Talk:Atlas V

Improving this article to get it to "Good Article" status
I don't have the time to do all that is necessary on this article, as my main projects at the moment don't allow me to schedule researching, sourcing and writing this article; however, the article could easily meet "Good Article" status if time was given to proper citation formatting, better integration of the facts gleaned from articles (not quoting a spokesperson or president of a company), and replacing most of the list-based information with prose, that summarizes the information. In the case of the launch list, it is redundant due to a separate list article that does just that: list every Atlas V launch. Highlights like first launch, first launch of a derivative would be appropriate. I'll contribute when I can, especially on citation formatting. This rocket is destined to be one of the two main launch vehicles for America's human spaceflight program for the foreseeable future, and its article should be treated as such. It's not that far from being a "Good Article", but using reliable sources, and citations to back up claims in the article, are needed pronto.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree it would be great to get this article to "Good Article" status! I'm not sure the comments above fairly characterize the situation regarding the list of launches, though.  List of Atlas launches is not a single article.  Also as examination of List of Atlas launches (2000–2009) reveals, Atlas V launches were interspersed in time with launches of other rockets in the Atlas family.  So why not do the readers this article the favor of providing exactly what they are likely to want, i.e. a list of Atlas V launches? (sdsds - talk) 07:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What has been said about when final flight of Atlas V might be
What has been said about when final [retirement] flight of Atlas V might be ? Could Atlas V continue launches beyond 2022 or 2024 ? even after Vulcan Centaur is flying, in case Vulcan certification is delayed ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Manufacturing facilities
From the article summary:

"Major manufacturing and integration operations occur at ULA's facility in Decatur, Alabama, with additional operations occurring at ULA's facility in Harlingen, Texas."

Can anyone explain to me why it shouldn't read:

"Major manufacturing and integration operations occur in Decatur, Alabama, and Harlingen, Texas."

Or, even better:

"The rocket is assembled in Decatur, Alabama, and Harlingen, Texas."

(As, indeed, it once did.)

It just looks to me like all we'd be losing is a lot of long, repeated, vague words. "Additional operations occurring"? I take it the value of the longer sentence is that it informs the reader that the operations occurring in Decatur and the operations occurring in Harlingen are not identical; so far, so ... good. I suggest that if we can say, and source, precisely what operations are occurring where, and if the matter is worth talking about at all, the place to do that would be somewhere south of the article summary anyway.

Seriously, "The rocket is assembled in Decatur, Alabama, and Harlingen, Texas" is less than half the words. Half.

Regulov (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is a lot of work over a comma that remains in the article. So, the thing is that, in reality, ULA's main factory is in Decatur. If you look at ULA's website you will see that this language is used. As my note says, I was not sure whether or not to cite ULA's website. Rocket manufacturing and integration operations are a complex business, I think that we should acknowledge that. At the same time, obviously it is not appropriate nor feasible to spell out every step in the supply chain. 5Ept5xW (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

You are right: from your perspective, this is about a comma. But the comma in question does NOT remain in the article. It is not the same comma. Regardless, you are (intentionally) missing the point.

My position is simple. This:

"Major manufacturing and integration operations occur at ULA's facility in Decatur, Alabama, with additional operations occurring at ULA's facility in Harlingen, Texas."

is not as good as this:

"The rocket is assembled in Decatur, Alabama, and Harlingen, Texas."

Wikipedia readers shouldn't have to wade through turgid, low-fibre filler. No one is suggesting we should spell out every step in the supply chain. At the risk of being impolitic, I believe you are arguing in bad faith. I have seen you do it elsewhere. The truth is, you are embarrassed that you made a mistake.

I corrected

"The rocket is assembled in Decatur, Alabama and Harlingen, Texas",

a straightforward error of a type I have corrected hundreds of times on Wikipedia, to read,

"The rocket is assembled in Decatur, Alabama, and Harlingen, Texas."

You reverted my edit, incorrectly, without understanding what I had done. Fair enough, no big deal. But when I insisted, and offered an explanation, you persisted in misunderstanding, reverted again, and then (I speculate), having finally checked the MoS and realized your mistake, and fearing sanction for edit warring but still adamantly refusing to just say, "Okay, I get it, sorry, never mind," you have proceeded instead to rewrite the sentence, doubling its length without adding anything of value, and now you want to make the issue one of the truth or falsity of the facts on ULA's website. But that is not the issue.

