Talk:Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle

I added quite a bit of information
Most of it from John Shannon's 17 June presentation. Anyone can feel free to copyedit the article.

P.S. please beware, there is a lot of false information circling around on the internet concerning this concept. I've seen a Daily Kos article talking about a ridiculous high LLO payload number of 48 metric tons and even and even talk of 53 metric tons capability through TLI. These numbers are incorrect on their face. The 53 metric ton number is the gross number INCLUDING the EDS, which weighs about 13-15 tons after TLI (dry weigh). Substracting the number gets one to the 39mt actual gross payload capacity of the HLV concept to TLI. This is significant but not as much as an Ares I /Ares V EOR scenario which yields a gross payload for the Altair higher than the HLV.Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I got the page started but I didn't want to be the only one doeing the work here... just wanted to get the ball rolling. Looks like you did a nice job. Radical Mallard (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Another source
If anyone fancies making use of it, Chris Bergin's just added a great article on the HLLV to NASASpaceflight.com:. Colds7ream (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Metricisation(?)
Per the request to add metric values to the article, I went through, using some available web tools, and calculated metric equivalents to the imperial units quoted in the original article. While some of the units may be unfamiliar to some readers (i.e. MJ = MegaJoule, Gg = Giga-gram, Mg = Mega-Gram etc.) they're all standard, if uncommon, accepted SI Metric units or derivatives. 64.201.173.205 (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Now can someone put the standard convert templates in to finish it up?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, having looked up your suggestion, and playing around with it, I've gone ahead and done this. One note: it appears that the original reference of "lbf" and "Mlbf" most probably referred to pound-force and not (as I had originally interpretted) foot-pound (energy). So the metric conversions should have been to Newtons (or, in this case, MegaNewtons) and not Joules (or MegaJoules). I have adjusted the convert template units accordingly. IF my original assumption was actually correct, these units would have to be (re)corrected. In any case, the convert template doesn't handle large units (i.e. MegaGram, GigaGram etc) and it tends to be a bit cumbersome in some places (i.e. the nautical-mile to kilometer conversions near the end of the section) but nevertheless, it's prima facie. 64.201.173.205 (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Reuseable SSME's vs Single use SSME
As I understand it the current "reusable" Space Shuttle Main Engines(SSME) are shut down in near orbit prior to the External Fuel Tank emptying its Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel to prevent the SSME's from blowing up, would the "single use" SSME's on a future Heavy Lift vehicle provide significant extra burn time (=extra payload?)with throw away SSME's Jalanp2 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. The proposed title does not seem to have enough support. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle → Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (side mount) — Because of the generic appearance of the current name this side-mount concept is often mistaken with (and wikilinked instead of) the in-line concepts. See Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle. Alinor (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support. More specific title. Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle can cover non-side mount designs. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This problem is something that can be rectified via hatnotes, not by adding an unnecessary parenthetical.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support better title, redirect the current title to the SDLV article, there have been other HLV derivatives that are not sidemounted, like the Constellation/Orion/Ares program, and Jupiter proposal. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please justify your !vote against the naming conventions. In this case, this is the only concept that has used this specific term to describe it, and if we need to disambiguate for other similar terms via hatnote, that is fine.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Side-mount Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle? One problem with the current title is that everybody who sees "Heavy-lift" and "Shuttle-derived" in some news report, budget bill or something else puts wikilinks to here instead of the correct Space Launch System. "Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle" is too generic term and includes many (if not all) of the designs at Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle. That's why it's better if this article has a more specific title related to the particular proposal that's the topic of the article. Alinor (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of usage of "Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle" in relation not to the side-mount design, but to the in-line Space Launch System. So, clearly the current article name should be changed to specifically reflect its topic. Alinor (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, hatnote. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this was the name for that specific proposal, other proposals can be covered in their own articles with their own names (eg. SLS) and disambiguated via either hatnotes, or via a new disambiguation page at Shuttle-derived heavy lift launch vehicle (using lower case since it is not a name). If it has to be moved then move it to Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (rocket) (which would be distinct from the concept and conform to WP:RND). -- G W … 17:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the name of the current side-mount proposal article is too generic - and many editors and readers confuse it with article about all Shuttle-derived concepts or about some specific proposal (but another one - different from the actual topic of the article). As you can see somebody already added a "merge proposal" to put SLS into this article. This is a problem for wikilinks too. All of this will be resolved if the article name includes a clear side-mount reference in some way. Alinor (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, these two rockets are different, and features different ideas, and looks. They aren't related in any way except for the fact they are being considered to replace the space shuttle. The Shuttle Launch System would look like the Jupiter Rocket Family, and not the Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Lauch Vehicle.--Trulystand700 (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the point - the article here is about only one specific SD-HLV proposal - and many people wikilink/merge/etc. other unrelated ones to it (confused by the generic article name?). Alinor (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And still quite unnecessary. It is okay to have articles with similar titles, but we just need to hatnote them to make sure people are at the right ones.  There is no need to change this title unless a second concept uses the exact same title, and even then, it's up for debate.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

I think it'd be better to cover the side mount designs in one article. Either merge this to Shuttle-C or merge "Shuttle-C" to "Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (side mount)". -Fnlayson (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems outside the scope of this discussion, though an otherwise perfectly valid concern. Would you please kindly hold that thought until after this process is finished?  It would seem best to do one process at a time.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Was just a thought, no rush. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you merge "Shuttle-C" anywhere? It is a notable project in its own right, and things keep referring to it, even now. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Overlapping/repeated content. Look at the Origin section in this article, for example.  My first suggestion was merge this article to the Shuttle-C one. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shuttle-C is a distinct project, and independently notable from the general subject of SDVs. It's even entered popular culture, having appeared in several works of fiction. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No argument it is a notable project. How does merging other content to the Shuttle-C article adversely affect it?  That article is somewhat short now. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Separate ideas, separate time periods, separate articles. While similar concepts, they are different.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeach, I don't think it's needed to merge these two. Alinor (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I was looking at the similar general designs. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems very much worth mentioning that this seems like a solution looking for a problem. I don't see any problem with any of the current names, and thus see no reason to change any of them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the name of the current side-mount proposal article is too generic - and many editors and readers confuse it with article about all Shuttle-derived concepts or about some specific proposal (but another one - different from the actual topic of the article). As you can see somebody already added a "merge proposal" to put SLS into this article. This is a problem for wikilinks too. All of this will be resolved if the article name includes a clear side-mount reference in some way. Alinor (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And we have told you no, and why no. You have not addressed the reasons why we have told you no.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These would happen again if the article remains with its current title. That's the problem I see. Alinor (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can we add a section to say why this proposal was not adopted
Can we add a section to say why this proposal was not adopted ? How was it evaluated by the Augustine commission ? Who argued for and against it ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)