Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems/Archive 5

Edit war on Taiwanese missile
Please stop edit-warring over the Yun Feng entry, and discuss here to determine whether this missile is appropriate for inclusion. Please cite WP:RS sources for any claims for or against considering this an orbital launch system in development. — JFG talk 08:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Obviously,Yun Feng is unable to reach any orbit with a maximum speed for only 1,030 m/s. Saturnfan (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue seems to be over it being Taiwanese and the official Chinese government position is that Taiwan doesn't exist, if you look the early disruptive edits were changing the country identification from Taiwan to China followed by changing all the references sources to news articles on an incident of Taiwan accidentally damaging a fishing boat and adding in references to ballistic missiles being a threat to China. The 2016 MSLV programme follows on from a previous MSLV programme called TSLV cancelled in 2012 after US pressure http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/TSLV/Description/Text.htm the rocket development intertwined with Taiwans national satellite programme, Formosat, the first SLV was the intended launch vehicle for Formosat 6 http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/formosat-6.htm. References for the 2016 launcher development programme are given;
 * http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21837/Taiwan_To_Upgrade____Cloud_Peak____Medium_range_Missiles_For_Micro_Satellites_Launch
 * https://spacewatch.global/2018/01/taiwans-new-ballistic-missile-capable-launching-microsatellites/
 * https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3349525


 * As to the 1030 m/s claim I assume Saturnfan is referring to all the Taiwanese missile programmes such as Yun Feng (Sky Bow), Hsiung Feng III (Brave Wind) and Tien Chi (Sky Spear) having unofficial speed descriptions as 'Mach 4+' (Yun Feng achieves its 2000km range by being a SRBM/Cruise hybid, being initially launched on a ballistic trajectory before making a low altitude terminal approach while Tien Chi is a 300km range pure SRBM). The MSLV programme involves adding a second solid stage to the Yun Feng and replacing the warhead with a microsatellite, the previous SLV programme (1996-2012 cancellation) was similarly based on further developing the Sky Bow BMD interceptor and produced a series of sounding rockets http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/taiwan-sounding-rocket.htm . I would contend Saturnfan whose sole wiki history has been edits have been removing references to Taiwan and maintaining Long March articles is pursuing a nationalistic agenda. WatcherZero (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The sources documenting the 2016 development program support inclusion of this upcoming launcher in the table. I would call it MSLV instead of Yun Feng which creates confusion with its missile basis. Perhaps somebody with good knowledge of the subject can create an article for MSLV. — JFG talk 11:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Orbital launchers need orbital launches
In the "number of launches" column, we list suborbital tests separately in parentheses, to clearly highlight the count of orbital flights. However, in the "first flight" column, we sometimes list the date of the first suborbital flight, or the date of partial test of some rocket elements, as the year of first flight. We then add a footnote stating when the first orbital flight was performed. I believe that we are doing this backwards. This is particularly misleading when several years elapse between development suborbital flights and the first orbital mission. See for example GSLV Mk III (2014 vs 2017) and Soyuz-2.1a (2004 vs 2006). Whether the first orbital flight carries an operational payload or not does not matter: the rocket throws something into orbit, so that at this point it can be called an "orbital launch system", not before.

Therefore I would suggest reversing the practice, in order to align it with the "launch count" column. List as first flight the year when a first orbital mission was performed (or is planned), and place the earlier suborbital launches in a footnote. In the examples I gave, it would say for GSLV Mk III: "2017" (practically the same footnote as now), and for Soyuz-2.1a: "2006". Pinging "regulars" would you agree? — JFG talk 12:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support As long as it’s consistent I’m fine with that change. We could also put the number in parentheses like: 2 Orbital Launches / (2) Suborbital Launches.
 * UnknownM1 (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT the proposal—seems a rationale change to me. After all, this is a comparison of orbital launch systems, and the orbital flight and criteria seems to be the main one here. N2e (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the original reason was because not every flight of an orbital class system, i.e. test flights and what not, are actual orbital launches UnknownM1 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT the proposal sounds reasonable to me. In a table listing orbital launches the main references should be to orbital launches. Sub-orbital development flights should rightly be placed in a footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.b.wiebe (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Comparing orbital launches is the primary objective of the table. Suborbital flights (R&D tests) can be rendered as footnotes. Rowan Forest (talk)


