Jump to content

Talk:Multistage rocket

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JustinTime55 (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 22 June 2018 (→Old talk: Update: "motors" vs. engines). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Those definitions are obsolete in 2018. According to today's Engine:
Motor and engine later came to be used largely interchangeably in casual discourse. However, technically, the two words have different meanings. An engine is a device that burns or otherwise consumes fuel, changing its chemical composition, whereas a motor is a device driven by electricity, air, or hydraulic pressure, which does not change the chemical composition of its energy source.
However, rocketry uses the term rocket motor, even though they consume fuel. This applies only to model rocketry and high-power rocketry, not real-world (i.e., spacegoing) rockets. Accordingly I've changed it back, except when referring to solid rocket motors. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.

Unusually formatted content -- please check this article for plagiarism

The introduction and "Performance" sub-sections of this article had a whole lot of content that was improperly formatted -- but all improperly formatted in the same way, by including an indentation at the start of a paragraph. Clearly this messed up the wiki formatting but it also got me thinking that a lot of this article may have been pasted in from another source. It's more likely that this was a well-meaning contributor who didn't have a great handle on wiki markup, but if there's anybody watching this article with more time on their hands than me, it might be worth checking for plagiarism. A Traintalk 10:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be cleaned up and better citations and sections added

In my opinion this article could be much better written and in a more logical layout.

The Performance and Optimal and Restricted Staging are good sections but their order seems odd and the entire article does not flow well. Also the Section of Upper Stages and Passivation and Space debris could easliy be made in to their own article ( Upper Stages of Rockets) or link to the Space Debris Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris). The history and Development section should be right after the abstract. The separation events section is self obvious and the delta V section could really do with expanding with examples.

I think that the more logical layout after the abstract would be 1. History and Development 2. Performance 3. Tandem vs Parallel 3.1 Tandem Staging 3.2 Parallel staging 4. Optimal Staging and Restricted Staging 4.1 Optimal 4.2 Restricted 5. Delta V calculations 5.1 Parallel (example in a hidden area) 5.2 Tandem (example in a hidden area) 6. Space Debris (brief desc and link) 7. See Also (make Upper Stages into its own true article and link it) 8. References

I would like some imput on the proposed changes before I start making them. B787 300 (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Multistage rocket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful Info

The introduction paragraph states that a rocket needs 11.416 km/s speed to exit atmosphere. Can anyone verify this fact? Escape velocity is not to escape atmosphere, but to reach infinity (out of gravitational field). Also, from surface of earth, its value is calculated to be 11.2 km/s which is slightly off from the value given in the article. So, may be this is not escape velocity, which the article is pertainig to. Can anyone verify? As far as I know Phsics, there is no speed requirement to escape atmosphere. Even the slowest particle can also exis the atmosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenitingrewal (talk • contribs) 03:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multistage_rocket&oldid=847082492"