This:

"The rocket is assembled in Decatur, Alabama, and Harlingen, Texas."

is sufficient for the article summary. It is succinct, clear, and informative. That ULA is the entity that builds the rocket is given in the preceding sentence. The bottom line, for me, is not that your version is somehow wrong, but that it is bloated, inelegant, and, I'm sorry to repeat, written and defended in bad faith. Why must we impose this objectively worse version on every reader simply so that you don't have to face up to your mistake?

Listen, I wasn't born knowing that you have to put a comma after parenthetical places and dates; it isn't that I don't forgive you for not knowing it. Everybody has to look things up, and a lot of the time that means finding that the facts aren't as one imagined. That's kind of what Wikipedia is for. But nobody but you is making you feel bad about it. Fighting harder won't help; the facts are the facts.

I want the shorter sentence because it is better, and I think it is clearly better. I think the way in which it is better matters: I think it is important for Wikipedia to be succinct, clear, and informative. And I think it would be a mistake for us to find some face-saving "compromise" slightly more elegant than what's currently on the page, because I think you should just say out loud that you have to put a comma after "Alabama" in that sentence and be done with it. Pull the bandage off, 5Ept5xW. I promise it won't hurt for long, and being able to say, "Oops, you're right, my bad," is a valuable, and cultivable, skill.

Regulov (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, looking at the actual objective truth of the issue - what operations occur in Texas? IIRC it might have been fairing production, which is now being moved to the Decatur plant. Another option is component manufacturing. Contrast this with the operations that are carried out at Decatur: milling of isogrid and orthogrid panels, forming of panels, assembly of panels into tank sections, assembly of tank sections into tanks, assembly of tanks into boosters, equipment fit-out of boosters, testing of boosters, and finally shipping to the launch site. Giving the Texas plant and Decatur equal status does not make sense - the Texas plant is undoubtedly important to ULA's supply chain but Decatur is absolutely the main manufacturing facility. As it happens, I was already thinking that that sentence needed to be modified before your insertion of the comma. (Feel free to disagree but this is the truth.) As it stands now, the article reflects the complexity of rocket manufacturing operations. Simplifying would result in loss of information and do the reader a great disservice. 5Ept5xW (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have questions I would encourage you to compare the two facilities: Texas is relatively nondescript with a peak workforce of 100,  Decatur is 1.6 million square feet with around 1,000 employees  5Ept5xW (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No one disputes any of that. Who are you arguing with? I'll quibble that the two plants do not have quite equal status in my preferred version, since Decatur is listed first; but it's true that the difference is not noted, let alone explored. I think "do the reader a great disservice" is pretty hyperbolic. Go ahead and inform the reader! When you actually know the answer more definitely than "IIRC" and "another option [?] is component manufacturing", great! Put it in the article— down below the article summary.

You have not addressed my argument. I understand that the Decatur, Alabama, plant is the big one and the Harlingen, Texas, plant is the small one. I do not agree that this information is important enough to merit inclusion in the summary. I think anyone who reads the two proposed versions aloud will see clearly which one "does the reader a great disservice":

"Major manufacturing and integration operations occur at ULA's facility in Decatur, Alabama, with additional operations occurring at ULA's facility in Harlingen, Texas."

"The rocket is assembled in Decatur, Alabama, and Harlingen, Texas."

For the rest, no one but you can testify to your state of mind. You told me the Oxford comma didn't belong here. I told you the Oxford comma had nothing to do with it, "Alabama" was a parenthetical, comma per MoS. You informed me "Alabama" was not in parentheses. I have since, on our respective talk pages and here, linked the specific section of the MoS over and over. Have you read it? It's a simple question. Your rigid refusal simply to answer it is by now almost comical. But, sure, this is really about the reader's right to know right up front, in the third sentence of the article, which of the two ULA facilities involved in the Atlas V's assembly performs "major" operations, and which performs "additional" operations. Maybe we should go ahead and tell the reader all about "milling of isogrid and orthogrid panels" and number of workers and everything else, too, right here in the first paragraph of the summary, before they click away. Or maybe we should just write,

"The rocket is assembled in Decatur, Alabama, and Harlingen, Texas."

