Template talk:Rocket engines

695:

that's information that's very difficult to acquire. Specially if due diligence is done cross checking. 2) Casing: Segmented/monolithic and metal/composite. Just 4 combinations seem like little. 3) Use: missile/booster/space launch core/upper stage/kick stage. Could be, but solid motors are notable for being very flexible in this regard. So, I'm leaning on dividing by country of origin, as long as it doesn't grows too much. But for this I believe that we should have a serious discussion on the scope of this template. Almost every military rocket has a solid motor. And some have been used for non-military space launches (like Taurus). So I believe that some serious scoping should be discussed and written.

526:

too narrow. LOX/LH2 are not the only cryogenic fuel combo, LOX/RP1 are not the only semi cryogenic fuel combo, and there are engines that use no cryogens but also do not use hypergols. I know that there are a couple of engines currently undergoing testing that use LOX/LCH4 which are both cryogenic. I don't know if any engine systems exist which would be appropriate for this list that use these, but LF2, NO2, and HTP are potential oxidizers that are excluded from this list and there are many fuels other than RP-1 that are excluded from this list including gasoline, LCH4, and Syntin.

155: 137: 542:

Cryo (H2/LOX) and on for Cryo (CH4/LOX). Those are the only two cryogenic mixes that I've found. For Semi, you'll notice that I left the Semi-Cryo (RP-1/LOX) and added the Semi-Cryo (Other) with each subsection being the mixture. And I did something similar with hypergolic. Which is an issue because some Semy-Cryo are, in fact, hypergolic. And in general some engines are arranged by country of origin and others simply by propellant. I'll keep expanding the number of engines and then give the categories some thought.

1587:), the just sold them the blueprints. This required that India and China to reverse engineer all the design and to actually develop a lot of materials. So, while Ukraine stills offers the RD-801/810, and they say they will use them on the Malyak, I believe they are the remnants of the original design. I would love to redo the family tree of the RD-120, but I can't without some very good citations. But to make this short, I believe they are just blueprints and should not be in this list. – 1338:

country of origin within each propellant type might be a good start. But may be another solution will be needed. Regarding the Vinci, it is in a very advanced readiness level. But there are a lot of engines that will debut an orbital mission between now and 2020. There's RD-181 this year, CE-20 this and the next, and the you have Newton Three, Newton Four, Ruderford, FireFly's, and may be even SCE-200. So a section for seriously ready engines might seem like a good idea.

22: 71: 53: 165: 1087:; An "Orbital Launch Vehicle's flown rocket engines" if we create such, would be a new template, but it should be a list article first, describing the circumstances of its use (date, what rocket vehicle, etc) ; that would remove WPSPACEFLIGHT from this template (placing it only in WPROCKETRY, and thus out of the Spaceflight templates category), and move it to the Orbital template/list and the engine lists. -- 81: 1583:. But the only documentation that I've found on Ukraine and the YF-100 is a flat out denial in a WikiLeaks nopaper. I have deduced from the available information, that Yuzhnoye, which has been basically broke for a long time, designed both engines to India and China's requirements. But since they can't even afford to build one (and if they could they couldn't sell it due to 381:), and that aren't on this list, even though they needed a lot more effort, and advanced the technology and used up a lot more money than something like the HD5. So in that sense is also a problem. I've seen the French version of this template that it doesn't limit itself to flown rockets, and projects that haven't done a single fire test, like SpaceX's Raptor are there. 652:, that actually made it above the Kármán_line in 1963? In other words, when we talk about flown do we mean orbital, or do we include suborbital? Let's remember that there are a lot of rockets used for sounding rockets, too. Thus, I believe that we should either change the title a bit (adding the orbital word), or add a bunch of rocket engines. ( 1472: 1405: 1250:'s proposal. Reducing and simplifying this template seems the right thing to do. I also agree with creating "list of .." articles to manage the huge list of rocket engines of different types spanning many contexts. There might even be a nav-template made up of categories to connect all this information. -- 1273:

on creating the "List of..." article and a nav-template. For the 'Flown Rocket Engines Template' I have just two suggestions. First one is to keep things the same standard, for example right now not in all areas there is a country sub-category. My other suggestion is also to put propellants and types

759:

engines, but it doesn't define what sort of flight. Thus it mixes aircraft, space and military applications. And yet it is only filled by space related engines. Thus, I would like to propose to branch the templates in one for spaceflight specific engines (where we might discuss is suborbital or space

