Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems/Archive 4

List of launchers families
As suggested in previous discussions, I made an experimental list of launchers families. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FlyAkwa/Comparison_of_orbital_launchers_families This list is mainly based on respective launcher's pages, and also on the current full list. Please see it, comment it and modify it. --FlyAkwa (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What is your criteria for including, for example Atlas A and G in the same category but not Atlas I. And where do such precise payload capacities come from for such a wide range of systems? I also think that including launch outcomes should not be done without discussion, since most of the numbers are questionable and it is impossible to present any data without some combination of original research, inconsistency, unverifiability, bias and inaccuracy. -- G W … 14:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * All data are issued from Wikipedia. No original research. It's only a simplification and compilation.
 * All launchers that shares the same base (as described in relatives articles) are in the same family (like Atlas A and G, but not Ariane 4 and 5) : but my list must be perfected. If you think that a launcher is alone or is a family, please say it.
 * About the launches count, data are mainly copied from Wikipedia pages.
 * Finally, perfection doesn't exist, and bias and inaccuracy are inevitable. In French, we say "La perfection n'est pas de ce monde. Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien. Qui veut faire l'ange, fait la bête".
 * --FlyAkwa (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I like it! It matches well with my own list (I split Ariane 1/2/3, Delta 2000/3000/E, Atlas-Centaur/GHI, Thorad-Agena, Long March 2CD/2F/3/4, Soyuz/Molniya/Voskhod/Vostok, Titan I/II/III/IV, and Tsyklon 2/3). You missed Saturn I. You will need to make any numeric data like number of launches numerically sortable. I would remove cost from this table as it will be hard to verify and is less applicable to a whole family. --IanOsgood (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Much better than the current table. The current table considers any variation to be a different launcher. This matrix is much easier to read and understand. If there is any confusion as to whether a specific "family" should be split, that can be considered on the talk page. How can we take a vote on whether to change the matrix or create a new article with this matrix? user:mnw2000 13:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They are both good tables. I like tracking reliability and total launches by family, but it is also instructive to see which members of a family get the most use. For example, if you only tracked families and their max payloads, you'd think the Atlas V was a very popular heavy lifter, whereas its lightest configuration (401) gets the most use. And as GW points out, it can be hard to figure out family groupings. --IanOsgood (talk)


 * Thank you for your comments. Don't hesitate to edit my table.
 * To avoid any dispute, the idea, as discussed up in this page, is to create a new page, distinct from current list. Its origin and its goal are different.--FlyAkwa (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I also agree that there are both benefits and negatives in conflating families into single lines. For some comparisons it's better, for others it's worse. Jeffsapko (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea is that this shortest list exists together with the actual complex long list. --FlyAkwa (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

''The decision was made to make Comparison of orbital launchers families. Relevant criticism was copied to Talk:Comparison of orbital launchers families.'' — IanOsgood, 2011-11-04T22:31:07

Should the Rus-M be in this list?
I was surprised to find no mention of the new Russian launcher, the Rus-M, in this comparison article. Is there a reason to leave it out?

The program was cancelled earlier this month (October 2011) per Replacement for Soyuz rocket canned by Russia. Is this rocket a fair addition to Comparison of orbital launch systems? Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * NO. If we included all launchers that were proposed, in development and cancelled before ever flying, this matrix would be out of control (which I think it already is). Think about it, in addition to Rus-M, Ares I, Ares V, Nova, etc. would all have to be included. BTW, how about all the launchers from the Soviet Union that never became operational? We don't even know many of them. I think if a launcher is cancelled and never flown, then it is as if it never existed. If a launcher is planned, then we can keep it "under development" until it is becomes operational or is cancelled. That is my two cents. user:mnw2000 03:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No I agree with the logic of mnw2000, completely.  As a mere cancelled project, it definitely doesn't fit this list.  However, since I put the note here on the first news of the announcement that the Russians were taking it from a funded development project to a proposal, I guess it was just a wiki-oversight that it had not been added to the list previously, when it was a bondfide actual new launcher in development.  N2e (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please consider At least Ares did have a test flight ( Ares I-X ), before it was cancled, and some of the other launch systems only had 1 launch, before also being cancled.  --Gregory JH (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Gregory JH. I'm not totally sure what your comment means, but would suggest you start a new Talk page section to explore it, as it apparently has no relation at all with the topic of this section:  Should the Rus-M be in this list?   Cheers.  N2e (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ares I

 * (starting new section for comment recently added to the Rus-M section (above) but is not about the Rus-M) N2e (talk)

Hi N2e. I am referring to the fact that in mnw2000's comment above, it is stated:


 * "If we included all launchers that were proposed, in development and cancelled before ever flying, this matrix would be out of control (which I think it already is). Think about it, in addition to Rus-M, Ares I, Ares V, Nova, etc. would all have to be included."

I am pointing out that contrary to the statement, Ares did in fact have a test flight before the Ares program was canceled and at the same time many of the lift systems being listed ( Delta 1410, 1910, and 1913 are examples ), also had 1 flight before being retired and the next system in the same family replaced it. If the criteria for inclusion in the list of launch systems is in fact at least one launch, then we need to include all launch systems that had at least one launch. I'm not saying that we need to include the Ares or any other specific launch system, just that we need to make sure that the criteria for inclusion is specific as possible, even if that means changing the criteria from at least one launch to at least one mission - I grant you that it is a small differance but one that makes a very specific change as to what launch systems will be included. As to the specific issue about the Rus-M, did it have even a single test flight? If the answer is yes, and the criteria is that the launch system had to have at least 1 flight as is suggested in mnw2000's comment above, then yes it should probably be included. If the criteria is 1 mission rather than 1 flight, I would say no, even if it had a successful test flight. In short I am questioning the specific criteria that is being used to include or exclude the Rus-M ( and other launch systems ) --Gregory JH (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Gregrory JH. I have no problem with your argument about Ares I; I just don't know the details on that particular rocket.  I would imagine that, if it has a reliable source citation, and it has flown once, then it could probably stay in the article.  My "No" in the previous section was only about the Rus-M question, that was the subject of that section.


 * As far as the Rus-M goes, I'm fairly certain that the Russian Federal Space Agency has killed the program long before the Rus-M's first flight, so there is no argument remaining about the Rus-M being a part of this comparison list. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)\


