. Polyus has its own propulsion system - independent of the Energia launcher. Polyus is like satellite (in fact it is a military satellite) launched to some orbit by a rocket, separating and pushing from there on itself (burning its own fuel, using its own thrusters, etc.). We should not mix payload/mission-in-general with launcher-specific issues (as this is the record of successful launches in a list of launch vehicles - not a record of successful missions in a list of space programs).

Political secrecy and cover stories about test flight or regular flight, etc. has nothing to do with that. The 1987 mission steps were:

1. Energia-rocket launching on sub-orbital trajectory - accomplished
2. Polyus-payload separation - accomplished
3. Polyus-payload thrusting on its own to the desired final orbit - failed

So, the desired orbit for Energia was sub-orbital, the desired orbit for Polyus was orbital. Energia succeeded, Polyus failed. The mission-in-general was a failure, the launch itself was a success.

See here again: "The launch vehicle performed successfully, but the payload failed to inject itself into orbit due to a guidance system failure. With the launch vehicle finally proven, the focus moved to clearing Buran for flight." Alinor (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And I'll remind you that that reference here again states the Energia success record: "Failure: 1".

As I said - this is about mission-in-general failure, not launch vehicle-in-particular failure. There was no launch vehicle failure. Alinor (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So, in any case: do you now understand why it is difficult to write a definition for launch record that satisfies everybody? Let me repeat the definition that you had proposed: "The column launch record is defined here as the number of times the launch vehicle achieved a desired orbit (final payload orbit or an intermediate transfer orbit) divided by the total number of attempted launches." Could you suggest a rewrite of this definition in such a way that makes it clear under what circumstances a launch that did not achieve a desired orbit (not a final payload orbit, neither an intermediate transfer orbit) will be labelled a success? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought that it was already clear (that we count launch vehicle failures and not subsequent unrelated-to-launch-vehicle payload failures), but here some proposals:

1. "...launch vehicle achieved a desired orbit (e.g. final payload orbit, an intermediate transfer orbit, etc.) divided by ..."
2. "...launch vehicle achieved a desired orbit (final payload orbit or an intermediate payload separation orbit) divided by ..."
3. "...launch vehicle achieved a desired orbit (e.g. final payload orbit, payload separation orbit, etc.) divided by ..."
4. "...launch vehicle achieved a desired orbit (depending on the mission, e.g. final payload orbit, payload separation orbit, etc.) divided by ..."

Alinor (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In order to consider the first launch a success, you have to consider the launch system without upper stage/spacecraft propulsion. This means that Energia would be classed as a suborbital launch system with zero LEO payload, and would therefore fail the primary inclusion criteria for this list. --GW… 09:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The 4 options above are about the general definition, to make more clear (if needed) the distinction between launcher success and mission success.

All launch systems are included in the Super-Heavy list because they are/were designed for lifting to LEO payloads in the range above 50mt (not that ALL of their payloads have to be so big). Some of them are/were clearly capable of that (Saturn V, STS), others had this as a goal (N1), but haven't made a successful flight. Energia was not only designed for that, but even achieved this goal at least once (second flight) or twice (second and first flights). So, Energia doesn't fail the inclusion criteria for the list, regardless of the first flight.

Upper/Last stage propulsion (part of the launcher) and payload spacecraft propulsion are separate things, we should not mix them here.

sub-orbital flights are included in the counts for other rockets (of the small/medium/etc. classes), so we can count it here too (with the appropriate footnote of course), preferably. Or alternatively we could exclude it from the count (again with appropriate footnote) and list it as 1/1 (the second flight), but in no case can we use launch record of 1/2 as the launcher hadn't failed (see links above). Alinor (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Energia did not reach orbit on its second flight either; in that case Buran provided the thrust to reach orbit. Without an upper stage or spacecraft propulsion, Energia would not have been able to place a payload into orbit. Therefore a decision has to be made as to whether the data is presented for just the Energia core vehicle, or whether it should include insertion propulsion. In the former case then the payload capacity should reflect this, and hence it would not meet the insertion criteria, and in the latter case the first launch must be considered a failure. You cannot cherry-pick the data that you want to display. I should also point out that the many US failures of this nature are all considered launch failures as opposed to spacecraft failures. --GW… 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that "Energia would not have been able to place a payload into orbit." - maybe the operational orbits of Polyus and Buran are higher than those possible only with Energia-propulsion, but Energia can achieve "some" orbit (maybe not with 80mt Polyus, but with some 60mt payload?).