714:

itself, and not merely what factory or what geographic area of the Earth it was made in. So it seems to me that your options #1, #2 or #3 might be better. If fuel type is difficult to find sources for, then throw out option #1. Seems like no.2 or no. 3 would be fine. Or maybe even some measure of

525:

The way I understand this template, is that it is trying to list all of the engines that have ever flown on a major rocket powered vehicle, and not just a subset of those. My issue then is that the classes that these engines are arranged into don't cover all categories. More directly, the classes are

493:

make the cut, as each were important engines, or does only a single link to a family article make it, since they (currently) are described in the English Knowledge (XXG) in a single article? But if the latter, then do the various Russian named engines with unique numbers and unique WikiArticles make

1433:

I like how it is looking. I didn't linked all variations of engines for the Russians since they tend to give each variation a new name, so I had to chose only the most important of each family. Also, looking at how it is looking, we might inline further the propellant type within each category (e.g.

917:

Just a thought here, but is a nav box even the way to go for rocket engines? We don't have nav boxes listing all the automotive engines, ship engines or aircraft engines. Why? Because there are far too many of them. In time there will be more and more rocket engines flown and there will just be too

1343:

The problem with that is that it's very difficult to scope in such a way that only "serious" engines are added. Just for starters, just getting info of engines that have started to be bench tested is difficult. And then not all bench tested engines will eventually fly. ULA is running a competition

541:

You can see that I've arranged a bit the classification, and added quite a bit of engines. I've been adding categories where it makes sense. But for solids, where each engine has a unique formulation, it simply doesn't makes sense. For liquids, it sort of makes. But that's why I did a section for

1349:

And then you have the dangers of small start ups using that section to boost their PR campaign. Anybody with a pressure-fed design and a render of an orbital rocket will want to be there. Orbital flown is pretty clear, the rest is muddy waters. Those are the issues that we should work out before

392:

motor the as significant to space flight. Besides, most rocket motors are military and mostly classified. Thus, it would setting up an impossible task. But, there are a lot of solids that I have to add and have great significance to space. I'm referring to the sounding rockets, which are mostly

1337:

Well, since we have worked on improving the rocket engines articles, this template has exploded. I've already reduced the scope and branched out engines for aircraft, suborbital and spacecraft. And this keeps getting bigger and bigger. Personally I believe that making it compact by inlining the

1326:

reverted me, pointing out that the template's scope is limited to rocket engines that have already flown. Now I see the 2015 discussion which I had missed, however I think it would be informative for readers to see the upcoming engines which are in active development by reputable companies (not

694:

I've been thinking how to divide the solid motor section. Just from getting some of the space related families, it is getting big. I did a first approach on the country of origin. The other possible divisions I can think of are: 1) Fuel (APCP, HTPB, etc.). But the possible mixtures are huge and

436:

on Knowledge (XXG) are tough. One part of the reason is that, in general, nav templates have no citations (and citations would be kludgey in a NavTemplate) yet NavTmeplates often make claims that end up being legitimately debatable by different editors. For example, in this template on rocket

863:

I'm a newcomer here, but here's an organization that makes sense to me: separate templates for launch vehicle engines, orbital maneuvering engines, attitude control thrusters, military missiles, amateur rockets, and aviation, with some engines showing up in multiple templates as appropriate.

980:

My proposal is to reduce the scope of this template to "Orbital Launch rocket engines that have flown". And make a series of lists for the rest. We would also have to work on the rocket categories, too. And I would probably help do a rocket nav template (Rocket Types/Rocket Concepts/Rocket

795:

if you'd like on how to make your first proposal most productive. I've done a number of them myself, and participated in hundreds. If interested in this sort of meta-assistance, ping me on my Talk page. Or ask the question on your Talk page, and invite me over there to offer assistance.

840:

work of her editors. Good work, Baldusi! So we are 3 for 3 today on branching the template. The question to discuss may be how, or by what distinguishing features of these rocket engines. I've added a couple of thoughts in previous Talk page sections, but no one clear way stands out.

437:

engines, the template makes the claim that each of these (ostensibly notable, since they have their own WP article or redirect) engines has "flown", but editors may naturally want to draw the line differently as to what exactly that means. So I think the discussion here is important.