 * Ares I never flew. What flew was "Ares I-X", which bore only a passing resemblance to what would have been Ares I. The hardware in question was recycled shuttle parts and mass simulators, not the entirely re-designed stack that would have been Ares I. So, no, Ares I does not belong in this list. This isn't a comprehensive list of every rocket that ever fired, it's a list of launchers and the payloads they could have carried - and Ares I-X wasn't a launcher with a payload, it was a test article that would never be launched again. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I then submit that the criteria for then be changed, from 1 flight to 1 mission. This then avoids the entire issue of flights, designed to test feasibility and software ( which the Ares I-X was intended to achieve, having almost the same test profile of un-crewed Saturn I test flights ), which some of the Delta program never had, but some of the Deltas still had only 1 mission. As a side note, I submit that the reasons given are also arguments against "1 of a kind" launch entries. --Gregory JH (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be far easier to use all-up flights as the inclusion criteria instead. That would also eliminate a few other spurious launch counts including incomplete rockets, such as Saturn I. -- G W … 09:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That may be, but if that is done then there should be a way to also compare even the Saturn I and other systems ( that either did not have missions beyond testing or are still in development and have not yet even launched a test flight ).  I would would point out, that by definition suggested, not even the Falcon 9 has yet achieved anything beyond testing, but is still being included in the Comparison of orbital launch systems, as is the Falcon 9 Heavy which has yet to even be built let alone tested.--Gregory JH (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am only talking about the Saturn I flights with battleship stages. The difference between Saturn I and Ares I is that several Saturn I rockets were launched with a full complement of live stages, and several launches did achieve orbit. -- G W … 22:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm missing the point of this argument. Ares I-X wasn't an orbital launch (note the title of this article, orbital launch systems). It was a six-minute test flight, which didn't really leave the atmosphere - it didn't even reach 50km altitude. It doesn't belong. That there may be other one-off non-orbital missions in the list doesn't surprise me, and they should be removed if present. This list has far too much junk in it, anything that can be removed should be. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Point of fact.....I am not concerned specifically about Ares I-X, but about the criteria for which a launch system is included or is not included in the list of orbital launch systems. The Ares I-X was just an example that I used.   As is mentioned above, the list has junk and other stuff in it that make the table a pain to use - part of the problem is with multiple entries for the same family of launchers ( example: multiple Delta entries some of which only had 1 launch ), part of it comes from the fact that the same base criteria is not being used ( examples: Falcon 9 Heavy and SLS, neither one has had a launch of any kind, but are included ), and part of it comes from having just one big long table that is very cumbersome to use.  Simply put - what is the specific criteria for including or excluding a launch system? --Gregory JH (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to remove stuff, you should be proposing specific items to remove and reasons for doing so. I'd fully support that. Engaging in sophistry with something you know doesn't belong just wastes time and irritates people. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No sophistry. I am just trying to establish a clear cut criteria for inclusion or exclusion of an orbital launch system, with specific examples of different launch systems given, in different stages of development, testing, and deployment.  I have been trying to do this ever since the Rus-M question, when N2e cut my question out of the Rus-M section and started this section about the Ares I / Ares I-X.   If you go back to the first post, you will find that I had specifically addressed the criteria of including or excluding a launch system - the relevent section is as follows:

"As to the specific issue about the Rus-M, did it have even a single test flight? If the answer is yes, and the criteria is that the launch system had to have at least 1 flight as is suggested in mnw2000's comment above, then yes it should probably be included. If the criteria is 1 mission rather than 1 flight, I would say no, even if it had a successful test flight. In short I am questioning the specific criteria that is being used to include or exclude the Rus-M ( and other launch systems ) "

With that criteria, we can then go through the entire page and nominate specific systems to be removed, and it also will be in place to accurately include future launch systems. The Ares I / Ares I-X differance was clarified, but that still left the issue of what the specific criteria for inclusion or exclusion of a launch system, which again I addressed and then specifically suggested a change to the criteria of inclusion or exclusion, as follows:

" I then submit that the criteria for then be changed, from 1 flight to 1 mission. This then avoids the entire issue of flights, designed to test feasibility and software ( which the Ares I-X was intended to achieve, having almost the same test profile of un-crewed Saturn I test flights ), which some of the Delta program never had , but some of the Deltas still had only 1 mission." .

--Gregory JH (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Orbital abbreviations
I linked the heading phrase other orbits to List of orbits. Either each abbreviation in the column should be linked to an appropriate article or a list of orbit abbreviations should be added above the table. A step toward either is specifying definitions. Please provide additions, changes, deletions to the following list. SBaker43 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Escape - Escape orbit
 * GEO -Geostationary orbit
 * GSO - Geosynchronous orbit
 * GTO - Geostationary transfer orbit
 * HCO - ?????
 * HEO - High Earth orbit
 * MEO - Medium Earth orbit
 * PAM-D - Payload Assist Module
 * SSO - Is this Semi-synchronous orbit or Sun-synchronous orbit?
 * TLI - Trans Lunar Injection


 * Escape should read "HCO"
 * HCO is Heliocentric orbit
 * PAM-D is an upper stage, not an orbit
 * SSO should be sun-synch.
 * -- W.  D.   Graham  16:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input.✅ SBaker43 (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Formatting
Italics are used inconsistently herein. It appears the intent may have been for systems in development to be shown in italics, redundant with the khaki background, but this is not indicated in the legend and some operational and retired systems are shown in khaki as well. Use of italics should be made clear and consistent. 24.58.54.118 (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing launchers
List is missing the under development Liberty launcher which uses the Shuttle main stage as a first stage and the Ariane 5's Vulcain 2 as a second stage. WatcherZero (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Virgin Galatic LauncherOne
Should be add the recently announced air-launched LauncerOne from Virgin Galantic? (http://www.virgingalactic.com/launcherone)

The launch vehicle will use the SpaceShipTwo mothercraft as the first stage similar to the way Pegasus uses a special L1011 aircraft. user:mnw2000 20:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably not worth including here until real hardware exists. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT inclusion - Realistically, we should have only a single criteria for inclusion, and that ought to apply to all launch systems. My sense is the criteria for inclusion in this comparison article, is the same as for any Wikipedia article:  WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability.  LauncherOne is clearly both, so inclusion is clearly warranted.  Cheers. N2e (talk)


 * Notability is fine, but for a comparison (what this article is about), there should be enough existence to compare. At the moment, as I understand it, LauncherOne is pure vaporware. Comparisons against vapor aren't that interesting. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Oppose inclusion, too premature; the proposal is at an early stage, little is known about it and it could easily change. -- W.  D.   Graham  08:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the criteria for the number of launches?
This chart states that there were 4 launches of the N1 rocket. All four failed. However, there were 2 launches of the Energia rocket, while only one failed to fully insert its payload into orbit. What is the criteria for the number of launches? Is it fully successful launches or all launches? user:mnw2000 12:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Energia-Buran is currently listed separately. The second entry should probably be renamed "Energia-Polyus" for clarity. -- W.  D.   Graham  15:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Liberty rocket
The claim that the Liberty rocket is in "Development" has a citation, but the citation does not support the claim that it is in development today, in Sep 2012. That source merely indicates that ATK had proposed the Liberty rocket to NASA as part of the CCDev program, and is dated May 2012. ATK/Liberty were not selected by NASA in the Aug 2012 selection and awards. In the main Liberty article, there is a sourced claim that ATK is not going to pursue the rocket further without NASA funding.

So unless a source is cited that ATK is continuing development on Liberty, I will remove the Liberty row in the table. N2e (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 5th September, no decision made to cancel http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120904-nasa-dropped-atk-comm-crew.html, Just found the alleged source and it also says they are 'moving on' (as in continuing after the grant award), the loss of the grant does not cause them any financial hardship and no decision has been made to drop the plans. WatcherZero (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the distinction, and that we haven't found a source where ATK said "cancel." That being said, the article need make no claims about "cancel" or "no cancel."  The current claim in the article says that this rocket (Liberty) is under "development".  It clearly is not.  It was a proposal to NASA; it did not win funding.  There have been no sources I've found that says this rocket is in active development.  Thus, without a source soon, the rocket will need to come off of this Comparison list.