 * Support Эрнест мл. (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - fits better. --mfb (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see unanimous support: this thing must make sense… Working on it. — JFG talk 00:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ for all current rockets, not yet for retired ones. Help welcome. — JFG talk 01:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Featured List process
I just nominated this page to become a featured list. Help will be needed from all volunteers to bring the list up to the reviewers' standards. In particular, I feel that we should write some informative and engaging prose as a better introduction than the current text. Ideas welcome. — JFG talk 03:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

How might we make this article more accessible?
I recently made a edit to show an example of how we might show in text something that is only shown in color at present; only made it in a few places, to allow other editors to look at it. My goal was to, more or less, make the implicit explicit that there is a large difference between "flew first in some particular year" and "projected to fly first in some particular year"—so I added the word "(projected) in small text following the first flight dates that are not yet "actual", i.e., in the future.

Table column titles, of course, may need to be more terse than table entries; but making "projected" explicit seems useful, especially to our vision impaired and otherwise disabled readers.

That edit I made was reverted; which is fine for my bold edit. So let's move to discussion, and discuss it here.

The WP:MOS has a policy on accessibility.

If the approach I tried is not something that might improve the article in a good way, what is it you propose that might do this? N2e (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in my revert comment, it's obvious that dates in the future refer to planned availability. There is a residual ambiguity for the current year, but that gets further resolved by the nearby count of flights, which is obviously zero for rockets that haven't flown yet. Color adds a nice touch but is not the only indicator of development vs operational status, therefore we don't have an accessibility problem. At least, not this problem; I'm pretty sure FL reviewers will find other issues. — JFG talk 04:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I would say first we should make a distinction between "Under development" and "Testing". Looking at the article, it's unclear at a glance what anything in yellow actually means UnknownM1 (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Very few sources would tell us when a rocket stops being "under development", as this is generally insider information; indeed, testing is part of development. The objective criterion we are relying upon is: did this rocket perform an orbital flight? Whether it flies as a test or with a useful payload does not matter. On the day it throws something into orbit, it turns from "in development" to "operational". Certainly we could clarify this in the article introduction. — JFG talk 04:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I meant more like this: List of private spaceflight companies. Just something to show "Conceptual", "Being Tested", and "Operational". It would add massive clarity. UnknownM1 (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh nice, I did not know about that article. Here we try to avoid listing "paper rockets", so we would not include any "conceptual" rocket. All companies mentioned are actually building something or have the capabilities to build it (e.g. when a big national space agency announces a new 100-ton rocket for 2028, we trust them more than when a 10-person startup announces a new sub-100kg rocket for 2023. If we stick to those criteria, I see no issue. — JFG talk 23:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

In flight refueling
With in orbit refuelling capacity becomes infinite so mentioning it is pointless. Its like describing the range of a car and the range of the same car if it stops for fuel during its journey, or the endurance of an aircraft if it is refuelled mid air. The defining metric is its capacity at launch. WatcherZero (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