Also, from Buran (spacecraft): "Energia booster lifted the vehicle into a temporary orbit before shuttle separated as programmed."

In any case Buran/Polyus are not "upper stage of launcher", but "payload". I don't see precise information about the temporary orbits - if these are sub-orbital or not, but in any case this has nothing to do with "launch vehicle success" (only with whether we count sub-orbital flights or not).

In both flights the launcher (Energia) was successful, Buran was successful too (thus mission success), Polyus failed (thus mission failure). I think all three statements are backed up by the sources and relevant wikipedia articles. What is wrong? Alinor (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong is that you seem to have an incorrect mental image of the Energia-Polyus launch. The Polyus stage was a required stage needed to reach orbit. Your newest attempt at a definition of launch record states "The column launch record is defined here as the number of times the launch vehicle achieved a desired orbit (e.g. payload separation orbit, final mission orbit, etc.) with the payload intact, divided by the total number of attempted launches." OK. I don't like this definition as well, but for the sake of argument, I'll accept it. But the Energia-Polyus launch did not achieve a "payload separation orbit". The Energia launch did not achieve any orbit. By the definition you propose, Energia-Polyus is not a success.

The more general problem is that you seem to be attempting to craft a definition which would effectively mean that any launch in which the first stage works and the second stage separates successfully is called a success, even when the second stage fails to actually put the spacecraft into orbit, as long as somebody declared that the second stage is a "spacecraft" and has a separate name. But there are lots of launch vehicles for which the upper stage has a separate name and goes into orbit as the spacecraft-- Atlas-Agena, Atlas-Centaur, Titan-Centaur, for a start. (Note that the Atlas is perfectly capable of launching a spacecraft without the Agena or Centaur upper stage-- Project Mercury, for example.) With this definition, every flight in which an Agena or a Centaur failed would have to be reclassified a success. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Energia launch did not achieve any orbit." - it achieved the desired payload separation trajectory (sub-orbital). I am not sure if sub-orbital flight trajectories are called "orbit",

That's correct, suborbital flights are not considered "orbit."

but we can easily change the term from "desired orbit" to "desired trajectory" (in order to cover cases where sub-orbital flights are included in the counts - see the other examples besides Energia).

Energia is capable of achieving orbit on its own. The first mission profile didn't require that, but that doesn't mean that Energia can't achieve any orbit (see above - "Energia booster lifted the vehicle into a temporary orbit").

No, the definition I propose does not treat launcher last stage failures as success.

Centaur is an upper stage and not a payload.

I didn't say that Energia "can't" achieve orbit. I said that it didn't achieve orbit. Energia did not lift Polyus into any orbit, temporary or not.

Why do you say that the Centaur is an upper stage and not a payload? The Atlas vehicle is capable of achieving orbit on its own-- it has done so many times. What characteristic exactly makes Centaur an upper stage, and Polyus not? What about Agena? Who decides? On what criteria do they decide?

If Polyus was an upper stage and not a payload, then you would be correct. Otherwise the first Energia launch would be a sub-orbital launch part of an orbital mission and it all will boil down to whether we include in the launcher counts their sub-orbital flights or not.

I saw your edits to the Energia article. I'm not sure if they are sourced, but if they are correct, then it seems that the Polyus-spacecraft was specially designed to contain last stage propulsion. As Energia lifted Buran to a temporary orbit on its own I think it would be strange for Polyus to require additional propulsion unless it weights more or its required final orbit was higher. Alinor (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to confess myself baffled here. You wrote down a criteria for launch record by which the Energia-Polyus launch was explicitly not a successful launch. When I pointed that out, you are now attempting to rewrite the criteria (and in the process making them more complicated, more ambiguous, and subject to argument and subjective judgment calls). Why? Is there any reason to do that, other than to try to make the failed Energia-Polyus launch look like a success?

Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm rewriting the criteria with the aim to clarify them.

Upper stage is a mechanism, that has no other purpose than to lift something else upwards. If a payload, besides its main duties, can perform some propulsion actions on its own - this is not an upper stage, but additional capability of the payload.

So, Centaur is clearly a rocket stage, part of the launcher system. GEO satellites launched on temporary trajectories to GTO are clearly payloads.

According to this it seems that Polyus is a payload (as its propulsion motors were not expected to separate from it after completing their first lift - on the contrary, as I understand, its motors were expected to be repeatedly used during its main mission in order to change its orbit and reach its targets - a rare case of payload requiring a full scale propulsion system - in contrast to regular satellites that use their propulsion only to maintain orbit/compensate atmospheric drag/eventually re-entry). But if you have sources describing it as "upper stage" it may be an issue of different definitions (like the problem with boundaries between small/medium/mid-heavy/heavy lift).