 * An alternative might be to create a comparison of all rocket proposals, but that would number in the thousands, but if sources were found for the claims, I imagine the article would withstand efforts to AfD it. But the scope for this article does not include mere proposals, only UnderDevelopment/Operations/Retired launch systems.  Cheers.  N2e (talk)


 * Kent Rominger Programme manager for Liberty has just said they need $300m to complete development and cannot raise that amount of money privately, they will spend about $30m keeping development going until they find an investor/alternative funding. WatcherZero (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * WatcherZero--that is quite interesting. If Liberty is really funding "slow-burn" development, even only to the tune of $30 million of Internally-funded Research And Developmment (IRAD) while they keep working to find ~$300 million of government money, then that would be sufficient to leave the "Development" claim in the article for Liberty.  However, you did not provide a citation on that in the article.  Do you have one?  If you can add a citation for that, then it would make sense to leave the claim as it is.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, TV news interview WatcherZero (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Since we've been able to locate no source that the rocket is actually in development, I've removed the row in the table for now. Please feel free to add back in if you have a verifiable source that we can cite that the rocket is in active development.  N2e (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How about http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/atks-liberty-launch-vehicle-faces-uncertain-future-376476/ ? WatcherZero (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My read on that reference is "we can't do it, we're hoping for the tooth fairy." This year Washington is going to be in short supply of tooth fairies. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Their investing tens of millions of their own money to keep the project development 'alive' in their own words therefore its not dead. WatcherZero (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Mass to LEO (kg) for Saturn V
Regarding Undid revision 507728309 by Alogrin (talk) I don't see where the 140,000 kg number is coming from., done at 23:39, 19 октября 2012‎ by. According to

, the weight at moment of a "Parking Orbit Insertion" was 309,771 lb. Similar numbers are in

--Alogrin (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Slight modification to your figures, thats a parking orbit of 90 miles before mating, LEO is defined as a minimum of 99 miles upto 1200 miles, if you take the ISS as a median LEO (and a good comparison as many vehicles are designed to deliver their payload to it) thats just over 210 miles, the Russian space stations were around 240 miles and Hubble around 330 miles. WatcherZero (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, missed that. But anyways - according to Apollo 15 Press Kit, Parking Orbit was at 90 nautical miles, which is equal to miles. --Alogrin (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides, there is no exact definition of LEO. A first source,
 * , that has those limits (according to our article Low Earth orbit), defines LEO as
 * "Region A, Low Earth Orbit (or LEO) Region – spherical region that extends from the Earth’s surface up to an altitude (Z) of 2,000 km"
 * and the second,
 * explains that: "Low Earth orbit - The region of space to 2000 km altitude". --Alogrin (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The mass specified in the Apollo 15 presskit was for the entire vehicle, not the payload. Other LEO figures are for payload alone. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to
 * — "Payload Capacity to LEO" for "Saturn V (1969)" was 137 Metric tons.
 * 118 tons out of actual 132-135 on LEO for Apollo 11 and 140+ for Apollo 15-17 just doesn't make any sense. What are those 14-22 extra tons, that should not be counted as a payload for Saturn V? --Alogrin (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The extra mass was presumably a mostly empty third stage, which I recall was separated after reaching LEO. As for the congressional report, I don't know if I regard a passing mention in a congressional report 35 years after the last flight as a reliable source - their source is apt to be something as casual as Wikipedia itself. At this point, we're engaging in historical archeology, one of the reasons I don't think obsolete launchers belong in this list in the first place. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In document
 * there are weight estimations:
 * At "S-II/S-IVB Separation" — weight is 376,967 lb.
 * On "Parking Orbit (after 1st S-IVB Ignition&Cutoff)" — 308,734 lb.
 * At "Trans-Lunar injection (after 2st S-IVB Ignition&Cutoff)" — 144,514 lb.
 * Then 3rdStage+InstrumentUnit were separated from the spacecraft, and it reached a weight of "47,000 to TLI".
 * What is possible from the other hand, is that 118 ton were calculated by Robert A. Braeunig for LEO (185 km). Which means, that actual payload heavily depends on the height of LEO, so it should be a factor in our table. For example, 41 tons for Angara 7V was estimated for LEO (200 km).
 * Between calculations of Robert A. Braeunig and data from Apollo 15 Press Kit - I would rather use/trust Apollo 15-17 Press Kits, that a payload of 140+ tons was delivered a few times to the LEO of 170+ km, which is still an awesome world record.
 * PS. Here is a word from Wherner von Brown, that they "designed and built the Saturn V to place 140 tons into low Earth orbit or send 50 tons to the vicinity of the moon". --Alogrin (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then 3rdStage+InstrumentUnit were separated from the spacecraft, and it reached a weight of "47,000 to TLI".
 * What is possible from the other hand, is that 118 ton were calculated by Robert A. Braeunig for LEO (185 km). Which means, that actual payload heavily depends on the height of LEO, so it should be a factor in our table. For example, 41 tons for Angara 7V was estimated for LEO (200 km).
 * Between calculations of Robert A. Braeunig and data from Apollo 15 Press Kit - I would rather use/trust Apollo 15-17 Press Kits, that a payload of 140+ tons was delivered a few times to the LEO of 170+ km, which is still an awesome world record.
 * PS. Here is a word from Wherner von Brown, that they "designed and built the Saturn V to place 140 tons into low Earth orbit or send 50 tons to the vicinity of the moon". --Alogrin (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead Time Q&A
Is it possible to add a column for lead time, or the time to build the LV? There must be president for this statistic somewhere on the varying sources websites for articles that have already flown. As for developement articles, these would be based on production once they hit, otherwise simply left blank.

I ask because it's a stitistic I need for research, but not one that I have collected. I'm sure there are various editors that could contribute the statistic if they desire.

Thanks DarrenHensley (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is a fair question, and a good one to chat about here on the Talk page. I, too, think it would be an interesting statistical figure to have, especially if it were possible to figure out, with verifiable sources.  Having said that, I think it is a column for a comparison article that, if consensus were gained to add it, we would be unlikely to find sources that support the figure for a lot of these launch vehicles, and if data could be found, it would be unlikely we could find it in a source or set of sources that would allow a bunch of Wikipedia editors to agree that the data found was really comparable.  While dating the first successful launch is generally straightforward, the data for program inception would likely be problematic.  Some data we would find would likely be to the point a formal program inception, other data would be to the funding of formal development (hiring the engineers, buying the slide rules/computers, etc.), while other data would be lost in the fog of unannounced, or later edited for "Marketing purposes", company-hidden or company-modified statements about reality.


 * In short, I'm not optimistic it can be done in a way that makes this article better, and without resorting to a lot of original research by Wikipedia editors. YMMV.  N2e (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You make alot of valid points. I agree it would take more effort than most would like to put into it. Along a paralle project, I've been searching for the time it takes to build a rocket on a production line from start to finish. The Russians assemble and launch a Soyuz rocket ever 25 days. But nothing says how long it takes to make a single rocket on the line. I figure from various sources it takes from 2-3 years per fully assembled flight article. The Russians have the best rate. The only good US rate is ICBM production by Boeing. 120 in a 5 year period. But these are not man rated rockets.

Lead time would include stacking the payload, and pad prep through launch, crew training falls inside the timeline somewhere. Somebody has this statistic for all previous launched for the space shuttle, but I just can't find it on the net. 141.107.240.37 (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Division of this article
I propose that this article has grown to a size that has become cumbersome. It could remain, but it may be benificial to create three new articles divided into the three main categories: Retired, Operational, Development. I kow this may be an articale that grew from these three lists to begin with, so I present my argument as follows:

These three articles could be maintained as links from this page under "See Also" Yes I know that means four pages have to be maintained, but as large as the list is, some of the value is lost in the interpretation of the abundance of data. This list could be a direvitive compilation of the other three.

I'd say that the "Retired" list gives you historical data for research. Retired implies not available except as scrapmetal and outdated systems. The "Operational" list gives you a shopping list for a given payload mass. I need to put x tons in x orbit which rocket is the best for this purpose? And the "Development" list gives you insight into the future of launch equipment, destination and capacity. "gee wouldn't it be great to have a rocket that could do this!!!?" or "What's in the family lineup for this great rocket?" or even "God I hope they don't make more of these piles of junk! Let's go see..."