1327:

necessarily planned engines which are only on the drawing board and may never materialize). I would suggest adding them in italics, with a note at bottom of the template. There must be very few such engines, so they wouldn't clutter the template. Opinions please. —

254:

Believe it or not, there are many engines in this template where we just list the family and it has both booster and upper stage applications. This was a standard Soviet practice for ICBM. SpaceX also does that. So, in the end, you would end up with more engines

1008:—this navbox will be much more tractable by narrowing it's scope to just the rocket engines for orbital launch vehicles that have actually flown, and the navbox will be much more likely to be kept up into the future, as editors come and go. Also, while I think 864:

Breakdown by propellant type seems to make sense for spaceflight-related engines. I'm not sure how you would assign this between the three mentioned wikiprojects; there is overlap especially between spaceflight and rocketry. Perhaps you don't need to.

1274:

into one column, for example what you did with Cryogenic propellants, do the same for the others (In the name hypergolic or cryogenic etc. can be on top and underneath will be the mixture). I think this will keep it more neat. All in all well done!

735:

I've been working on this template a lot. I've written no less than 20 new articles, added quite a bunch of engines, motors and categories. But the template lacks a clear scoping. One underlying problem is that I've been seeing a clash between

225:

Some sort of classification based on upper stage / booster engine would be very useful. Not sure how to represent this in the template, but the way U/S and other engines are built is quite different, and there are a lot less of these around.

1680:

The relationship between CZ/KZ-11 and Kaituozhe-1/2 and their commercial derivative marketed by LandSpace/ExPace and CZ-6A's and CZ-8's solid boosters and their weaponized variants like anti-satellite weapons and boosters of hypersonic

396:

Then we have the definition of flight. How do you differentiate a ] from a space related motor? At what point a sub orbital flight stops being an aviation flight? Why does a ten meters hop is more space related than a 5,000km

896:. I might be a member of the first two but I'm the one doing the proposal so I would like at least two other member per project. If this is fine in a week or so I will ping you so you can see it and ask for further opinions. 1488:

Yes, I like how it's looking now. There's just a little issue with the Soviet Union engines. In the time of the CCCP, most rockets were designed in Russia, but the RD-8xx were designed in modern Ukraine. I've moved the

883:

I would like to get a few more opinions. But I will be developing a proposal during this week so we can discuss it. When I have the proposal ready for discussion I would kindly ask all of you to ping somebody else from

275:

Shouldn't this template include the three new solid rocket motors that successfully flew on the ESA Vega flight in February? The Vega has the P80 first stage, the Zefiro 23 second stage, and the Zefiro 9 third stage.

1344:

between RL-10, BE-3U and XR-5H25. RL-10 has flown orbital, BE-3U has yet to get to orbital speed, and XR-5H25 is just doing bench tests. Would we put the three? What if XR-5H25 is not selected, we'll we take it out?

764:

should be included. And some fire tested engines might go there, too. I believe that Aviations should have a separate Template. And so should rocketry. I will invite members of those projects to this discussions.

1559:

The only issue with placing the RD-8 in Ukraine is that it was done in the times of the Soviet Union. So you either move all RD-8xx to Ukraine, or keep the RD-8 in Soviet Union/Russia. I'm leaning to the former,

471:

may be a key distinction. For example, does it make sense to have two templates? One for rocket engines used in orbital spaceflight and one for the myriad engines used for suborbital missiles, rockets, JATOs,

1687:

The relationship betweem CASC (and its subsidiaries esp. CALT and SAST) and CASIC and their products is ... very confusing. I hope someone can drastically improve their corresponding articles in wikipedia.

1460:

I think we can lump the odd RD-119 together with the other hypergolics, as it burns UDMH. Let me try to group by country without exact fuel details; I think two levels of classification are enough. —

312:

I've added quite a few more. Some need an article, though. I'm working on that. I started with the RG-1/LOX first because those where the more historically important. Now will concentrate on the

715:

power (thrust times duration? or whatever the proper metric would be): small, medium, large, and HUGE (e.g., SSRB's and whatever might have been used on Buran?, etc.). Just a thought.

377:

uses. And what does it means flown? I've been adding anything that's done at least a powered hop. But there have been a lot of engines that have gone through a test stand (like the

503:

I will try to be a colleague and watch this Talk page with you, even though I don't have good answers, or even strong opinions on the directtion of the answers, for you. Cheers.

446:

I share your concern that these sort of templates shouldn't be too long, with "too many" links. I've never worked very much on NavTemplates, but you might find some guidelines at

424:, thanks for your efforts to try to rationalize and improve this template. I'll respond! But I'm not sure I know what the best thing, or even a sensible thing, to do with it is. 1131:

article and wants to add any addtional claims to it. Note that many list articles are made that are short citation support, and thus are not likely to remain in place long term.