If this is the case - I propose that we treat the first "Energia" launch as sub-orbital success (as per "The launch vehicle performed successfully, but the payload failed") with a note like: The launch record of Energia is controversial. The vehicle launched twice, but the payload successfully reached orbit on the second flight only. The first flight carried the Polyus payload, that failed to reach orbit on its own after separation from the launcher, that had successfully lifted it in the required sub-orbital trajectory. According to a different criteria for upper stage [link] Polyus is considered to be an upper stage and thus the first launch is classified not only as mission failure, but also as a launcher failure. Alinor (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Energia-Polyus launch was not a suborbital success because it was not a suborbital launch. It was an attempt to go to orbit which failed.

I am not sure how I can phrase this more clearly. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The payload capacity gives the total that it can place into orbit, so the success rate should reflect this rather than cherry picking a criterion which shows the system in a better light. --GW… 16:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

GW, I don't care what system is better or worse (and Energia is anyway retired for ~20 years with no successor system active/development/manufacturing, so its former success rate has very small importance for the today space activities). What I care is that we have consistency and correct data.

The payload capacity is for the system in general, not for each and every launch attempt (it is common for launchers to not utilize their whole capacity every time they launch). Energia is designed for the stated payload capacities (they are sourced) - N1 for example doesn't have a signle successful flight, but this is irrelevant to the payload capacity. Energia has also successfully lifted Buran to its temporary separation orbit, so it has a successful launch.

If you want to generally exclude sub-orbital launches from launch numbers then this has to apply to all such cases in the 5 lists, not only to Energia.

If you want to generally exclude launches with less payload that the payload capacity given then this also has to be applied to all.

I don't think it would be beneficial to try to make such exclusions.

Geoffrey.landis and GW, We are listing the launch record of launch vehicles, not of missions. I think nobody disagrees here.

About the first attempt we have the quote "The launch vehicle performed successfully, but the payload failed"

Up to here - the launch vehicle is successful. The mission is a failure, but this is irrelevant.

Then, you say that Polyus is not a payload, but part of the launcher - an "upper stage". I still haven't seen the source for this, but let's assume you will provide it.

I agree that if Polyus is an upper stage and not a payload then the first launch is a failure.

In fact Polyus is a one-of-a-kind sui generis case of mix: payload with substantial propulsion capabilities (because of its special mission). I think nobody disagrees here.

Polyus is neither an upper stage, nor a "pure payload". Because of its special capabilities it was possible for the first launch to utilize Polyus itself for the later part of the launch - instead of another separate upper stage or instead of utilizing Energia for longer burn time/whatever to provide additional trust (if required/possible). I think nobody disagrees here.

The problem/disagreement is how we deal with such mixed case. I proposed the variant of "2/2 launch number with note that missions are 1/2" - because of the quote of successful launch/failed payload, because this is launcher list - not mission list. Of course there is the other variant of "1/2 launch number with note that Energia launchers are 2/2" (Energia, not Energia-Polyus - this hasn't launched twice anyway), but I find it worse - because of reasons stated already. Does the second variant has any advantages? Alinor (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you even made that post shows that you didn't understand my point. I don't care what the masses of the individual payloads are. The payload capacities given are assuming that the payload performs insertion. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the success rates would be given in the same manner. To use one set of criteria for the capacity and another for the outcome would be misleading. As a core vehicle alone, Energia may have had two successful launches, but it would not be an orbital launch system. --GW… 22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Energia is an orbital launch system regardless of its (or its payload's) success rate. N1 has zero successful launches, but it is still an orbital launch system. Alinor (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The payload capacity column is about "design spec". The launch record is about attempts vs. successes.

Anyway, it seems our disagreement is because of difference on whether Polyus is upper stage, payload or something else. Alinor (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Are the 1/2 count and the current version of the note properly describing the situation? Should we remove the "dubious tag"? Alinor (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Done.

A side note - I really don't care if it is written in the table as 1/2 or 2/2, but as the note actually says "1/2 or 2/2 - depending on definition" I don't understand why didn't you agreed when I proposed the same thing before, but with 2/2 in the table. Alinor (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still concerned by what I believe is erroneous information regarding Energiya flight record.

Energiya rocket was created by NPO "Energiya" as a two-stage system, capable of delivering payloads to a close to orbital velocities above atmosphere. Payloads then would presumably reach orbit by adding a comparably small velocity by their own means. The rocket wasn't tied to a particular payload.