It's just my two cents, but as I do more and more research, shorter lists have become more attractive to read through. Especially when you are composing about a narrow topic as is often the case. The improvement of this list comes as the posibility to view it in a reduced and more narrow scope, yet still be complete and available as a whole. --DarrenHensley (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Changes to cost column
I've twice backed out changes from an IP address which has been changing numbers in the cost column. The first one is changing a cost from Euros to dollars (and putting Euros in parens), which I believe is incorrect - the rate of exchange is not fixed, the cost should be listed as priced, not as converted to some other currency. The second change has been changing numbers to have leading zeroes. Both of these have struck me as inappropriate, I've left an edit history suggesting the editor discuss this on this talk page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

SLS
SLS is planned as a family of rockets and not one particular booster. The variants are known as Block I, Block IA, and Block II. These variants have very different planned performance parameters. The SLS is the only thing in this comparison list that gives a range for Mass to LEO (70,000 - 130,000). Splitting this up as three different entries, one for each variant, will be more accurate. Ffejmopp (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I posted the above back in March, but there have been no replies pro or con. Unless someone can give me a reason oterwise, I am going to edit the table to have three different rows for the SLS. Ffejmopp (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it, creating two SLS Blocks (rather than three) based on a NASA PDF I found on their website. there are a lot of references to a third intermediate block elsewhere, but that wasn't referenced in this PDF. Please feel free to add extra data and references. Ffejmopp (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Falcon 9 1.1
Query on the Falcon 9 prices, the base design does feature a 25% increase in thrust however the price listed seems to include the recovery of the engines (which if performed reduces payload by 15% for a water landing and 30% for a hard landing as fuel is reserved for controlled braking) while still claiming the higher payload capacity and price-weight ratio of a non-recovered engines flight. WatcherZero (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I guess I have a couple of comments.
 * All of the price comparisons in this article, done by different folks and different methodologies and with data from very different sources [some producer-produced "costs" (which could include/exclude just about anything) and some with closer-to-market real prices (prices (generally) available to multiple customers under similar terms and conditions)] are essentially non-comparable. It is likely a fool's errand for us in Wikipedia to try to place these cost/kg figures in a single column in this table as if they were comparable—and so the column should probably be nixed.
 * Having said that, the column is in the table today, such as it is. So assuming it stays, then:  I seem to recall reading somewhere, since late last summer, that SpaceX has published two prices—one for payloads below a certain level (where, ostensibly, SpaceX will retain the option to fly the booster back and attempt a landing, and if a market materializes for "used" boosters, then fly it again) and another price for a payload above that level, where I am guessing that they would not attempt a fly-back and understand that trashing a booster in the business-as-usual-way (since the governments all did this in the 1950s onward) in order to get the higher payload and/or higher orbit.  I don't have time to look for it just now.  But look at the sources in the FH and several F9 articles; I believe SpaceX released a bunch of new spec info, including these prices, sometime around last summer.
 * Good luck. N2e (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the source I was thinking of: SpaceX Capabilities and Services page for the Falcon 9 AND Falcon Heavy. Looks like SpaceX is only publishing one price for Falcon 9, with 4850 kg to GEO:  US$56.5 million.
 * However, they are being quite up front about the difference in prices for going to GTO with the Falcon Heavy US$77.1 million for payloads up to 6400 kg, and a price of US$135 million for GTO payloads of 6401 kg to 21200 kg. Looks to me like they intend to get back some or all of the FH boosters rocket when they send an FH to orbit for only $77M, and perhaps none of it when they send 21200 kg to GTO.
 * On the F9, and I'm just guessing here, looks to me like they may have cooked in "expendable" to their current price sheet, but that would leave plenty of opportunity for some price lowering action should competitive forces push them to it if they get the SpaceX reusable rocket launching system technology fully developed and in production. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Launch cost
Fascinating that the launch cost columns are almost entirely vacant of data. It would be very interesting if more data could be obtained for comparison, because, apart from success rate and availability, cost is obviously the over-riding criterium for selection. Although I appreciate that cost figures can be highly dubious due to subsidies, marketing, bribes etc, I find it hard to believe that SpaceX can realistically compete with the Russians or Chinese on costs.1812ahill (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Most vendors do not publish a list price for launches. I understand they prefer to negotiate each launch separately, given that we are still pretty much in a customization era for launches so each will cost differently. In summary, I understand the cost data are largely proprietary and not available to Wikipedia. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it so hard to get source data from previous launches? I would think that one could compile a list of launch costs from IRS records, or other public annual budget sources that would allow for the averaging out of a LV cost per launch. No I don't have this info, but it must exist, and be realativly simple to get. The NASA budget is public, and it sites commercial contract expenses in it's annual expense reports. the FOIA give Wikipedia some leverage for the data, and it's not like were competing against the providers... Again just another two cents. --DarrenHensley (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It is worse than that. Not only do many of the launcher manufacturers not release this data, the data that could be made available across some subset of the companies where it is released are calculated according to very different accounting standards in various countries. Add in the variety of economic systems (state-capitalist in much of the West, communist in others, etc.) and the problems grow worse. Independent of economic system, there are a a large variety of politically-influenced reasons to report costs differently.

Net: all of the so-called "cost" information, even when it is released, is simply non-comparable. The cost methodology used by one company, or one national government, will not be the same as the methodology used by another. So attempting to compare these (mostly missing) data in a Wikipedia "comparison" article is misleading to our readers of this encyclopedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed the quarterly launch reports produced by the FAA include the disclaimer that prices include discounted rates for the US Government WatcherZero (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ This problem, after having no major edits/resolution since late December of 2012, finally DID get resolved with the elimination of the several cost columns, per a different discussion (below) on this same Talk page, with a consensus achieved in January 2014.  See the section entitled:  Launch costs on space shuttle.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

MHI H-IIA
This rocket has had about 28 successful launches, but it seems to be split up into various slightly different models...why is this? I'd like to unify all the various H-IIA stats into one.

Also, I believe the H-IIB now has at least 5 launches.nagoyablue (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * All the various launch systems on this list are split into individual models. Look how many entries Ariane 4 has. Unifying the H-IIA into one wouldn't be consistent with the rest of the list, especially since two models have been retired.  A ( Ch ) 18:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Table organization, column widths
Many of the columns in the table are overly wide, making the table as a whole unwieldy. The main reason for the column width problems is the large number of scattered throughout the table. I'd like to fix this by re-organizing the table to provide a column purely for references, moving all the citations from individual fields into a separate reference column. That will allow most of the number columns to shrink to a width which make the table more usable. Anyone have any objections to this reorganization? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please do! That seems to be the best practice, especially for allowing all columns to sort properly since references also mess up the sort order. --IanOsgood (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds fantastic! If, at some point, we had references for everything, then the current table layout would be ok. But the way it is now, having a separate references column would be better. &mdash; Gopher65talk 19:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of tidying the table up, and it would be nice to have narrower columns, but I do have deep misgivings about achieving this by removing or consolidating cleanup tags without addressing the underlying issues. -- W.  D.   Graham  21:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I think that the current use of "citation needed" tags in this article goes against the very purpose of the tags. That purpose is to inform users of potentially unsourced information when they can't pick up on that fact on their own. It is *not* to spam articles when it is self evident that the information is unsourced. Here are 2 scenarios:
 * 1) Blahblahblah.1 Blahblahblah. Blahblahblah... 5 more sentences... Blahblahblah.2
 * 2)
 * {| class="wikitable"

! tablish thing
 * + random table
 * 70001|| 8000
 * 90002 || 60003
 * }
 * In the first example, with paragraphs, a reader could understandably think that the source after the first or last sentences covered everything in between. In that ambiguous case a citation needed tag would clear up the fact that (in this one case) only those two sentences are sourced, and nothing else. In the second example, it is intrinsically obvious that 3 of the 4 numbers are sourced, while the 3rd number (8000) doesn't have a listed source. A citation needed tag would only serve to point out something that would never have been in question in the first place. I'd have given a third example of a table with 1 source and citation needed tags everywhere, but I didn't want to copy and paste the entire article into the talk page:P.
 * }
 * In the first example, with paragraphs, a reader could understandably think that the source after the first or last sentences covered everything in between. In that ambiguous case a citation needed tag would clear up the fact that (in this one case) only those two sentences are sourced, and nothing else. In the second example, it is intrinsically obvious that 3 of the 4 numbers are sourced, while the 3rd number (8000) doesn't have a listed source. A citation needed tag would only serve to point out something that would never have been in question in the first place. I'd have given a third example of a table with 1 source and citation needed tags everywhere, but I didn't want to copy and paste the entire article into the talk page:P.


