Talk:Delta IV

User:GW Simulations/ICBM Corrected some incorrect data about the launch sites and spacecraft. -- Nick L.

I'm not sure if this can be used for anything, but there's a nice photo of the Delta IV's second-stage here: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=24253 --NeuronExMachina 02:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I read that Boeing and Mitsubishi were developing a more powerful upper stage engine called MB-60 for use on the Delta IV. However, I have not seen any updates for several years. Does anyone know if this is still being developed?--Todd Kloos 04:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of class names

The Boeing site (from the link on the main page) refers to each variant with a capitalized name (i.e. Medium or Heavy as opposed to medium or heavy) whenever they are reffered to. Because of this, and if no one objects, I'd like to go through and change all of the references to this format. I think it can be succesfully argued that these are all proper nouns as used, rather than simply adjectives. --Icelight 29 June 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Upcoming Delta IV launch

If nobody has a problem with it, I would like to add some info about the upcoming GOES-N launch on a Delta IV tomorrow. Nick L. 15:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Launch delayed ;-) --Bricktop 22:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The first launch of a valuable payload aboard the Delta IV Heavy is scheduled for fall 2005 -- does this article need an update? Ojw 20:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The GOES-N flight is currently scheduled for Feburary 6, 2006. Might as well wait until the launch to do an update. Linky. Jbanes 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Those were taken care of by others today. I corrected the wording on DSP-23 and added NROL-25 & 26 based on launch manifest[1] (forgot to login). -Finlayson 03:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

SLC-37B not site of Apollo 1 or 7

The page had stated that Delta IVs launched from the "same site" as the Apollo 1 fire and Apollo 7, however, those launches were from SLC-34, just next door to 37B. The Apollo_1 and Apollo_7 pages confirm this. I can also vouch from personal experience, having stood inside the launch ring on SLC-34 and seen a loaded booster from the parking lot at SLC-37. (sadly, that launch got scrubbed and I missed it. :()

Partial success

I'm new here so someone who knows better please fix the laugable "partial sucesess" thing re the dec 2004 launch. Eliminating POV, that means failure. Wiki is not a public relations firm is it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.193.14 (talk • contribs) .

I don't see where calling something a "partial success" is POV. Doing any activity is rarely black and white. Launching rockets is no different. Had the payload been lost that would be a failure. This was a demonstration launch. Most of the goals of the demonstration were met. There was a failure in terms of the early fuel out indication, but the test payload did make it into orbit. For me at least that fits as partial.

On one other note, please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) to let others know who said what. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 13:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to throw in a few cents. Partial success is used in numerous places in the industry to describe notable accidents that didn't cause a complete mission loss of the launch vehicle. You see it in the standard text International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems, Iaskowitz, Hopkins, and Hopkins. You see it in other industry reference sites etc. If you don't like its use that's fine, but there's a difference between it being marketing fluff by Boeing and it being the standard way the industry talks about such accidents. Having the article consistent with industry practice is perfectly reasonable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If the mission were carrying a real satellite, then yes, it would be a failure. However, in light of what the mission was - a TEST mission, it is a partial success. This is why the USAF decided to fly a test mission, to make sure everything works. Not only did this mission prove out many aspects of the Heavy variant, it accomplished what a test flight is meant to do - find problems so that they can be fixed before something important ends up in a low orbit. Nick L. 06:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

RS-68 details-move to own page?

I thought that this article had too much of a focus on the RS-68, so I removed some of the information from the article (i.e the channel-wall construction, etc...) and plan on moving it to the RS-68 article. Any opinions or objections? Nick L. 15:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Good move. The Delta article doesn't need every detail on the RS-68 engine. - Fnlayson 15:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard article titles?

Randomly discovered that while this article is called Delta IV rocket, while Delta II rocket is a redirect to Delta II. Maybe something more standard? -b 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• The titles probably should include rocket to be consistent. Delta rocket needs rocket in the name to prevent confusion with other things. -Fnlayson 20:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There are no valid grounds to disambiguate Delta II or Delta IV. GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was Delta IV rocket → Delta IV – Unnecessary disambiguation GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 18:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose. Delta rocket and Delta III rocket both contain "rocket" in the title as well - this article's title is consistent with that, if anything, Delta II should be changed. Nick L. 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

These contain "rocket" because there is a valid disambiguation - pages already exist at Delta and Delta III. In this case, Delta IV simply redirects here, so it is not a valid disambiguation. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see - I didn't understand the request properly. Strike my vote. Nick L. 19:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

After further consideration, I am unstriking my vote. Nick L. 00:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Delta article has rocket in the name to avoid disambiguity. The other Delta vehicle articles should be consistent with that. -Fnlayson 22:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But there is nothing here to avoid ambiguity with. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• That's already been stated. The name change will make little difference with Redirects anyway. -Fnlayson 16:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. There is no disambiguation page named "Delta IV". Bigtop 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. -b 14:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Better to keep it consistent with Delta III rocket, which can't change. Andrewa 02:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Closing RM after a week.. doesn't look like consensus to move. Leaving here for now. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

• I know it's too late to vote, but the reasons for not moving above are not very convincing. Disambiguation should be done with parenthetic remarks to make it clear what the name of the subject of the article is (the part that is not in parentheses). Making "rocket" part of the title implies that "rocket" is part of the name of the rocket. --Serge 23:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)