Template talk:Expendable launch systems

[edit] Rename?

The SpaceX Falcons are not technically ELVs, seeing as they are re-usable, and the whole meaning of the term "ELV" denotes that the rocket in question is not reusable.

Therefore, I suggest that the template is renamed to cover all rockets capable of launching satellites into orbit. This would also allow the Space Shuttle, and other re-usable launchers to be included. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(OPPOSE)--aceslead 03:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I dropped this proposal and now support the current system, per discussion below. I have reverted edits by Dojarca (talk · contribs) to the effect of implementing this proposal, per the opposition of this proposal. Please start new discussion if you want to contest the current arrangement. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Category:Reusable launch vehicles Category:Partially reusable launch vehicles

[edit] Ares and Falcon

Please stop adding Ares to the "in development" section. It is partially reusable, and therefore not an ELV. Falcon does not qualify either --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the latest changes made by NASA, the Ares I would become a true ELV due to the deletion of the SRB recovery system, thus the SRB-based first stage will end its life on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean like all other American ELVs. Ares V, on the other hand, will still be partially reusable. Rwboa22 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you have a cite?
2. Is it official or just a rumour?

A lot of rumours have been going around about Constellation. If they were all true, we'd be seeing a spacecraft called Alitair being launched from LC-34 (or was that LC-37A, LC-40, or LC-39C) at Canaveral. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shavit?

The page for Shavit says that Israel plans to use Indian rockets in the future. Does this put their own launcher in the past? Potatoswatter 15:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Reusable Rocket Template

I think a semi-reusable rocket template should be created and that the Shuttle, Ares V, SpaceX Falcons, and the Energia rocket would be given their proper placement in Wikipedia. If anyone asks "Why Energia?", the response will be that the four liquid-fueled boosters (which became the Zenit ELV rocket) were reusable and that a fully-reusable Energia was in the works before the collapse of the USSR. Rwboa22 23:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done - see Template:RLVs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not include:

Ares - Partially re-usable

Falcon - Partially re-usable

Jupiter-C - A sounding rocket. Some were converted into ELVs, but these were called Juno I.

Redstone - A sub-orbital missile. One or two were used as ELVs, but under a different name. The Project Mercury versions don't count as they were also sub-orbital.

This list is incomplete, based on things that have been added in the past. Please add to it, but sign your changes. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Pegasus is not an ELV: L-1011 is re-usable.--80.223.18.180 20:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That is like saying no rocket is an ELV because the launch pads are re-usable. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Titan I was a missile, and was never used for orbital launches, so should not be included. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title change

How about changing the title to "Expendable launch systems" to keep it in line with the main article? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 09:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

N.B. the category name is Category:Expendable launch vehicles. (sdsds - talk) 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Rename this template or the category? Simiarly, Template:Reusable launch systems and Category:Reusable launch vehicles... Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would advise renaming the categories, as "expendable launch systems" is common to both American and British English, whereas "Expendable launch vehicles" is American English (albeit that it is sometimes used in the UK). The correct British English term is "carrier rocket". --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 09:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I've created Expendable launch systems and Reusable launch systems and {{category redirect}}ed the other two categories to them, respectively. I imagine a bot will take care of the transfer in the next few days.

While doing the above, I saw that the parent category for both categories is Space launch vehicles; should that also be redirected, to "Space launch systems"? Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

PS There's also Partially reusable launch vehicles and Shuttle-derived launch vehicles -- redirect those too?

I would do them all except SDLVs. That is an industry term, and has no neutral alternative. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)