 * I know that in my case, for instance, when I see too many of a single tag, I just filter it out in an attempt to find the information I want through all of the wiki-noise. If I read an article and see a well placed citation needed tag mixed in among a bunch of well sourced sentences, it makes me raise an eyebrow, and take note.


 * TL;DR: Too many tags = bad thing. &mdash; Gopher65talk 22:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the multiple tags primarily result in spam in this article, but I despair of getting rid of them. Rather than fight an unending battle to keep them from accreting, I intend to consolidate them to a single field applying to the entire line. I believe that is a more achievable goal. I'll probably do that tonight, if anyone disagrees with the result, please revert per WP:BRD. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2015


 * I support the consensus to have a single citation needed tag on a row; but unfortunately, doing that here at this time won't solve all problems. It is inevitable in a table such as this that diverse editors will happen by and add some claim or another that is unsourced; those may subsequently be challenged, or summarily removed if not found in the source previously provided for that row.  Reality is that many sources that exist simply will not provide all the information that other editors have added to all of various columns here in this table.


 * One other thing to keep in mind is that if the row has a cn tag, and no editor has chosen to volunteer their time to fix it in some reasonable amount of time, then then entire row may be removed by some cleanup editors if there is no source for the claims. In fact, if the cn tag is already 4 to 6 weeks old, we should probably just remove the unsourced statement now rather than have the entire row of data removed soon because some parts of it are unsourced. (if you'd like, I'll help do that before you start your cn-tag-per-row project; just let me know. But with you in the middle of an improvement project, I don't want to do that and upset the consensus for a work project you intend to start in the next 24 hours.)


 * Unfortunately, as User:WDGraham and others have pointed out previously, the statements made by disparate sources over many years on detailed technical details are rather inherently not comparable. I wish it was otherwise, but these LARGE table projects are always quite messy.  As one of my profs taught me:  "Reality is not optional!"  And the reality in a many-editor complex adaptive system where articles emerge over time from the micro working of many editors at the margin of each article is that these table projects never become quite as straightforward as we would like.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * One other thing. If you are going to move an existing {cn} tag on a field in a row to the end of the row, you should retain the existing "|date= ... " parm.  That way, any editor who is looking to remove challenged unsourced material will be aware when the challenge was added to the claim in the table in order to determine next steps.  N2e (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, keeping the date= for all the CN's is part of the plan. I won't be able to complete it tonight - I have a start on it at User:Tarlneustaedter/draft-orb, but I messed up for the entries which have no references at all. My use of emacs macros to carry out these edits means I have to start over, and it's after 3am. I'll try again in about twelve hours. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Launch costs on space shuttle
We're having a back-and-forth on the Launch Cost column for the Space Shuttle. The reference triggering this is Forbes, which doesn't fit with the rest of this article. Other launch costs in this table are incremental costs, in some times simply prices charged, which may have nothing to do with the actual costs.


 * Tarl…
 * Check the Wikipedia page 'Space Shuttle Program', 'Budget' section, you find the text: “Per-launch costs can be measured by dividing the total cost over the life of the program (including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc.) by the number of launches. With 134 missions, and the total cost of US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars), this gives approximately $1.5 billion per launch over the life of the program”.[16] With a link to: ^ Pielke Jr., Roger; Radford Byerly (7 April 2011). Shuttle programme lifetime cost 472 (7341). Nature. Bibcode:2011Natur.472...38P. doi:10.1038/472038d. Retrieved July 14, 2011. There are many additional valid shuttle cost links such as: http://www.space.com/12166-space-shuttle-program-cost-promises-209-billion.html Which prove a final Shuttle program cost of circa $220 billion.. IMHO this table should to fairly/equitably compare commercial/private costs to Govt launcher costs.. Any private enterprise/business MUST cover all costs (e.g. development, staffing, overhead, etc) prorated in their unit product/service costs, or go bankrupt. They can't just subset costs to look good.. Numbers such as the $300 million ignore development costs, KSC shuttle costs (13,100 employees $2 billion/year), MSFC 'astronaut support' shuttle costs, etc. Final/comprehensive Nasa published official Shuttle Program costs numbers are over $210 billion, $1.6 billion/launch... and are over a decade newer than the currently cited 'Futron' 1990-2000 numbers...also even the Futron report STATES IT USES THE INCOMPLETE NASA PREFERRED NUMBER (incremental costs only) from the 1990s... invalid then and obsolete now, not including total end of program costs and lower flight frequencies.. The only fair/valid/equitable method is total program costs / # of flights... even this excludes the 'cost of money' which a commercial effort must cover.. The $300 million number is invalid, misleading, obsolete. Also, since when is Forbes less trusted source than 'Futron'? Calling facts you don't like a 'hit piece'? I can point to plenty of soft-ball Nasa biased 'fluff pieces'.. like Futron. -- this unsigned paragraph by ‎User:Wrwhiteal

The Forbes article doesn't meet WP:NPOV, since it's clearly a hatchet job, doing it's utmost to present the shuttle program in a poor light. The figure it's using for launch cost is the entire cost of the shuttle program, including costs which had nothing to do with shuttle launches. Since this table is about comparisons, the costs presented in that article don't belong here. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Tarl: I've got references from the Wall Street Journal, Forbes,Space.com, which cite Nasa itself as the source of the $210 billion shuttle program cost figures... IMHO the $1.6 billion/launch is understated, as it fails to include time weighted 'cost of money' and/or opportunity costs that a private enterprise would pay... basic cost accounting... I agree that shuttle launch costs are 'out of kilter' with other rockets... THAT'S THE POINT... they are 'out of kilter' because of inherent Shuttle/Nasa massive inefficiency/waste, not because of unfair, improper or misleading accounting.... Just because they are 'out of kilter', far higher than others, or just because some folks don't like the fair cost, doesn't make it wrong... if you want to compare launch system costs with any meaning, IMHO you must compare program costs / # flights... a commercial/private provider MUST cover ALL it's costs..otherwise they go bankrupt... e.g. SpaceX Falcon costs must cover all the Falcon program... they can't just ignore development costs/overhead/staffing/etc..... Govt should to... otherwise, any Govt could subsidize costs, play accounting tricks, ignore development/overhead, and offer the launch for free.... People have or will use this list to judge the relative merits, inefficiencies, value of private vs Nasa provided launch vehicles... we should use strict basic, strict accounting principles.. not ignore costs/subsidies and produce misleading results. Each shuttle flight did cost taxpayers $1.6 billion... -- This unsigned paragraph by ‎User:Wrwhiteal


 * All you are saying is "my data is good", I'm telling you it's not appropriate for this use. What you seem to be intent on demonstrating is that the program cost the U.S. government a huge amount of money, whereas In this comparison table, the costs are intended to be what it cost the END USER. What did a CUSTOMER pay to launch a payload. The total cost of program isn't of interest in this table, and isn't what ANY of the other prices listed are based on. This table is a COMPARISON, please do not change systems for one line item only, it entirely removes to ability to compare costs to launch customers.
 * Also, please be careful to always sign your entries (use a quadruple tilde - ~ - which will be replaced by your name and talk page pointer) on a talk page, and please do not intersperse your comment inside someone else's text without off-setting it with colons (as I've done for you after the fact). It's important so that other readers can tell who wrote which words. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll stay agnostic on the debate between Tarl.Neustaedter and User:Wrwhiteal on Space Shuttle costs for now, as I haven't finished thinking about it. I will however note that the entire enterprise to attempt to put some sort of standard launch cost per kg in some table in this article is likely a fool's errand.  The data are simply not there, and not provided in any way close to similar accounting methodologies between the various orbital launch systems so as to make them comparable, as discussed in above in the section on Launch costs.


