Talk:Centaur (rocket stage)

2005-2006 misc. discussion
There is also possible future use of the Centaur on the new Delta IV (Heavy) rocket, which made its first test flight in 2004.


 * Never heard of it. Are there any sources for this? --Bricktop 22:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the upper stage of the Delta 4 is an increased-diameter centaur anyway. -- GW_Simulations |User Page 12:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction
The article claims that Centaur was originally designated "Hustler", however the RM-81 Agena article claims that this was the original designation of the Agena. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the information relating the Centaur to the Hustler, Vega, etc, based on Saturn I, Agena A and Atlas Centaur LV-3C Jrquinlisk 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Vega stage came out of the Naval Research Lab, but it did bear some structural similarities to Centaur, in that it was meant to use Atlas "steel-balloon" construction. DonPMitchell (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Article name
I'm not really sure who's watching this page, but if there is anyone who is, what are your thoughts on renaming it to either "Centaur launch vehicle" or "Centaur rocket stage"? I note that "Centaur rocket stage" already exists as a redirect, but I personally kind of prefer "Centaur launch vehicle", except... that name somewhat implies that it's self sufficient, which isn't really accurate. Anyway, I wanted to see if I could solicit any feedback, and see if this would be controversial at all, or if I might need to start a WP:RM, or what. Thanks! — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stand by, I'm watching and I'll let GW know. -MBK004 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Centaur launch vehicle" would be misleading because it is only a stage. As for "Centaur rocket stage", past discussions including WP:RND have shown a preference for bracketed disambiguators over non-bracketed ones, so I would say that the current title is preferable. I notice you don't provide any rationale for moving it, why do you dislike the current title? -- G W … 09:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I just wanted to stick to the point at first, without obscuring the issue with rationales. Before getting into a specific rational though, what made me consider the issue in the first place was the link here from Abe Silverstein: As Lewis's director, he oversaw a major expansion of the center and the development of the Centaur launch vehicle. (It's the last sentence in what is currently the NASA Career section). Now, I tend to agree with the sentiment regarding "Centaur launch vehicle" being inaccurate (I wouldn't really say misleading, but it's certainly inaccurate), which I briefly addressed myself in the post above. It's a bit more awkward, but "Centaur rocket stage" actually achieves the same effect. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To use your example, without changing the wording, wouldn't that link be better as Centaur launch vehicle", or even "Centaur launch vehicle"? There's no need to link additional words after the name. Either of these links could be made using the pipe trick, which means the link can be entered as "Centaur (rocket stage)" rather than "Centaur" thus saving time. Finally, if the parentheses were removed from the title, then the title of the article would be misleading as it would imply that the proper name of the stage was "Centaur rocket stage" rather than simply "Centaur". -- G W … 18:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the best solution would be to use, simply: " As Lewis's director, he oversaw a major expansion of the center and the development of the Centaur rocket stage. " However, I don't necessarily want to become lost is a specific example. That link is what initially grabbed my attention, but it doesn't... uh, embody the entire problem, to me. Regardless, I take the point about the proper name of the vehicle. I guess that I generally just don't like the use of parenthesized disambiguators, so I tend to look for ways to get rid of them. They are a necessary evil, however. I'll probably go back to my original plan in dealing with this and simply create a redirect from Centaur launch vehicle, eventually. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Launch vehicle' seems wrong and misleading since Centaur is not even the first stage of an orbital launch system. - Rod57 (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Where are they built
Where is it built? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.140.60 (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"unflown" on space shuttle?
In the infobox, the Centaur is listed as unflown on the shuttle, but it was flown on Shuttle Atlantis for the Galileo mission, so unless I am missing something the infobox should be changed. Not an expert so I'm just suggesting the change here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRat262 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Galileo was designed to be deployed by a Centaur, however an Inertial Upper Stage was used instead after it was decided the Centaur was too dangerous for the Shuttle to carry. -- W.  D.   Graham  22:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Development History
I don't think the Centaur project started at Lewis. I believe administrative control began at Convair, then got transferred to Marshall (von Braun hated it, but he put a good man in charge), then finally it was transferred to Lewis. That's the administrative control. Physically, the Centaur was built at Convair. Also, according to astronautix.com, the first successful Centaur test was in November 27, 1963 (not 1965). He claims that AC-2/Atlas 126D placed a dummy payload into geosynchronous orbit. NASA's website about centaur agrees Nov 1963 was the first success. DonPMitchell (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with DonPMitchell's statement on the development history. Lewis was involved in the 1950's (actually earlier than 1956) on research into the use of LH2 in aircraft engines. They did a lot of work on project Suntan for the Air Force, including work with on a LH2 turbojet engine with Pratt & Whitney. This work provided Lewis with a unique competency in the use of LH2 as a propellant, and directly lead to the RL-10 engine. As Don states, Lewis was not the birth place of Centaur, but it would play the role of champion for Centaur once control was transferred from Marshall to Lewis (which occurred between 8 October 1962 and 1 January 1963, according to ￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼Taming Liquid Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket 1958-2002). LESJet (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Misleading information in the first paragraph of "Shuttle-Centaur"
Hello everyone. I was looking at the paragraph of "Shuttle-Centaur" and I noticed something strange. This paragraph states that: "During its first mission on May 16, 1986, a Centaur-G boosted the Galileo probe towards Jupiter. Just six days later, another Centaur-G boosted the Ulysses probe towards Jupiter where it used the planet's gravity to reach a highly inclined solar orbit to observe the Sun's polar regions." This is not true, as both Galileo and Ulysses were launched on the IUS, a totally different stage which uses solid propellant. Of course, they were planned to launch on the Centaur-G, but weren't actually because of safety concerns after the Challenger disaster. The paragraph does not state this in that sentence, however. When I read further, the article says that the Galileo and the Ulysses probe were launched on the IUS so it is only this first paragraph that contains (potentially) misleading information.