North Korea
Have you @User:JFG read the sources and why have you removed content not related to what you are contesting which is Unha-4/Unha-X? Your reason for removal is not good enough, deescalation on Korean peninsula doesnt mean that North Korea would automatically abandon their space program, it isn't certain nor has the deal have been made where they would cease with their programs. During their this years September parade celebrating 70th anniversary of founding of their country they paraded platforms with themes of space program. The next Unha could might as well be Hwasong-15 as various experts consider such possibility, it wouldt require Sohae and could be launched from TEL/MEL. NADA already stated their goals and placing one satellite in GEO/GSO would require much larger rocket/SLV. 77.217.233.160 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they consider it, but that isn’t mean it is confirmed. You do not insert content based on speculation, even if it comes from reliable sources. In addition, this content has been deleted previously for similar reasons if you read the revision history. 2600:1015:B102:B87E:93F:3125:5B6F:2CB9 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * For all intent and purposes they already had models/mock-ups of new rocket labeled/designated Unha-9 in their space themed events, there is enough information that explicitly points out to development of new rocket. Upcoming test launch of component for KSLV-2 by SK would give them cassus beli/reason to assert given right under the UN to have own indigeneous capability to place satellites in orbit. 77.217.233.160 (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Block-evading IP 77.217.233.160 now blocked.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Launch systems by country - 3-caracter country? identifications
In "Launch systems by country" you use short identifications of country (sometimes I think not country but something other). I can gess what country they refer to but not all, it would be good to have at least a direction to a codelist. Also some support lines to count how many each field is would help (or digits giving each field and total. Seniorsag (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Standard 3 letter country codes, though I can see a couple of mistakes Brazil should be BRA rather than BRZ, South Korea should be KOR rather than SKR and North Korea should be PRK rather than NKR. WatcherZero (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your notes. We should convert this into a horizontal chart, or replace it with a list, so we can show full country names. — JFG talk 18:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Launch success rates?
Could launch success rates be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.116.158 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Combine Falcon reusable with expendable?
Currently the table has a separate entry for the reusable versus expendable versions of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. It seems to me that these entries should be combined as it's essentially the same rocket. For example, the Proton-M and M+ are in a single entry and the difference between them is far more. War (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are separate entries because the payload capacities are vastly different with or without reuse. This distinction is in line with the general practice of listing for example the Atlas variants with various combinations of boosters and fairings, which have an impact on the supported payload-to-orbit mass. In the case of Proton, the M and M+ variants simply reflect a slight performance enhancement for the engines, which has a limited impact, so keeping them combined is appropriate. — JFG talk 03:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On reflection, Proton-M+ could get a separate entry, because the changes were more than a simple engine upgrade. But where do we draw the line? The "Enhanced Proton" itself has "Phase 1", "Phase 2", "Phase 3" and "Phase 4" variants… — JFG talk 03:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Falcon configurations are active in parallel, we list only the most recent hardware variant (Block 5). We can do the same for Proton. Only list things that are still flying (and have a different payload), unless there have been significant hardware changes to make the older version historically relevant. --mfb (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle, but it's hard to draw the lines among Proton-M variants. It was also hard to draw the line among Falcon "Full Thrust" blocks, whereby only Block 5 can deliver the performance that had been advertised since the v1.2 days. I'm not familiar enough with the Proton evolutions to make an educated break. — JFG talk 20:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pietrobon lists no less than 13 variants of Proton-K and 12 of Proton-M. — JFG talk 20:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Stargazer aircraft + Pegasus rocket
Hi. Not sure how to categorize this case: Stargazer (aircraft). Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's listed as Pegasus. --mfb (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Most other items listed are conventional ground-launched rockets; I believe a note about air-launch-to-orbit would be informative, I'm just not sure how to format it. fgnievinski (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Cost, cost, cost
The most important specification of a launch system is its cost. No matter how capable a launch system is, no one is going to choose it if its cost is prohibitive.

