Talk:Liberty (rocket)

Shuttle booster

 * Someone has edited the infobox and written that the first stage is a Shuttle booster. I think it is not. It is an Ares I first stage which is different. Five segments instead of four for instance. Hektor (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding another segment isn't significantly different though is it? It may be modified, but it is essentially a version of the Shuttle SRB, built with the same manufacturing line. In fact in the publicity that's what ATK crow most about!  Denying that fact doesn't exactly help the reader to understand the history of this piece of the rocket.  Besides calling it an "Ares 1 first stage" doesn't make much sense since it also would have been the Ares V booster as well.  Having said that it is a distinct variant in its own right so I would call it something like "Shuttle-derived five-segment booster" and link to the Five-segment booster section of the SRB page (as demonstrated). ChiZeroOne (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are both right, it is not merely a Shuttle booster and it is not (exactly) a Ares I = Ares V booster either. So ChiZeroOne's idea to say something like Shuttle-derived five-segment booster seems reasonable, as long as we tie it to a verifiable source.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

ATK promo video
ATK has released a promotional video. I don't know if it is appropriate for the article, but it does provide a big-picture view of what Liberty is conceptually trying to do, albeit with a marketing spin point of view. N2e (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one horrified that they've used Ares I-X footage in this video? Colds7ream (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but then, accepting the faults in the marketing presentation, I was just looking for other's ideas about appropriateness for the article. It is a given to me that a marketing pitch will tell only one side of the story.  So it should not be the only story the article tells.  BTW, I think I've already read published criticism of the marketing in this video; for example, continuing to refer to the so-called "black zones" in the ULA launch vehicles--I think that's FUD, and so apparently do others.  N2e (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Capsule? Launch Abort System?
Can this really be ready by 2015 with no capsule specified? The images show no Launch Abort Sytem tower. Could an MLAS-style abort system be ready by 2015?Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Liberty IS selected for CCDev round 2!
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/sep/HQ_M11-189_Commercial_Crew_Agreement.html seem to suggest that Liberty is not completely written off from CCDev, though NASA is dealing with it via SAA (nonreimbursable space act program). 84.0.165.214 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Justification?
Political reasons aside, what does this proposal do that the Ariane 5 does not? The Ariane 5 ES can deliver 21,000 kg to LEO; Liberty delivers 22,000 kg to LEO. Surely it is less risky sticking a capsule on top of a proven and (partly?) man-rated rocket design than making a chimera?86.41.46.28 (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM. Thanks. Hektor (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ares F - The French Ares-I
I think that you should write in the main article that this ATK/EADS Liberty rockets has been CLEARLY ispired by my (4+ years-old) "Ares-F" concept or, at least, that it isn't a new idea, since published years ago here: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/024aresF.html thanks

posted by gaetano marano Dec. 8, 2011

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.111.156 (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. First off, other than using the Vulcain 2 engine, the Ares-F and Liberty rockets are not anymore similar to each other than they are to the conventional Ares-1. In fact, Liberty is far closer to Ares-1, as Ares-F includes strap-on solid boosters missing in both the Ares-1 and Liberty designs. Second off, any suggestion of inspiration needs to come from a reliable source, not our own interpretation of the similarity of the designs. Without a reliable source, a suggestion of inspiration constitutes original research. That is made worse by the fact that the Ares-F concept is your own personal idea. Third, do we have any reason to believe anyone at EADS or ATK saw your design, or your website? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

that's why I've said "inspired" and not "copied"

all my space blogs have a counter and my articles have received over 400,000 pageviews in last years, great part coming from space agencies and aerospace companies

also, I've posted and discussed about my Ares-F on several space forums and blogs, that are read daily by space engineers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.111.156 (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Inspired still suggestion that they actually saw the Ares-F design and made the the Liberty design because of it. You have zero evidence of that. Having 400,000 pageviews is not evidence that anyone in industry saw your page or had their work influenced by it. What you are suggesting we add is against half a dozen Wikipedia policies. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

maybe you're right, but it's strange that all Wikipedia policies aren't enough to DELETE the, total fantasy, fake, unexisting, non-NASA, failed and abandoned by its own proposers, "DIRECT" concept wikipedia page and to delete also ALL the links in other wiki pages that point to articles about it

I think that ALL laws (including the wiki rules) MUST be the same for ALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.111.156 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They are the same for all. DIRECT may not have been adopted as a concept, but the concept still existed. The North American XF-108 Rapier was never built and existed only as a proposed concept, but it has an article about that proposal. It is independently sourced and not original research. It does not violate any of the policies you would have us violate. If you have a problem with it, take it to that article talk page. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"take it to that article talk page" ... already done several times but my posts has been always deleted by DIRECT-guys


 * Liberty and Direct are both legitimate existing proposals from real world organizations with tangible impact on the space industry. Give it a break! Doyna Yar (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Liberty has been proposed by two aerospace giants with thousands engineers while the real number of DIRECT's guys and their names are STILL completely unknown, it's ONLY a fake concept proposed by a fake lobby
 * That has no relevance at all to this article. As you have ceased discussing any suggestions to this article, I am closing this discussion. Take your comments to the talk page for DIRECT. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liberty (rocket). 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://archive.is/20130104234510/http://spacenews.com/civil/120803-boeing-spacex-sierra-ccicap.html to http://spacenews.com/civil/120803-boeing-spacex-sierra-ccicap.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717055741/http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=118&item=1057 to http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=118&item=1057

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) 11:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)