 * The data that could be interesting might be a standard market price—which in economic and accounting thinking is a very different thing from "cost"—but we simply don't have standard market price data, per launch, or per kg, for this large set of orbital launchers.. Bottom line, we don't have cost or price data that can make the numbers in that column comparable, and therefore we ought to delete the entire column so as not to mislead the readers of this article.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Deleting the columns entirely makes eminent sense. Most rockets don't have the data at all, the ones that do have data which is distorted by governmental policies rather than economics. Deleting the three columns, and while we're at it, the extraneous duplication of name column on the end, is something we should do. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. If you compare the PPP of the total program cost of the Zenit launch program to that of the Falcon 9 program, the economics of the Zenit look stupid. But if you add all of the free R&D and below cost tech support that SpaceX got from NASA, things rebalance a bit. So corporate vs government programs can't be compared. And you run up against similar issues trying to compare rockets developed in a planned vs market economy. There is simply no reasonable way to add up all the various costs. They are uncomparable. I say delete the columns because we'll *never* be able to make those costs comparable. &mdash; Gopher65talk 14:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an emergent consensus exists that we should delete the cost columns, because the data are not comparable. As far as I'm concerned, it would be okay now for some editor to begin to boldly make those edits, based on this consensus.

I will add a comment to "The wider problem" discussion below in a bit; but I don't think that need necessarily delay the step 1 on a subset of that on which there is pretty decent agreement. N2e (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. Revert and discuss if adjustments are desired. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The wider problem
I only noticed this discussion today. I think the issue with the prices is part of a wider problem - not just with this article but with those like it. Absolutely everything in this articles are subjective, yet presented as fact for the purposes of making it "comparable". Let's start with the subdivision of the lists - How do we define which rockets should share an entry and which should have separate entries? Some rockets are split down to configurations - such as the Delta II - some are split even beyond this - Ariane 4, for example - while others - Taurus, Antares, etc, have a single entry. Many aren't subcategorised by upper stage - Soyuz-2, for example.

The "manufacturer" and "origin" columns may seem neat enough, but there are plenty of cases where this isn't in reality the case. Zenit-3F is a good example. We list it as Ukrainian. Yes, its manufacturer is based in Ukraine, however the rocket is used by Russia, has a Russian upper stage, and the Zenit design itself dates back to the Soviet Union - using Russian technology and know-how. Ukraine never developed the technology to build rockets indigenously, it inherited that technology from the USSR. Then there's Antares. We list it as an American rocket built solely by Orbital Sciences. No mention of the Ukrainian (Zenit-derived, i.e. former-Soviet) first stage with Russian (also former-Soviet) engines. The upper stage was built by ATK. But we just list OSC.

Next, there's the question of payload capacity. The table just gives a single figure for LEO payload - which is completely meaningless. LEO isn't a specific orbit, it's a whole range of many, many different orbit types. A rocket will have a significantly different payload capacity to a 150 x 150 km x 0° orbit as to a 1,999 x 1,999 km x 180° one, yet we're tarring them all with the same brush - there is no standard. It also ignores other factors - launches from some sites require more energy, either due to the high latitude of the site or having to dogleg during ascent. And even then, if identical Soyuz rockets launched to identical orbits from Kourou, Baikonur and Plesetsk, you'd find that all three would have different payload capacities.

The same goes for payloads to other orbits. The rest's just as bad - I won't go into costs, but obviously launch counts and first/last flight dates are dependent on how you split the list and what tests flights you include/exclude - as well as how disputed launches (such as the February 2013 Safir) are included. Status is probably the only thing that isn't completely subjective, but again it does depend on division, and also on whether a system's retirement/abandonment/cancellation is publicised or if the rocket is simply allowed to drift into obscurity like China's KT-1 appears to have.

So in short, what is the point of having a comparison when the data simply cannot be made comparable? Maybe we need to review whether this article continues to add value to the encyclopaedia, or whether we should look for better ways to display this data. -- W.  D.   Graham  16:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The origin of this list came about from a merger of several ad-hoc lists of launchers (Heavy Launcher, Mid-sized launchers, ...). The intent was to provide a single list of launchers without the complications of arguing about which launcher belonged on which list. It appears to have received the name "Comparison" as a way to add value. I think the list still has value as simply a comprehensive list, although I doubt the utility of all the single-launch variants of one booster. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a comparison from the beginning - and while the merger did cut out some of the problems, it only addressed the tip of the iceberg. I agree that a comprehensive list would be useful, but I think the format needs to be simplified, and we should probably consider a merger with List of orbital launch systems. -- W.  D.   Graham  17:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the general thrust of the discussion above in "The wider problem". Yes, such a problem exists, and yes, I hope a consensus can be reached to do something about it.  Might I suggest someone make a specific and conscise proposal?  Not sure where that ought to be made, as it would affect a number of articles.  But the folks who've commented on this Talk page could be invited with Talk page messages, and perhaps a note on WIkiProject Spaceflight could be left.


 * One other thought: since it may be a bit more challenging to develop a consensus on a broader set of articles with the same or similar problems, and that consensus may or may not ever be reached, I don't believe that the discussion on "The wider problem" need necessarily hold off action on the more limited consensus we've already reached on the cost columns in this particular article.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * While the figures in LEO and GEO aren't precise due to a number of variables, they do give us order-of-magnitude information. There's a big difference between a rocket which can launch 100 kg to LEO vs one that can launch 100,000 kg, which we can see in this table. And by the way, in the launch business, "to LEO" generally means "to the lowest orbit that won't fall on our heads" - it's a short-term orbit, either a transfer orbit or a short-lived satellite. The higher orbits that are possible under the umbrella "LEO" aren't generally used in measurements of launch capacity of LEO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarlneustaedter (talk • contribs)
 * Not all LEO mass figures are for a minimum orbit; some are typical orbits for those rockets; such as sun-synchronous or 500km circular orbits. -- W.  D.   Graham  12:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the "which LEO?" issue again. As an example of a (purposeful) source error, SpaceX's Falcon Heavy page use to have some figures comparing its 53 tonne launch capacity to the capacity of competitors. From a marketing perspective it looked really impressive, but they also had the poor sense to include both the orbital inclination and orbital altitude information for each rocket. I think it suffices to say that there is a big difference between launching 53 tonnes to 160km @23 degrees and launching 53 tonnes to 350km @60 degrees:P. In addition to inclination and altitude, another far more minor issue is that the launch site choice matters (slightly) to the total payload capacity of the rocket.


 * I wonder if there is a formula to convert payloads back and forth based on those variables? &mdash; Gopher65talk 13:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * whoa boys.... I believe that the previous $300m shuttle costs were wildly misleading, but throw the baby out with the bath water? remove the entire (estimated) cost columns? I would like to be able to compare launcher cost (efficiency), a preeminent attribute of a space launcher... cost per lb to orbit is crucial... IMHO a valid ESTIMATED cost should be provided, but just calculated properly and noted as what it is... apparently we do have substantial information to govt subsidies, hidden costs, and estimates can be made and be added in (for Zenit, for example). Nasa itself provides the total shuttle program cost.. if someone wants to include price (which probably wildly varies), then why not add another column...I believe we could have a fair, balanced estimated cost/launch, based on best information... once we agree on a methodology of covering all known and estimated costs.... IMHO this is very pertinent and useful information... however, I go with the group consensus..Wrwhiteal (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am glad to have these columns removed. It is wishful thinking that we can get reliable figures for launch costs, that are comparable in a table. Too much marketing, subsidy, inflation, and international differences add noise to the figures. Perhaps a separate article on the historical evolution of launch costs would be more appropriate. --IanOsgood (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Once we agree on the methodology", the article is in danger of becoming original research. I'd argue the same could be said about Gopher's suggestion above regarding converting payload masses. -- W.  D.   Graham  15:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur with WDGraham, on both points. Any "methodology" Wikipedia editors might come up with for producing (purportedly) "comparable" cost or price info would definitely be original research.  The same would be true of attempting to utilize any mathematical formula for "converting payloads back and forth based" on inclination, perigee/apogee, payload mass, etc.