Two payloads which in fact were launched by this rocket differ substantially. They both, of course, had their own propulsion systems, as they both had to get to a full orbit, but in general they were quite different. All possible different payloads couldn't be envisioned by Energiya's creators, and weren't that important. The main goal of Energiya - to deliver payloads to a trajectory close to orbital - remained the same no matter what kind of payload might be later created.

It would be very strange to put a blame for Polyus not reaching orbit to the rocket which did exactly what it was designed for - delivered Polyus to the trajectory close to orbital. In both launches Energiya rocket is pretty much the same, while payload differs widely; yet we're considering Energiya to be a single rocket, not two different systems.

The rocket - that part which was the same in two launches - in both launches performed similarly, with the same results up to the release of payloads, whatever those payloads be. Therefore, it would be wrong to consider the launch record for the rocket to be 1/2.Avmich (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It failed to put its payload into orbit, and the payload burned up over the Pacific. That is, by definition, a failure.

Is there any other booster for which an orbital launch attempt that resulted in a failure to put the payload into orbit and consequential destruction of the payload is recorded as a "success"? It seems that advocates are attempting here to redefine the criteria for "success" in such a way as to insert a loophole that applies to the Energia first flight, and to no other launch.

It may be true that the engineers of the Energia can justifiably claim "the failure was not our fault." I can assure you that there are many many other launch failures in which the cause of failure was not the booster itself. Regardless of what system was at fault, however, it failed. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Several other rockets have flown which use payload propulsion for orbital insertion; to pick one example Thor-Agena launches with Corona satellites. Several insertion failures occurred, all of which are considered launch failures by most, if not all, sources on them. --GW… 21:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion below. Alinor (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ares V

With the October 2010 NASA Authorization spending bill, should the program activity read canceled instead of pending cancellation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.68.8 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Currently its Stage I is listed as manufactured by ATK, but the Ares V article shows Stage I as TBD. I added citation-needed tag for the award given to ATK. This is dubious since ATK does the SRBs, but not the ET that is the core of Stage I for Ares V.

Additionally I can't see if Ares V is actually under development (including preliminary design review or whatever stage) or is only at the proposal stage. For start date I put 2005 as that is the NASA bill act year of the Constellation program, whose part is Ares V. Alinor (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

For the SRB or StageI ATK involvement I put 'clarification needed' tag, since I couldn't find the "better reference needed" tag (as there is no need for clarification what SRB menas, but about what the source we have means). Can someone to provide "better ref needed" link? Alinor (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the logic in claiming the Ares V to have been "active" since 2005. It's not even certain that it's in development anymore. All dates for other vehicles are given as date of first flight to date of last flight. Perhaps "Announced 2005" or "Development 2005 - ", but the current text implies it has been in operational service since 2005. There's another question as to what to do with the entry if (when?) it is finally cancelled - do we keep it in the table as a "cancelled" launcher, or remove entirely? These changes will require some discussion!--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not real familiar with the facts behind the other launchers and the dates used. That being said, I think consistency on the dates between rows is essential in any comparison table of this type. For the launchers that ever made it to first/last launch, those dates are fine. As for article scope, I don't really have an opinion on whether we ought to keep proposed/conceptual programs in this comparison of article. I'll just note it can get messy determining which conceptual launchers are sufficiently real and sufficiently notable for inclusion. N2e (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

See the note in the "active period" column. For launchers in development the years show the years of development. Alinor (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is also the issue of cancellation. It seems that because of budget law not yet adopted NASA still nominally works on that. [6] Alinor (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to deal with the inconsistency is to split it into a "developed launchers" section (or some such wording) for ones that have made at least one launch attempt, and a "cancelled/conceptual" for those that have not yet made a launch attempt. Would have to be careful to define "conceptual" as something that actually went into serious development, not just paper (napkin) rockets.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

About the 188 vs. 160 capacity - is this related to what the IP editor said above? Maybe it's 160 metric tons and 188 short tons and there is no contradiction (both are roughly equal - see ton)?

The Ares V is the only entry in the table, that will be canceled before its first launch attempt (assuming that Falcon Heavy and NASA SLS continue as currently announced). Let's wait for its cancellation to come in effect (e.g. Constellation program cancellation following the adoption of the "full" NASA budget 2011) and then move it to the "previously proposed, but later abandoned" list with wording such as:

• Ares V (160—188/63—71/130) as part of the Constellation Program of 2005. Alinor (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)