There isn't actually anything wrong with that sentence, is there, 5Ept5xW? Nothing I'm missing? It is true and clear and correct, as far as it goes? Right?

Regulov (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is something wrong with your sentence: it omits important information. If you would like to write a separate section for manufacturing be my guest (good luck finding sources!), otherwise you should probably move on. 5Ept5xW (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Why would I add a separate section for manufacturing? Doesn't that sound more like what you want than what I want? If the information is unavailable, it shouldn't be in the article. If the information is available and important, it should be in the article. If it's in the article, maybe it should also be summarized in the summary. Are you saying this is such crucial information it has to be in the summary, but too vague to make it into the article itself?

I don't think much of being told I "should probably move on." You appear exasperated that someone is arguing with you at all. You have remarked more than once that "this is a lot of work over a comma"; I think you were relying on my deciding the game wasn't worth the candle. I think you prevail in a lot of arguments this way, and feel put-upon when it doesn't work.

I note that you still haven't actually addressed any of my arguments.

Regulov (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought that I had made my point clear, apparently I was mistaken. Decatur is the main ULA manufacturing facility, Texas is not. You seem willing to expend many hundreds of words trying to revert my improvement to the article. I was suggesting that you might instead to focus your energy on improving the article. I haven't found sufficient sources to motivate a separate manufacturing section, so it would seem appropriate to leave the information in the introduction. Is there anything else that you don't understand about my points, or was that it? 5Ept5xW (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

5Ept5xW. I repeat. I do understand. Decatur big, Harlingen small. Got it.

I am working to improve the article. Longer is not always better. The shorter sentence is better.

It is not "appropriate to leave the information in the introduction." That isn't what the introduction is for. "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The introduction is precisely for sentences like this:

"The rocket is assembled in Decatur, Alabama, and Harlingen, Texas."

Details about just what operations are conducted in just which facility, by how many workers, at what time of day, are great! But they belong down below. They needn't have their own section, if they don't merit it. Listen carefully, though: even if that information is added to the body of the article, I will argue that it isn't important enough to appear in the introduction. The short sentence is informative enough, and much more readable.

Regulov (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So what I'm saying is maybe you should go ahead and add that information instead of writing multiple novels in the talk page. Simply removing my edit results in the omission of necessary information, which would be unacceptable. If you can do the supporting work as well that would be acceptable. 5Ept5xW (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Consider adding it in the article below, but it doesn't belong in the introduction. --mfb (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC) PS: Your style of labeling everyone who doesn't agree with you for any reason as being destructive (in one way or another) is really not helpful.

Breakup of upper stage in orbit is a partial failure, even though payload was delivered
To limit space debris, upper stages are supposed to either re-enter within 25 years, or passivate in a graveyard orbit.

From AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 91-217. Note that this says: "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY"

About passivation it says: "5.4.6.1. The PM for each spacecraft or launch vehicle shall:


 * 5.4.6.1.1. Demonstrate via failure mode and effects analyses (or equivalent) that the integrated probability of explosion for all failure modes (excluding collisions) of each separate spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stage is less than 1 x 10-3 (one in one thousand). Reference NASA-STD 8719.14. (T-3)


 * 5.4.6.1.2. Ensure the design of all spacecraft and launch vehicle components include the ability to deplete onboard sources of stored energy and disconnect energy generation sources when no longer required for mission operations or post-mission disposal or control. (T-3)"

Clearly these requirements were not met, and a failure to meet some requirements is a partial failure. LouScheffer (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am going to address this because the labeling of partial failure is incorrect. Now while the Centaur did experience an unintended breakup long after being rendered inert, that, in this case it does not mean that the Centaur experienced a partial failure.
 * Addressing 5.4.6.1.1, The Centaur's break up was not an explosion, it was a break up, Thus not meeting the requirement of 5.4.6.1.1. It does not meat the requirement of because 5.4.6.1.1 only discuses explosions "Demonstrate via failure mode and effects analyses (or equivalent) that the integrated probability of explosion for all failure modes (excluding collisions) of each separate spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stage is less than 1 x 10-3 (one in one thousand)." ". Because the stages were passivized (all Centaur III's are passivized at the end of their missions (Centaur Passivization)), there was not an explosion.


