Talk:Multistage rocket

Engineering Start‑class High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocketry Start‑class High‑importance

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old talk

I merged my multi-stage article with this one. I kept almost all of both, except for (if I remember correctly) one sentence which was basically redundant. I think I did an OK job. I'll probably merge this with Staging (rocketry) later, although I think that will be tougher.... Nvinen 09:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I merged Staging (rocketry) too. I replaced all instances of "engine" with "motor" because "motor" is more specific. According to wikipedia:

An engine is something that produces some effect from a given input.
A motor is a device that converts energy into mechanical power.

Granted, a rocket produces some effect from a given input, but that's rather vague. The definition of motor suits its effect much more closely in my opinion. If you really object you're welcome to change some/all instances back.. but I think we might as well be consistent here? Nvinen 09:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Independently?

Article states that This concept was developed independently by at least four individuals. I find it strange - I'd rather assume each based his work on that of his predecessors (most of them lived in different times). Can anybody confirm this?\ one way or another? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Tsiolovsky did not write about staged rockets ("trains" as he called them) until the concept had become well know, in the 1930s. Oberth's writings came several years after Goddard, whom he had read. But Oberth refused to give Goddard priority and took the attitude "You published first, but I really thought of it before you" (if you compare notebooks, Goddard was still years ahead of Oberth). Goddard was angered by Oberth's attitude and nationalistic style, and told many people that Oberth was a plagiarist. DonPMitchell (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest link to Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, and explanation of importance to multistage rockets

When explaining the performance benefits of staged rockets, including a link to Tsiolkovsky rocket equation can help understand this. Unfortunately that article is worded at a fairly high level, but this web page better explains it: [1]. If appropriate information from these two sources were integrated into the article that would help clarify things. Joema 16:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delta III picture caption

The Delta III launch vehicle had 9 GEMs (Graphite Epoxy Motors) as strap on boosters, and not 8 as the caption indicates.