1504:

Once we settle this issue I will update the documentation. I see that I must make it clear that each engine should be put under the designer's country. Because some, like the

1522:

I agree with placing engines in their country of design. I was also thinking of distinguishing USSR from Russia but decided that simplicity was stronger than politics. —

1684:

KZ-11's historical or technical antecedents. Since the CASIC is a newcomer to the launch service market, I guess it's a clean sheet design, at least its first stage.

358:

What engines are appropriate for this list? Is it only for launch vehicles? Only for engines that have flown? Undergone significant development/testing? Thoughts?

1671:

Technically, CZ-11 seems to be a direct descendant of DF-31 ICBM and uses the same traditional steel case, but KZ-11 uses a newly developed carbon composite case.

1012:

articles are better for the other lists, there is nothing in your proposal that would prevent interested editors from creating navboxes as well. Good proposal.

634:

fly sub orbital. Should this classify for this? I understand that the BE-3, which went to 97km of altitude should be put here, and it's supposed to cross the

1731: 669:

I've seen that from its very origin, this page has included aircraft rocket engines. Thus, I'm adding any non orbital flown engine that I can actually find.

1736: 1563:

The RD-801/RD-810 is quite an issue for me. I wrote all the articles and did all the research. As far as I can tell from the drawings and specifications,

1111:

articles. But I will point out that, if the list has more info than merely the link to the title of the blue-linked article, then all claims need to be

1746: 1741: 103: 1751: 1556:

Well, I have redone the documentation. Among other things, I actually placed it in the documentation page. I think it is in a much better state now.

1708:

Since in this template rocket engines are classified by different storage temperature, I suggest using the term 'storable' instead of hypergolic. -

320:

propulsion. But to fill this entry all you need is to look at the list of flown orbital vehicles and check for their propulsion. Nothing of the

1756: 187: 283: 455: 981:

Technology/History/Lists would be the main subjects). But that should be discussed on each individual Talk page. So, without further ado:

885: 749: 737: 94: 58: 1493:

since that was designed in modern times. But for the others, I would like to keep the historical source. An option I see is to rename

818:

I certainly think it is too big and too hard for readers to quickly make sense of, so I agree it needs to be split in some manner. -

768:

Please understand this is my first discussion and if there's some formal way of doing votes and such I will require some assistance.

451: 1584: 1171: 1088: 935: 893: 889: 745: 741: 638:, is a "space" rocket. I'm not sure about the SuperDraco since it's not a main rocket engine (but neither is the RD-8). Should the 447: 433: 178: 142: 588:

Vinci was included when this template was just "rocket engines," but it has not yet flown... and probably won't for several years

33: 242: 918:

many of them for a nav box. Perhaps this should all be handled with categories instead, as it is with other engine types? -

494:

the cut, even though many of the minor engines would be, say, much less important to spaceflight then the Merlin 1A/1C were?

1056: 989:

that we change the scope of this template to "Orbital Launch Vehicle's flown rocket engines". The rest would go elsewhere.

1228: 599: 400:

I'm just putting all the scope considerations here. I just hope that someone responds because this is getting very lonely.

1064: 710:

Well I think it will be more useful for the encyclopedia reader if a distinguishing choice in the template is about the

1350:

making such a change. But if you want to give it a try, I'm all for it. Something has to be done with this template. –

1072: 1060: 1052: 934:

Wouldn't we convert it into a set of list articles then? (and a nav template to navigate between list articles) --

1068: 287: 1218: 1076: 589: 1167: 791:

Baldusi -- I've made a substantive response to your branching topic, below. However, let me offer to help on

373:

I believe the scope is too ambiguous. Personally I want to know about Space related rockets, not whatever the

154: 136: 39: 1713: 1693: 1652:(CZ-11) are the same design, just named differently for military or civil applications. What do you think? — 1315: 1080: 1067:(a list of lists for the three prior sublists, and listing any other engines not covered under prior lists) 1280: 1142:

articles that may, or may not, be created are a bit beyond the scope of the proposal that was made above.

279: 230: 1564: 1291:

Well, it looks like there is a consensus. I will make the changes and explain the scope during this week.

1195:

I like the simplicity of this proposal. "Orbital Launch Vehicle flown rocket engines" sounds good to me.