 * Addressing 5.4.6.1.2. The Centaur stages were and/or have the ability to be passivized, so this does not apply. All centaurs are rendered inert after the mission ends. (Centaur Passivization)

As both of these do not apply, no "partial failure" of the centaur occurred. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You are not alone in your belief that Centaur was passivated; Tory Bruno said it too. However facts need to take precedence over opinion - if they were successfully passivated, why did it break up?  The NASA debris newsletter says there was no evidence of a collision.  So despite any number of assurances the stages were passivated, they clearly were not.  Unless you can supply some mechanism by which a passivated stage can break up, it remains a failure.

Ok,but that still doesn't meet the requirements "5.4.6.1.2. Ensure the design of all spacecraft and launch vehicle components include the ability to deplete onboard sources of stored energy and disconnect energy generation sources when no longer required for mission operations or post-mission disposal or control. (T-3)" They must INCLUDE THE ABILITY. That doesn't mean they must use it. I encourage you to read the section instead of just assuming a reason. There are many ways in which a passivated stage can break up (which is not an explosion as assumed by you) also, even if this me those requirements, which it doesn't, it wouldn't be a partial faliure, it would be considered mostly successful, but that's irrelevant. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The spacecraft not only needs to include the ability, it must be used:

"4.5. Launch Vehicle EOL Requirements.
 * 4.5.1. Any launch vehicle component that achieves orbit shall undergo passivation and disposal procedures as outlined in Chapter 5 of this document."

"5.7. End-of-Life Actions.
 * 5.7.1. All spacecraft and orbital launch vehicle components shall undergo passivation and disposal at EOL via the methods outlined in this section. (T-2)

... 5.7.4. Passivation. All spacecraft and launch vehicle components, to include research and development systems, shall undergo passivation during final disposal."


 * Can you give an example of how a passivated stage can break up? I've read the document as you suggest, but can't find any.  Also, I don't see a difference between "mostly successful" and "partial failure".  Both mean that some objectives were met, and some not.  Finally, there appears to be an interesting article on this topic, "UNEXPLAINED ACCELERATION OF CENTAUR STAGE COULD OFFER CLUES ON 3 ATLAS ROCKET-BODY BREAKUPS IN GEO ORBIT", by Amy Svitak, but it's behind a paywall so I've not read it.  LouScheffer (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine to leave it, but lets remove the coloring in the cells in the remarks column, it's not a column that has or needs it. Make it just as you would any other remark. It doesn't need to be special.--Bvbv13 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If you go to google images, and type in "UNEXPLAINED ACCELERATION OF CENTAUR STAGE" (with the double quotes) you can see a very interesting table from the paywall article (paywall is $99/month!).  It shows these are the third, fourth, and fifth largest debris clouds in orbit, and many fragments crossing the GEO protection zone.  So it seems significant enough to color, but I'll look for a more subtle coloring.   LouScheffer (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

If they have a color, then everything in remarks needs a color. The section is about remarks, not color coding only the things you think are important to highlight. It's not like information is being removed, it just doesn't need to be colored. It's like that anywhere else you go. and it's misleading to readers.--Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Color is already used (correctly IMO) for "outcome", where it provides an easy way to search for specific entries at a glance. I personally think that the the most honest treatment would be to change the outcome of each of these launches to "Partial success".  But that has the problem that a launch that leaves a stage in a high orbit could not be declared a success for centuries, if not millennia, since the stage could fragment in the future. Another possibility would be a column for "disposal".  If it re-enters, or is put on an escape orbit, it's green.  If it fragments, it's red.  Otherwise it's blank.  But this would be a fair amount of work to track down for all launches (often the disposal plan, and re-entry of spent stages, gets little or no public notice).  LouScheffer (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