"After the Challenger accident, and just months before the Shuttle-Centaur was scheduled to fly, NASA concluded that it was far too risky to fly the Centaur on the Shuttle. Galileo, Ulysses, and Magellan were boosted by the much less powerful solid-fueled IUS, with Galileo needing multiple gravitational assists from Venus and Earth to reach Jupiter."

I can imagine someone that did not read the whole article might then get the impression that the probes were launched on the Centaur-G while they were not. Since I have never edited a article it seems wrong when I do edit it. I would just like to state that this potentially misleading information is in that paragraph, to help researchers (or space nerds) find true information.

Levi van Leeuwen (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a lot of unsourced information on the historical claims in the article
Sources are totally absent on a good bit of the historical claims in the article. Some, but not all, of it has been explicitly challenged for some months now.

If sources are not found, it will be best to just remove the unsourced bits until some editor can find sources for the material to stay. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, the very first line is "Centaur has been designed to be the upper stage of space launch vehicles and is used on the Atlas V", which is very bad. 93.73.16.77 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

ACES discontinuation?
Apparently the development of ACES has been shelved going forwards to focus on Centaur V, the article may need updating to reflect that

https://spacenews.com/ula-studying-long-term-upgrades-to-vulcan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.202.211 (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I have added it to the article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone published estimates of the cost of Centaur-III
Has anyone published estimates of the cost of Centaur-III ? It would be good to see an idea of what a single-engine or dual-engine Centaur costs ULA or their customers. Or the costs for Centaur G/G-prime if that's available. - Rod57 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Costings for Centaur G are in the Shuttle-Centaur article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Centaur V vs. Centaur III comparison graphic; from ULA
This graphic of Centaur V vs. Centaur III comparison is awesome. Was released by ULA CEO Tory Bruno a year ago (Sept. 2020). Sep 16, 2020 A lot more energy, and a few other new technologies

Image: ULA image link

Would be great if someone knew how to approach ULA Comms and get them to agree to release this image via a Creative Commons license. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Just recalled that a ULA employee has been active on the United Launch Alliance Talk page in the past; most recent on that page seems to be June 2020: User:ULA christa  Also, User:ULA Megan, as recently as March 2021.


 * Christa or Megan, would you possibly be able to add some graphics that ULA has already publically released to media outlets or to Twitter (via Tory Bruno, CEO) to Wikimedia with a Creative Commons license? So that they might be able to be used to improve Wikipedia?  N2e (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

How many RCS on Centaur-III
Under characteristics it says 20 (2x2 + 4x4), but lower down under specification it says 12 RCS thrusters. (Maybe the 20 mistakenly includes the 8 retro thrusters on the common core ?) - Rod57 (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Atlas N22 config for Starliner?
I think the section on Atlas configs and fairing attachments needs to be updated, but I do not know where to find a reference. The section mention only fairings, but Starliner does not use a fairing. Does anyone have a reference? -Arch dude (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Which grades of stainless steel are used
Which grades (or type) of stainless steel are used ? Is it 304, 304L or something else ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)