1602: 1311: 1175: 1092: 939: 649: 467:

On the rocket engine questions specifically, I'm not sure what makes sense. It seems to me that use in

186:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

102:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1371:

List only engines in development which already have an article; this ensures notability per regular

646: 531: 468: 363: 302: 1124: 1709: 1689: 1200: 869: 238: 86: 1592: 1513: 1451: 1355: 1296: 994: 953: 901: 775: 700: 678: 658: 635: 552: 450:

or get help from a wider community of editors with more template experience by asking over at

407: 344: 260: 1412:

I haven't touched the hypergolics yet, pending your approval for grouping them by country. —

481:

Antoher question is: What is the cutoff for the template? If flown, then does, for example,

393:

solids. In fact, many are military surplus. And usually, a lot more information is available.

1255: 761: 1547:

under development. Interesting to see that India got their SCE-200 design from Ukraine… —

1275: 1036: 923: 823: 573: 170: 1640:

Question on China: any clue about the SpaB-65 and SpaB-140C SRMs? I've seen a picture of

1381:

Display countries inline (I will experiment with this right now on the cryogenic section)

1116: 1112: 567:

The template currently shows RD-0146 as a "flown" engine. When, where, on what vehicle? (

1160: 642: 527: 359: 298: 70: 52: 1372: 1120: 545:

I believe that we still have to change the scope a bit. I'll discuss that under Scope.

1725: 1649: 1644:

specs with a SpaB-100 too, but can't find much info beyond that. Also I suspect that

1196: 1147: 1084: 1017: 948:

Actually, that was were I was moving with my proposal. I'll go and put it down here.

865: 846: 801: 720: 508: 389: 374: 234: 1717: 1697: 1656: 1613: 1596: 1588: 1551: 1526: 1517: 1509: 1483: 1464: 1455: 1447: 1416: 1397: 1359: 1351: 1331: 1323: 1300: 1292: 1284: 1259: 1247: 1238: 1214: 1204: 1179: 1151: 1096: 1040: 1021: 998: 990: 957: 949: 943: 927: 905: 897: 873: 850: 827: 805: 779: 771: 724: 704: 696: 683: 673: 663: 653: 639: 609: 578: 556: 548: 535: 512: 421: 411: 403: 367: 348: 340: 306: 291: 264: 256: 246: 1446:

use too much space. But let me tell you that I like how its starting to look. –

1270: 1251: 620: 99: 1217:

has done great work on this template; I heartily support the user's proposal.

1075:; and a keep this navtemplate name to navigate between the lists, and between 1032: 919: 819: 631: 568: 160: 76: 1606: 1378:

Group hypergolic engines by country like the others, not by exact propellant

837: 490: 486: 482: 385: 329: 1107:

COMMENt: I don't have any particular problem with creation of a few good

1653: 1645: 1641: 1610: 1548: 1523: 1480: 1461: 1434:

H2/LOX and CH4/LOX for cryogenic) since seldom used propellants like the

1413: 1394: 1328: 1319: 1143: 1013: 842: 797: 716: 504: 325: 1170:. I doubt they would get deleted while we're sorting things through. -- 1601:

Very insightful, thanks! Unlikely we'll ever see those phantom rockets

1580: 321: 313: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1544: 1540: 1532: 1505: 1490: 1443: 1435: 1385: 628: 378: 333: 183: 384:

Then you have the issue of relevant subject. I simply don't see the

836:

I agree. The template has become too large through the wonderful

317: 1536: 1439: 1134:

So in short, this proposal, as stated, is about what to do with

624: 1127:

that needs to be done by whatever volunteer editor creates the

15: 1393:

Taking these steps should improve compactness and clarity. —

1677:

CZ-11's exactly designer/manufacturer inside the CASC group;

1384:

Group engines by family, leaving one link per article (e.g.

1531:

And based on the very informative "family tree" diagram of

1662:

In short, the differences between CZ-11 and KZ-11 include:

1609:… Sad for the Ukrainian rocket industry, unfortunately. — 1368:

Thanks for your feedback. My suggestions to move forward:

1508:, were designed in Russia but manufactured in Ukraine. – 1501:, and that should keep the older RD-8xx in that line. 1156:

We can create the lists as is by conversion, and add

182:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 98:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1674:

However I'm not sure about the following questions:

297:Some missing engines include RD-171 RD-108 RD-0110 1665:CZ-11 is developed by CASC, while KZ-11 by CASIC; 1166:while we work through the list articles, because 1479:– Please check for inaccuracies or omissions. — 748:! In fact, the template is currently claimed by 755:As currently defined, the Template is only for 32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s 8: 131: 47: 1031:- sounds like a good way to go to me. - 456:Knowledge (XXG):Templates for discussion 1269:I pretty much have the same opinion as 886:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Spaceflight 750:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Spaceflight 738:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Spaceflight 133: 112:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Spaceflight 49: 1138:particular navbox article. The other 1123:. This can be quite tedious, and is 1057:list of semi-cryogenic rocket engines 452:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Templates 176:This template is within the scope of 92:This template is within the scope of 21: 19: 7: 894:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Aviation 890:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Rocketry 746:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Aviation 742:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Rocketry 448:Knowledge (XXG):Navigation templates 196:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Rocketry 1732:Template-Class spaceflight articles 336:or the Indian solids are mentioned. 38:It is of interest to the following 1737:NA-importance spaceflight articles 1065:list of liquid fuel rocket engines 14: 1668:1st stage diameter (2 m vs 2.2 m) 1073:list of solid fuel rocket engines 1061:list of hypergolic rocket engines 1747:Template-Class Rocketry articles 1742:WikiProject Spaceflight articles 1470: 1403: 1053:list of cryogenic rocket engines 163: 153: 135: 115:Template:WikiProject Spaceflight 79: 69: 51: 20: 1752:NA-importance Rocketry articles 1657:17:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 1614:13:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC) 1597:18:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 1552:17:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 1527:17:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 1518:13:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 1484:05:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 1465:04:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 1456:02:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 1417:02:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 1398:01:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 1360:18:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC) 1332:16:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC) 247:01:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC) 1: 1757:WikiProject Rocketry articles 1306:Adding engines in development 1069:list of hybrid rocket engines 645:be considered? Why isn't the 292:23:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 199:Template:WikiProject Rocketry 190:and see a list of open tasks. 106:and see a list of open tasks. 731:Time to branch the Template? 265:16:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 1773: 1539:to Ukraine, and added the 536:17:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 368:17:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 307:17:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 1718:04:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC) 1698:04:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC) 1301:16:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 1285:15:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 874:18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC) 851:18:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC) 828:16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC) 806:18:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC) 780:15:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC) 725:04:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC) 705:18:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC) 684:14:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC) 610:00:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC) 579:23:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC) 557:12:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC) 513:12:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC) 412:12:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC) 148: 64: 46: 1260:19:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1239:17:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1205:17:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1180:04:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC) 1152:05:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1097:02:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 1077:Liquid-propellant rocket 1041:15:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 1022:15:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 999:12:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 958:12:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 944:05:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 928:14:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC) 906:15:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC) 664:13:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 349:21:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC) 1316:Airbus Safran Launchers 1081:Solid-propellant rocket 563:When has RD-0146 flown? 