But the outcome column is for launch outcome (it's a table of launches) A derelict stage in orbit isn't the mission. It's like saying that all launches end in partial failure because the first stage breaks up and is destroyed after stage separation or saying that Apollo 11 is still ongoing and can't be considered a success yet because it's S-IVB stage is still in a heliocentric orbit where something could still happen to it. What part of these missions were not accomplished due to this "partial failure?" None. All aspects of the planned mission were carried out successfully. Your definitions of what a rocket launch is and what a successful mission is are flawed. By your accounts, if a mission/launch still has a stage in orbit, it can't be considered a success? (example) So what your saying is that if somehow we found that New Horizon's third stage, the Star 48B had broken up years after separation, that the launch of New Horizons wasn't successful. You are treating an ANOMALY that occurred to a long dead rocket stage after a successful launch and spacecraft sep as partial launch failure. This is inaccurate, nobody uses this definition for success except for you.--Jrcraft Yt (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Your example is flawed. Heliocentric orbits are considered an acceptable way to dispose of used stages (see the ODMSP guidelines).  So New Horizons would be a successful disposal.  Next, saying that nobody cares is wrong.  See, for example, ESA releases footage of rocket's upper stage breaking apart in orbit a DECADE after launch as top U.S. military official warns space junk poses a serious threat to Earth or Rocket Stage Launched 10 Years Ago Disintegrates into Trail of Space Junk (Video).   Next, a mission includes more than just the launch, it also includes disposal.  So it is not contradictory to say that the launch phase succeeded, but the mission failed.  Finally, this agrees with common usage.  If a school bus driver drops the kids at school, then crashes on the way home, that's not a successful trip, even though the primary goal was accomplished.  LouScheffer (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be very interested to hear what other editors think about this issue. LouScheffer (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

As to methods that a stage could break up, I can think of 3 off the top of my head: (1) The stage did not "deplete onboard sources of stored energy and disconnect energy generation sources", ie was not fully passivated, (2) the stage collided with another object, and (3) the stage successfully passivated, but somehow accumulated and stored energy over time (Offgassing from plastics / other materials in a trapped volume? Accumulation of charge that then did something? Decay of the batteries long after end of life?). (1) has been rejected by official sources, (2) was unobserved (but possibly unobservable depending on size of impactor), and (3) is speculation. But my point here is that whether or not you believe the official sources have done their due diligence, landing on (1) is also speculation. We know that the stages broke up, but we don't know why, and until an outside body does an investigation that comes to a conclusion, I would posit that insisting on (1) would fall under No_original_research. So while I support keeping info in the 'remarks' column about the breakups, I do not think that considering them as marks against the success of the missions (as partial failures / partial successes) is appropriate. And in any instance, the coloring is out of place. R0uge (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

USA-194
USA-194 was declared a success by the NRO. Having an in-flight anomaly is not an instant failure. Claiming it was a failure and making it as a failure is just plain WP:OR. Nobody at the NRO or ULA ever claimed the launch was a failure. We should have it mentioned in the mission details but stick to what the customer and ULA define as a mission failure or success. Don't make up your own definitions. Other rockets have engine shutdowns in flight and it's not counted as a failure on their pages. Take the Falcon 9 https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/spacex-set-to-launch-the-same-falcon-9-rocket-for-the-fifth-time/ SpaceX called it a success so Wikipedia lists it as a success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 01:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Therefore it reports what others say.  Here is what the Wikipedia guidelines say about these sources.
 * ULA's opinion is worth very little to Wikipedia.  It's certainly not an independent source, ULA certainly has has a conflict of interest, and definitely has a vested interest in the outcome.
 * Likewise, NRO's opinion is weak evidence. It is closely affiliated with the source, and has a vested interest in the outcome.
 * So we need to ask what the *independent* sources (such as trade magazines and web sites) say about each launch. Almost all of these, as cited in the article, or Atlas V: Reliable, Flexible Rocket say this was a partial failure.
 * So saying the article should say what ULA and NRO said is definitely undue weight. These statements should have the least weight, not the most, precisely those sources that have the strongest conflict of interest.   LouScheffer (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's talk undue weight. You are placing undue weight on what nasaspaceflight says when the mission is regarded by all involved parties as a success. If there was a disagreement then we should default to that but going off what some commentators say is what's actually undue weight. The Atlas Centaur placed it in orbit and the payload corrected. Common occourance. When an engine shut down on a Starlink mission and SpaceX said it was a success and the payload compensated it was counted as a success. The mission was a success.

success  Pronunciation /səkˈsɛs/

mass noun

1The accomplishment of an aim or purpose.