A column such as "Cost per kg to LEO" should be added to the table, so editors can begin to populate it. 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:FCC6:3224:76A1:4CC1 (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Its impossible really to simply compare by cost, more than half the table there wont be a published launch price and when there is it will change over time as a rocket matures or is made more efficent. Advertised headline launch price wont be what a customer actually pays as there will be discounts and additional launch services factored in such as ground preparation, fueling or special handling requirements and for example the opposite is true with the US military paying upto three times as much for same mass amd orbit as for a civilian payload on the same rocket costs partly as industry subsidy. Launches will be to different orbits, A LEO launch could be to 200km or 1200km, there could be high inclinations, it takes far more effort to reach a geostationary orbit than a low earth orbit. So yeah so many variables as to make a simple price per kg meaningless. WatcherZero (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference Orbits
The Firefly Beta addition really demonstrates how often meaningless company performance parameters can be for rocket comparison. Their reference mission is 8000kg to a Low Earth Orbit of 125 miles, 125 miles is barely above the 120 mile minimum to be defined as LEO and well below that of the 158 mile orbit of GOCE which required wings and a constant engine thrust to maintain orbit due to the atmospheric drag at that altitude, heck its below the 133 miles of Sputnik 1 that only managed 3 months in orbit. WatcherZero (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Counting of Falcon 9 FT Expended rockets
For the purpose of this article, should all launches without a planned recovery be counted along with rockets expended for the purpose of achieving maximum performance?

The reason that reusable vs. expended is listed separately is their difference in performance. I don't believe vehicles not recovered because they were older models or there was bad weather should be counted as expendable, since they weren't expended for the purpose of additional performance. Instead I think they should be counted with the reusable model. The source cited for these numbers on the F9 FT make the same differentiation, counting only vehicles which where expended for performance as expendable.

I'm not sure about this so input from other editors before a change would be appreciated. ElongatedMusketeer (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The current numbers are based on the planned flight profile, i.e. did SpaceX plan to recover the booster or not. The 15 expendable flights based on that counting were done with boosters B1030, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 54. The last three are Block5. In most of these they removed most or all of the landing hardware as far as I know (saves some hardware and increases safety margins in the mission). I think it would be odd to move a flight to reusable now just because it kept its legs, especially if our references don't do that. Many F9 flights are far below the maximal performance anyway, reusable or not. Given the similarity of the two versions, and the fact that some boosters flew both reusable and later expendable (without reuse hardware), we could merge the flight numbers. --mfb (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Error in Long March 9 kg-to-GTO figure
The Long March 9 GTO cell contains the entry 66,000kg. That is not supported in the Long March 9 article, and seems like it was always incorrect (since prior to the April 2021 announcement of higher capacity it was never anywhere near 66^3kg, and even in April 2021 it was only bumped to 53^3kg.

Is this the obvious error it seems to be? If so I will change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanShearer (talk • contribs) 13:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 53,000 kg is the TLI payload. GTO payload is higher, 66 tonnes looks realistic. --mfb (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Bug in Long March 9 LEO template figure
The wikitext for the LEO row in the table for Long March 9 seems to correctly say:

however what is displayed is 140,000kg to LEO. Here is the generated HTML:

140,000 &#91;85&#93;

Why the discrepancy? A search in the wikitext for "140" doesn't show anything that is plausibly used instead, so I conclude it must be in the template in a subtle way.

The figure of 150k seems correct, and comes from these references in the Long March 9 article:


 * The article code had 140,000, no bug here. I updated it based on the spacenews.com reference. --mfb (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. No idea why it was showing that to me. Dan Shearer (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

"Under development" in own list
I like big tables since they are sortable and so it is easier to compare similar rockets. But they have the disadvantage that you loose the overview over the whole table. For that reason retired rockets where removed from the table a while ago since they are less relevant for comparisons with actual rockets. But now almost every second rocket in the table is just an even less relevant announcement. Often decades into the future and with highly speculative numbers. (Several basic stats for Starship or Ariane 6 changed for almost magnitudes.) So you neither get an overview over real rockets that actually fly nor are you able to sort over all rockets.

I like to put them into a extra table at the end of the article. It would also have the advantage that the status legend could be removed. --Fabiwanne (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with you here. I just arrived at this page looking for most capable launch systems in current use, but this mixed table confounds that. Fully agree with splitting into current and future lists. -84user (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * +1 on this proposal -- Dan Shearer (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I Think I waited enough. I'm now doing this. -- Fabiwanne (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Belated approval, thanks ! — JFG talk 13:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)