95:WikiProject Spaceflight 1571:for China to do their 1565:Yuzhnoye Design Office 1310:Today I added the new 1051:out of this template ( 619:We have seen both the 221:Upper stage separation 1409:Some changes applied. 1386:RD-107, 108, 117, 118 1314:under development by 690:Solid motors section. 615:Flown Means Orbital? 521:Poor Classifications 434:Navigation templates 179:WikiProject Rocketry 118:spaceflight articles 1535:, I have now moved 1499:Soviet Union/Russia 469:orbital spaceflight 87:Spaceflight portal 34:content assessment 1047:I support making 282:comment added by 250: 233:comment added by 218: 217: 214: 213: 210: 209: 202:Rocketry articles 130: 129: 126: 125: 1764: 1478: 1474: 1473: 1411: 1407: 1406: 1287: 1233: 1223: 1165: 1159: 1117:reliable sources 762:Project Morpheus 604: 594: 294: 249: 227: 204: 203: 200: 197: 194: 173: 168: 167: 166: 157: 150: 149: 139: 132: 120: 119: 116: 113: 110: 89: 84: 83: 82: 73: 66: 65: 55: 48: 25: 24: 23: 16: 1772: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1722: 1721: 1706: 1638: 1471: 1469: 1404: 1402: 1308: 1278: 1231: 1221: 1163: 1157: 1119:, per standard 978: 733: 692: 617: 602: 592: 586: 565: 523: 356: 284:157.166.167.129 277: 273: 271:Missing Engines 228: 223: 201: 198: 195: 192: 191: 171:Rocketry portal 169: 164: 162: 117: 114: 111: 108: 107: 85: 80: 78: 12: 11: 5: 1770: 1768: 1760: 1759: 1754: 1749: 1744: 1739: 1734: 1724: 1723: 1705: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1685: 1682: 1678: 1675: 1672: 1669: 1666: 1663: 1637: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1561: 1557: 1529: 1502: 1467: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1382: 1379: 1376: 1363: 1362: 1346: 1345: 1340: 1339: 1322:second stage. 1307: 1304: 1289: 1288: 1283:comment added 1263: 1262: 1241: 1208: 1207: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1168:WP:NOTFINISHED 1132: 1100: 1099: 1044: 1043: 1025: 1024: 1002: 1001: 977: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 856: 855: 854: 853: 831: 830: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 732: 729: 728: 727: 691: 688: 687: 686: 670: 643:RocketMotorTwo 616: 613: 585: 582: 564: 561: 560: 559: 546: 543: 522: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 498: 497: 496: 495: 476: 475: 474: 473: 462: 461: 460: 459: 441: 440: 439: 438: 428: 427: 426: 425: 415: 414: 401: 398: 394: 382: 355: 354:Template Scope 352: 338: 337: 272: 269: 268: 267: 222: 219: 216: 215: 212: 211: 208: 207: 205: 188:the discussion 175: 174: 158: 146: 145: 140: 128: 127: 124: 123: 121: 104:the discussion 91: 90: 74: 62: 61: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1769: 1758: 1755: 1753: 1750: 1748: 1745: 1743: 1740: 1738: 1735: 1733: 1730: 1729: 1727: 1720: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1686: 1683: 1679: 1676: 1673: 1670: 1667: 1664: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1655: 1651: 1650:Long March 11 1647: 1643: 1635: 1615: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1567:designed the 1566: 1562: 1558: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1528: 1525: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1482: 1477: 1468: 1466: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1418: 1415: 1410: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1396: 1392: 1387: 1383: 1380: 1377: 1374: 1370: 1369: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1348: 1347: 1342: 1341: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1330: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1305: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1286: 1282: 1277: 1272: 1268: 1265: 1264: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1242: 1240: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1209: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1191: 1190: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1162: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1085:Hybrid rocket 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1049:list articles 1046: 1045: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1027: 1026: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1004: 1003: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 