The aim of deployment was accomplished so therefore it was a success. SpaceFan021 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with your definition. The aim of the Atlas rocket was to place the payload in a specified orbit, within specified dispersions.   It did not accomplish its aim, therefore it was a failure.  However, it was not a complete failure, as the payload was able to compensate (though perhaps with a loss of mission lifetime).   So it's a partial failure.


 * Note also that ULA's opinion on this must be discounted as non-neutral. For example, Trump claims he won the election.  Should Wikipedia consider him the winner, or should it consult other more neutral parties?  This is exactly like ULA claiming success.   LouScheffer (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We define winning as 270 votes. He didn't get that. We call a successful mission successful when it does what it was supposed to do. SpaceFan021 (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If other editors could chime in, that would be helpful.

Launch costs need prices after 2016
Article gives some figures for 2016 prices but doesn't say if prices changed after 2016 until the last launches were sold in 2021. Tony Bruno's comments on price and perceived value were laughable by about 2019 (and perhaps should just be deleted). - Rod57 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Simplify the "capabilities" table?
More than half the rows in the table are for "unused, not planned" configurations. I do not feel that they add to the reader's understanding. At least two columns also fall add basically nothing. By removing the cruft, we would improve the article. I will start making changes in about a week unless there are opposing comments here. -Arch dude (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is the proposed replacement section. -Arch dude (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Capabilities
Atlas V has flown in eleven configurations. While the design allows for other configurations, they have never been used and are not planned to be used. Mass to LEO numbers are at an inclination of 28.5°.

All of the configurations use the Single Engine Centaur, except for the "N22". "N22" is used only on for Starliner missions, and uses Dual Engine Centaur {{legend|#bbffbb|Active}} {{legend|#f9f9f9|Retired}}
 * Launch system status:

I made the change
Since I received no comments, I went ahead and made the change. -Arch dude (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Due Weight for Star 48 on New Horizons
Perhaps adding a mention of the New Horizons mission and its Star 48-powered performance in the Capabilities section of the article would be consistent with giving this configuration due weight? (It is after all one of the few payloads delivered to solar escape velocity. (sdsds - talk) 02:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I struggled with that and decided against it, but I'm just one guy and your opinion is as valid as mine. I think it's a very notable mission, but I just could not fit it in as a "capability". Maybe a expand its paragraph in the "notable missions" section? I found it interesting that Star 48 was used as part of the PAM in the Delta II, on many missions. I think that this is where the "Boeing" came from. It means that ULA was launching Star 48 both before and after this use on Atlas V. I agree that the "Boeing" is not appropriate, since it started life at Thiokol and passed through many hands, and was basically a ULA product (as part of Delta II) at the time of the launch, or maybe a component purchased from Northrup Grumman? -Arch dude (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's probably best to avoid asserting the Star 48 was used as a third stage of the Atlas V launch system; better to understand it as part of the payload on that mission. (sdsds - talk) 16:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact sheet at https://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Resources/Press-Kits/011607_JupiterPressKit.pdf does attribute the Star 48 to Boeing. I don't understand that though. Perhaps Boeing was responsible for integration of the combined spacecraft and solid motor? I'm not confident there's a reliable source for that, or for the notion the combined stack was the payload for Atlas V. (sdsds - talk) 16:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That documument lists Boeing as being "on the team". Perhaps from JPL's perspective, Boeing provided the Star 48. That does not mean that ULA considered it to have come from Boeing, and I think this Atlas V article should be from the POV of its subject, AKA ULA's Atlas V. According to Star 48, Boeing never manufactured the product. If this obscure point should be mentioned anywhere, I think it should be in the New Horizons article. -Arch dude (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A reliable inside source writes, "APL contracted [with Boeing] to provide the Delta II 3rd Stage system (STAR-48, spin table, NCS, and ordnance)." (sdsds - talk) 01:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, covering details of Star 48 somewhere other than this article makes sense. I propose Apogee_kick_motor as a place for this rather obscure topic. See also https://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/News-Article.php?page=111805. (sdsds - talk) 19:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)