 * Bottom line from my point of view: if we have a reliable source for some "cost" or "price", then that info can freely be included in the subject article where that info and source would be in-scope to the breadth and depth of a specific article, and it should of course be included with suitable context information we might have:  who is making the cost statement (Conflict of Interest anyone?); what cost-accounting methodology (typically unspecified) is being used; etc.  But in no way can we meaningfully then take a set of very different cost/price numbers from a large variety of sources, provided by various information providers, under different national and/or governmental/private accounting practices, and then put all those numbers into this sort of comparison article implying comparability of cost or price data when it simply is not there.  N2e (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, was made pretty apparent with the Nasa comparison of international launcher costs which included in the small print that US manufacturers listed supplied NASA at cost while foreign rockets prices were commercial launch rates. WatcherZero (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It has been a week. Does anyone want to make a concrete proposal to address what one editor called "the wider problem"? Or can some other editor perhaps see that a consensus has developed above? I can't really see one, but believe consensus on doing something to improve the article(s) is possible. So I suggest someone make a concise proposal as to what is suggested, and then folks can weigh in with support or opposition. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think the key issue here is, once the incomparable data has been removed, whether there is sufficient data remaining to justify a comparison article. I do not believe this to be the case, so this is my proposal. We merge this page into List of orbital launch systems, possibly moving cancelled/unflown rockets from that list into a separate one. We then move Comparison of orbital launchers families to List of rocket families and rewrite it accordingly. Comparison of solid-fuelled orbital launch systems could be renamed List of rockets by fuel type or List of orbital launch systems by fuel type, or something similar. -- W.  D.   Graham  10:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey WD, it seems to me as if your proposal has a condition attached ("...once the incomparable data has been removed..."). It is unclear to me, and probably other editors, when, if ever, that condition might be met for this particular article.
 * Thus, it seems to me to be a bit of a potential/future proposal rather than an actionable proposal right now. So it seems that this Talk thread subsection is near an end, until such time as editors might arise who are willing to undertake the enterprise of finishing (or drawing to a close) the "incomparable data removal" issue on this article; after which that issue would conceivably be closed out.  And then you might need to remake your proposal, and in a totally new section of the Talk page, to get it the attention it deserves.
 * How are you seeing this? And how are others seeing it?  N2e (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * List of orbital launch systems is static. One sort option and that's it. The advantage of the current table is you can sort on any column. The sorts I've found useful: number of launches, activity, payload to LEO, payload to GTO, year of first and last launch.  The burden: keeping up with the launches and keeping everything referenced. --IanOsgood (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is that if we really do purge all incomparable data, there won't be an awful lot of columns left. -- W.  D.   Graham  07:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly this. Launch capabilities are JUST as incomparable as prices. I can suggest metrics for either, but it'll count as original research either way. LEO payloads could assume: Max possible payload to 200x200km. Currently some numbers are that way ... others aren't. The F9 would get around a 30% boost were we to use this metric since the figure listed right now is assuming flyback margins. Pricing could be based on commercial per-flight price for their base package. Yeah this would ignore issues to do with subsidies and government paid for development and a lot of other things but it gives a view of what is available on the market to customers. It would have little to do with cost which is different from price. Most rockets won't have a price because they've never sold to a commercial entity but that is OK maybe? Removing all references to price was a terrible decision when launch capabilities suffer from the exact same problems. Far better to have a price column with a lot of footnotes. 129.97.124.75 (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

ULA Vulcan
ULA Vulcan needs to be added to the page. Doyna Yar (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

JAXA H-III (H-X)
The JAXA H-III (H-X) in development needs to be added to the page. Doyna Yar (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone (preferably an engineer) Add the new payload information to the chart for the Space X Falcon 9 enhanced (a "1.2" if you will) and new Heavy Core
If one looks at the payload info currently listed (and multiply by three) there is no way 3 Falcon boosters as listed gets you to a payload of ~53,000 kg.

So I'm assuming that the numbers for Falcon Heavy are based on Falcon Enhanced as the 2 external boosters(~17095kg), and a new core of some sort with even more boost power.

I am basing these numbers on this article and Space X Comments regarding its production plans

Thanks

73.30.94.29 (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Chris Miles

chrismiles@outlook.com
 * Looks like a combination of three factors, 1.1 engines currently operate at 80% throttle (keeping a reserve for flight corrections and because they rushed to market without time consuming optimization of performance) and they are upping that to 100% in 1.2, they are also increasing the length of the main stage and fuel tanks by 10% as well as installing equipment at the pad to cool the liquid oxygen even further which increases its density meaning more carried in the same volume of tank. The net effect of all three alterations is a 33% increase in payload capacity. WatcherZero (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Skylon
Shouldn't the Brittish Skylon project be included here? GeiwTeol 15:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Comparison of orbital launch systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090730201604/http://www.jaxa.jp:80/pr/brochure/pdf/01/rocket05.pdf to http://www.jaxa.jp/pr/brochure/pdf/01/rocket05.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130919032016/http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/Minotaur/History/minotaur_history.shtml to http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/Minotaur/History/minotaur_history.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120722181438/http://www.orbital.com:80/SpaceLaunch/Taurus/ to http://www.orbital.com/spacelaunch/taurus/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Comparison of orbital launch systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100328161229/http://www.lockheedmartin.com:80/news/press_releases/2010/0325_ss_athena.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/0325_ss_athena.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Launch success / failure statistics ?
Hello, I wanted to cross-check the launch success/failure statistics between this English Wikipedia article and the equivalent article in the French Wikipedia.

Surprisingly, I cannot see a success/failure column here in the English version. For each vehicule, the number of launches has a reference number that must be followed as a link to obtain failure information.

Is there any reason that this information should not be given here ?

The success/failure rate should interest several categories of Wiki users.

I connot just copy from the French version because the different versions of launchers in each family are not on separate lines. this would also need some long and detailed reading of references.

Could the request for a single success / total launches column be added to a "things-to-do" list ?

If so, could someone else kindly create the request because I'm not experienced enough in wiki editing, and also this could require some specific user permissions that I may not have.

I am aware that this would have an issue with the sorting-order of table rows and, at my beginner's level, do not know how to deal with this.

thankyou

Paul Williams (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be worth considering moving to the French format. I have long argued that the wildly excessive number of separate entries for different variants makes the table hard to use. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's just the list of heavy launchers, not the list of all orbital launch systems. There is a very similar article on English Wikipedia, and is short just like that French Wikipedia article, though not quite as tidy.