983: 982: 975: 959: 955: 951: 947: 946: 945: 941: 937: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 925: 921: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 903: 899: 895: 891: 887: 875: 871: 867: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 852: 848: 844: 839: 835: 834: 833: 832: 829: 825: 821: 817: 816: 807: 803: 799: 794: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 777: 773: 769: 766: 763: 760:project like 758: 753: 751: 747: 743: 739: 730: 726: 722: 718: 713: 712:rocket engine 709: 708: 707: 706: 702: 698: 689: 685: 681: 680: 675: 671: 668: 667: 666: 665: 661: 660: 655: 651: 648: 644: 641: 637: 633: 630: 626: 622: 614: 612: 611: 607: 606: 605: 597: 596: 595: 583: 581: 580: 576: 575: 570: 562: 558: 554: 550: 547: 544: 540: 539: 538: 537: 533: 529: 520: 514: 510: 506: 502: 501: 500: 499: 492: 488: 484: 480: 479: 478: 477: 470: 466: 465: 464: 463: 457: 453: 449: 445: 444: 443: 442: 435: 432: 431: 430: 429: 423: 419: 418: 417: 416: 413: 409: 405: 402: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 380: 376: 372: 371: 370: 369: 365: 361: 353: 351: 350: 346: 342: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 310: 309: 308: 304: 300: 295: 293: 289: 285: 281: 270: 266: 262: 258: 253: 252: 251: 248: 244: 240: 236: 232: 220: 206: 189: 185: 181: 180: 172: 161: 159: 156: 152: 151: 147: 144: 141: 138: 134: 122: 105: 101: 97: 96: 88: 77: 75: 72: 68: 67: 63: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 31: 27: 18: 17: 1710:PSR B1937+21 1707: 1690:PSR B1937+21 1648:(KZ-11) and 1639: 1636:Chinese SRMs 1579:for India's 1498: 1494: 1475: 1408: 1312:Vinci engine 1309: 1290: 1279:— Preceding 1266: 1243: 1230: 1229: 1220: 1219: 1211: 1192: 1139: 1135: 1128: 1108: 1048: 1028: 1010:List of .... 1009: 1005: 986: 979: 882: 792: 770: 767: 756: 754: 734: 711: 693: 677: 657: 640:SpaceShipTwo 618: 601: 600: 591: 590: 587: 572: 566: 524: 357: 341:User:Baldusi 339: 296: 278:— Preceding 274: 229:— Preceding 224: 177: 93: 40:WikiProjects 29: 1246:I support 1172:67.70.32.20 1109:List of ... 1089:67.70.32.20 936:67.70.32.20 636:Kármán line 621:Blue Origin 109:Spaceflight 100:spaceflight 59:Spaceflight 1726:Categories 1704:Hypergolic 1276:Hammer5000 632:SuperDraco 1607:Tsyklon-4 1375:criteria. 528:ArkianNWM 491:Merlin 1D 487:Merlin 1C 483:Merlin 1A 386:1.8KS7800 360:ArkianNWM 330:Kosmos-2I 299:ArkianNWM 1681:gliders; 1646:Kuaizhou 1642:Kuaizhou 1575:and the 1438:case or 1320:Ariane 6 1318:for the 1197:Sanchazo 976:Proposal 866:Sanchazo 838:emergent 627:and the 454:, or at 326:Kosmos-1 280:unsigned 243:contribs 235:Savuporo 231:unsigned 193:Rocketry 184:rocketry 143:Rocketry 30:template 1589:Baldusi 1581:SCE-200 1560:though. 1510:Baldusi 1448:Baldusi 1352:Baldusi 1324:Baldusi 1293:Baldusi 1281:undated 1267:Support 1248:Baldusi 1244:Support 1215:Baldusi 1212:Support 1193:Support 1029:Support 1006:SUPPORT 991:Baldusi 987:propose 950:Baldusi 898:Baldusi 793:process 772:Baldusi 697:Baldusi 674:Baldusi 654:Baldusi 549:Baldusi 422:Baldusi 404:Baldusi 397:flight? 322:Tsyklon 314:Dnepr-1 257:Baldusi 255:listed. 1577:RD-810 1573:YF-100 1569:RD-801 1545:RD-810 1541:RD-801 1533:RD-120 1506:RD-120 1495:Russia 1491:RD-843 1444:Raptor 1436:RD-119 1271:Guyver 1252:Guyver 629:SpaceX 489:, and 379:RD-270 334:Shavit 36:scale. 1603:Mayak 1161:unref 1115:with 1113:cited 1033:Ahunt 920:Ahunt 820:Ahunt 757:flown 650:XLR99 584:Vinci 569:sdsds 472:etc.? 390:AIM-7 375:AIM-7 318:Rokot 28:This 1714:talk 1694:talk 1605:and 1593:talk 1585:MTCR 1543:and 1537:RD-8 1514:talk 1476:Done 1452:talk 1442:and 1440:BE-4 1373:WP:N 1356:talk 1297:talk 1256:talk 1201:talk 1176:talk 1148:talk 1140:List 1136:this 1129:List 1125:work 1121:WP:V 1093:talk 1037:talk 1018:talk 995:talk 954:talk 940:talk 924:talk 902:talk 892:and 870:talk 847:talk 824:talk 802:talk 776:talk 744:and 721:talk 701:talk 679:talk 659:talk 647:X-15 625:BE-3 574:talk 553:talk 532:talk 509:talk 408:talk 364:talk 345:talk 316:and 303:talk 288:talk 261:talk 239:talk 1654:JFG 1611:JFG 1549:JFG 1524:JFG 1497:as 1481:JFG 1462:JFG 1414:JFG 1395:JFG 1329:JFG 1144:N2e 1014:N2e 843:N2e 798:N2e 717:N2e 623:'s 505:N2e 420:Hi 1728:: 1716:) 1696:) 1595:) 1516:) 1454:) 1358:) 1299:) 1258:) 1237:) 1232:Ch 1203:) 1178:) 1164:}} 1158:{{ 1150:) 1095:) 1083:/ 1079:/ 1071:, 1063:, 1059:, 1055:, 1039:) 1020:) 997:) 985:I 956:) 942:) 926:) 904:) 888:, 872:) 849:) 826:) 804:) 778:) 752:. 740:, 723:) 703:) 682:) 676:- 662:) 656:- 608:) 603:Ch 577:) 571:- 555:) 534:) 511:) 485:, 410:) 388:, 366:) 347:) 332:, 328:, 324:, 305:) 290:) 263:) 245:) 241:• 1712:( 1692:( 1688:- 1591:( 1512:( 1450:( 1388:) 1354:( 1295:( 1254:( 1227:( 1222:A 1199:( 1174:( 1146:( 1091:( 1035:( 1016:( 993:( 952:( 938:( 922:( 900:( 868:( 845:( 822:( 800:( 774:( 719:( 699:( 672:( 598:( 593:A 551:( 530:( 507:( 458:. 406:( 362:( 343:( 301:( 286:( 259:( 237:( 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index