Talk:SM-65D Atlas

Merger proposal
The Atlas LV-3B, Atlas-Agena and Atlas SLV-3 articles should be merged into SM-65D Atlas as subsections since both launch vehicles are simple variants of the SM-65D Atlas / Atlas D launch vehicle. Ajh1492 (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The notability is that of the SM-65 Atlas in all its roles: as an early ICBM, use within Project Mercury, launching of numerous early spy satellites (e.g. KH-7) and planetary probes. It was a workhorse of the early space program because of its utility. The notability is not in an individual role by itself.

Those Atlas D launch vehicles used in the Mercury programme were also referred to as Atlas-Mercury and could place payloads of 1360 kg into a low-Earth orbit. The remainder of the Atlas D missiles were used as first stages in the Atlas configurations with the Agena, Able and Centaur upper stages although the actual disposition is not known. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles - SLV-3/SB-1/SB-2 Atlas

As a military missile substantial numbers were built but due to their slow response time when under attack, they were gradually replaced by HGM/LGM-25 Titan and LGM-30 Minuteman missiles. The Atlas missiles which became available in this manner were used as launch vehicles, either by themselves or in combination with an upper stage. Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles - SLV-3/SB-1/SB-2 Atlas

The first operational missile, the Atlas D, was the basis for launching the Mercury manned spacecraft into orbit. By use of Agena and Centaur upper stages, the Atlas became the medium-lift workhorse of American manned, reconnaissance, planetary, and geosynchronous-orbit space programs. Encyclopedia Astronautica: Atlas

Ajh1492 (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Plus is is merging three STUB articles following WP:Integrate into a single comprehensive article. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Three stub articles which have potential for expansion into one which will essentially duplicate Atlas (rocket family). Yes, an article on the Atlas as a whole is useful, but we already have it so there's no need to destroy our coverage of individual variants just to create another page doing the same thing. -- W.  D.   Graham  17:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No one "owns" an article or any page at Wikipedia - WP:OWN. Atlas (rocket family) does need a cleanup itself. Atlas (rocket family) should have a summary section/paragraph for the Atlas D and a link to the main SM-65D Atlas article. There will be one good article on the Atlas D (and direct derivatives) instead of 4-5 stub articles. Atlas (rocket family) is the summary article of entire Atlas D - Atlas G/Atlas-Centaur/Atlas II - Atlas III/Atlas V family, each branch of the "family" needs a good article. Need to start somewhere fixing the articles, I'm more than happy to collaborate with you on improving article quality. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What?? Precisely when did I, or anyone else, try to claim ownership of the article. Making a baseless accusation such as this to try to discredit my comment is at best an ad hominem argument, and could be conceived as a personal attack, so I'd suggest you consider retracting it. -- W.  D.   Graham  19:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You stated, "... but we already have it so there's no need to destroy our coverage of individual variants just to create another page doing the same thing." - How did I advocate to "destroy" an article by properly following WP:Merge policy and proposing an article merge? I raised the point of WP:OWN as a reminder that consensus-based article editing is the norm at EN:WP. I see nothing to retract with my statements, if you see a problem I encourage you to escalate your perceived complaint per WP:NPA. I again extend my earlier comment of being more than happy to collaborate with you on improving article quality. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By raising it, you implied that you felt I was not aware of this. Given that I had not said or done anything to the contrary, it came across as incivil. I am more than happy to collaborate - that is what we are all here for. Other than increased length, which could also be achieved by adding more content to the existing articles, what advantage does merging the existing articles about distinct variants of the Atlas rocket - which we have for pretty much every other rocket to exist - into a single article which will essentially duplicate the main Atlas (rocket family) article. Atlas D and Atlas SLV-3 Agena-D, for example, are very different rockets despite a common point of origin. Details about the Agena don't belong in an article about the missile. -- W.  D.   Graham  22:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose, just because they are derived from something else doesn't mean they are not notable, so the nom hasn't really made a case. Each is notable, has its own history, and we should follow the practice used with all other rockets of having an article for the family and one for each type of rocket. -- W.  D.   Graham  09:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose I agree with WD that there generally is good reason to separate the Atlas variants according to their major uses; for instance, the Project Mercury launch vehicle was in no way related (in purpose and use) to the original missile, and the Atlas-Agena was a derivative with an extra stage, used for (at least two) completely different purposes. And if you think merging all Atlas derivatives into a single article is a good idea, you have completely forgotten about the Atlas-Centaur. Also: WP:Integrate is an essay, not a policy or guideline.
 * Exception: I do agree that the Atlas SLV-3 as a separate article is splitting it a bit too finely, and what little is there should be merged into Atlas-Agena (not SM-65D Atlas). JustinTime55 (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Whoops; I take that back. I didn't catch that the Atlas SLV-3 was mostly just another Atlas, which was used once to launch the Augmented Target Docking Adaptor, with no actual Agena rocket. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I propose to remove the merge tags because of lack of consensus. Are there any objections? Biscuittin (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Boosters were just engines
Somehow it would be nice to emphasise (eg in the info box) that the boosters had no propellant internally, and their engines were fed from the central/core tanks. Can we give the mass of the boosters ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)