 * What we *can* do, without changing the content of this page in the slightest, is break down the launch systems into "Superheavy-lift" (over 50 tonnes to LEO), "Heavy-lift" (over 20 tonnes to LEO), "Medium-lift" (over 2 tonnes), and "Small-lift" (below two tonnes). These could be put into separate collapsible tables, which would make this page much easier to read, without getting into the sticky business of what rockets to exclude and include. &mdash; Gopher65talk 20:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think separating the list is a good idea, especially because the distinction is quite arbitrary and it would be difficult to compare launch systems across the separation line between different categories. However, I think it would be a good idea to include the success rate in the main list. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Table of heavy-lift rockets
A graphic table of heavy-lift rockets was added and reverted today. The reasons for the revert were appropriate, it looked like it meant more than it actually did, and seemed aimed at promoting Musk's latest proposal. But a variant on that table, perhaps at the end of the article, might be interesting - perhaps a wider range of rockets (top 30 rather than top 10), and color-coding the columns so it's easy to identify operational, retired, abandoned without success and powerpointware. From what I understand, Musk's proposed BFR is still in the powerpoint stage, the SLS variants are also in that stage, Saturn V flew missions and retired, N1 never flew any successful missions and was abandoned, Long March 9 is in development (actually bending metal), Falcon Heavy maybe in that stage (or might still be powerpointware, not sure), and Energia flew two missions before being retired. The dose of reality showing that what little of that list is real was retired decades ago would be worth showing. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 21:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As the reverter, I have no problem with this proposal. Zginder 2016-10-01T13:54:47Z
 * I don't think this split makes much sense, although I agree the table is impractical due to its excessive length. I would rather advocate forking out the retired rockets into a separate section and table, leaving a manageable and useful list of current and upcoming launch systems to compare. — JFG talk 09:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to agree that the reversion is proper so far as WP:UNDUE is the guiding principle here. As to the other points, the BFR (now called ITS... but that is a long story) has definitely moved out of the powerpoint stage and has actual bent metal too.  Components and sub-assemblies are being worked on right now and have even been shown in public, including the Raptor engine that will be used that has had test fires.  It is still years away in terms of development.  As for the Falcon Heavy, it already has two launch pads that are nearly completed or are completed (LC-39A in Florida and LC-5 at Vandenberg) and supposedly full engine cores that have been officially completed.  While I agree that the Falcon Heavy has been "ready for launch a year from now" for over four years, it is a massive mischaracterization to suggest it is just a power point presentation.


 * More to the point, I agree with the reversion on the grounds of undue weight in the article, but I do think a chart or table that was much more neutral in flavor could be a useful addition to this page. If such a table is created, it ought to also go onto the bottom of this article instead of near the top and consist primarily of historic and/or current launch vehicles rather than proposed vehicles in development.  --Robert Horning (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 one external links on Comparison of orbital launch systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007150133/http://russianspaceweb.com:80/angara5p.html to http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara5p.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427025907/http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/atlas-5.htm to http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/atlas-5.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/delta.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela0300.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela0900.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela2913.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela4000.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela5000.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110406035626/http://www.ihi.co.jp:80/ia/en/product/rocket.html to http://www.ihi.co.jp/ia/en/product/rocket.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mqiUXlX2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astronautix.com%2Flvs%2Fsoyuz.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuz.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011011357/http://astronautix.com/fam/energia.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/fam/energia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

launch costs per kg?
Data may be difficult to assemble, but launch-costs per kilogram would be a very interesting addition. Some of the difficulty might be that costs are not public, costs vary significantly from one launch to another, based on configuration; launch costs for first/second stage boosters not broken out from costs for final stage/insertion costs or payload costs (so that GSO and LEO costs become hard to compare). So, yes it would be hard, but something would be more interesting than nothing. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. Seems that Comparison of orbital launchers families provides this info, as well as a success/failure column. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Move retired rockets to a separate table
In this very long table, the 73 operational launch vehicles are drowned in a "grey sea" of 145 retired rockets. Comparison with some historical LVs may be interesting but it currently distracts too much from the much-more relevant comparison of currently available options and upcoming vehicles. Therefore I suggest building a second table dedicated to retired rockets and keeping in the first table only vehicles currently operational and in development. — JFG talk 08:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If your going to do that I would move in development in to the second table too, that would allow a short comparison of currently active rockets and then a broader knowledge, probably around half of in development rockets never make it to fruition as envisaged anyway, either being cancelled or having degraded performance. WatcherZero (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ – I kept the current and in-development rockets together, I think it makes sense to be able to compare their characteristics. — JFG talk 00:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * After it is done i think it's quite annoying. In many cases people want to compare a rocket with the most powerful ones. And that was Saturn V (and maybe the Energia). Before the split this was easy to do by sorting by mass to LEO. Now you have to scroll over wide areas. Even for smaller rockets you often want to compare them with their retired 	predecessors. What has become very difficult. I think a sortable long list is much more convenient than a few separated by some random properties. Fabiwanne (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Comparison of orbital launch systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara5p.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160717122422/http://www.rocketlabusa.com/ to http://www.rocketlabusa.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ihi.co.jp/ia/en/product/rocket.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007205105/http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities to http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717190345/http://www.cgwic.com/LaunchServices/Download/manual/LM-3A%20Series%20Launch%20Vehicles%20User%27s%20Manual%20Issue%202011.pdf to http://www.cgwic.com/LaunchServices/Download/manual/LM-3A%20Series%20Launch%20Vehicles%20User%27s%20Manual%20Issue%202011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160628013425/http://www.spacechina.com/n25/n144/n206/n214/c1339839/content.html to http://www.spacechina.com/n25/n144/n206/n214/c1339839/content.html
 * Added tag to https://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/awc/space/factsheets/titan_ivb.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Comparison of orbital launch systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226202103/http://sinodefence.com/space/launcher/changzheng5.asp to http://www.sinodefence.com/space/launcher/changzheng5.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150824115346/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuzst.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuzst.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714131538/http://www.arianespace.com/launch-services-vega/Vega-Users-Manual_Issue-04_April-2014.pdf to http://www.arianespace.com/launch-services-vega/Vega-Users-Manual_Issue-04_April-2014.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131517382000/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/athena1.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/athena1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131108140050/http://astronautix.com/lvs/athena2.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/athena2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206111804/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/blaarrow.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/blaarrow.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706200718/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/h2.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/h2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512024348/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/kt1.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/kt1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132210225200/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/cz1d.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/cz1d.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516212838/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/cz2a.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/cz2a.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724064027/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delta.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delta.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131108110724/http://astronautix.com/lvs/n2.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207080648/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturni.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturni.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514030644/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnib.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnib.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307152702/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3a.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3a.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151202005425/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3e.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3e.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080630072016/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan34d.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan34d.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132201033200/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/vanguard.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/vanguard.htm
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GnfVkCZc?url=http://www.astronautix.com/craft/l3.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/l3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805154018/http://www.apollosaturn.com/satvhist.htm to http://www.apollosaturn.com/satvhist.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Definitions of "Under development" vs "Operational"
A few rockets with no launches and the first planned launch in the future are colored "Operational", while a few others which already have successful launches are colored "Under development". Could an established editor for this article correct the affected entries? If they are correct, could a short explanation of the difference between "Operational" and "Under development" be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C445:15D9:E875:3F3E:EE33:E43F (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Atlas 5 is modular and are just different configurations of the same rocket that have not yet flown, the first number indicates the diameter of the rocket and the 2nd the number of boosters attached and the 3rd the number of rocket motors on the centaur stage (1 or 2), no 2 engine versions have been flown but it has been marketed as available since 2011 and is currently planned for use on CST-100 and Dream Chaser launches. Simorgh successfully completed a suborbital flight but the first orbital flight of the rocket failed so hasn't successfully reached orbit yet and therefore not operational, there have been several other announced but cancelled test flights as well. I don't see any other anomalies? WatcherZero (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Comparison of orbital launch systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151102075906/http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2011-12/29/c_111330639.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2011-12/29/c_111330639.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132206445300/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlsiiib.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlsiiib.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141225140441/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3c.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3c.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132218040800/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/hiia2024.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/hiia2024.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508193711/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/mol8k78m.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/mol8k78m.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160228082843/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titiiglv.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titiiglv.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304064254/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan2g.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan2g.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025055447/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3b.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3b.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141225140441/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3c.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3c.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304061117/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3d.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan3d.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522020053/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/tsiklon2.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/tsiklon2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522020053/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/tsiklon2.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/tsiklon2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

table showing number of launches per country would be a good addition
Could be constructed from data in the table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.133 (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not the goal of this article, and would be original research, sorry. But you can read stats per country at 2017 in spaceflight and similar pages for each year. — JFG talk 22:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)