Talk:Daniel Jubb

Rocket Scientist?

What a load of rubbish! This guy's no more of a rocket scientist than I am.

No indication of qualifications;

No web page for "The Falcon Project" (just a mention on the Bloodhound SSC site) - nothing.

More like an advertisement for the Bloodhound SSC.

Alan Erskine --124.188.36.12 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The claim of being "the first amateur to launch a rocket into orbit all by the time he was 14 years old" is totally ludicrous. His rocket only reached a speed of mach 1.2 and a theoretical altitude of 20,000 feet; both far short of what's required to reach orbit. Nibios (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Alan, Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is verifiability through reliable sources. In this case the reliable sources, such as The Times, call him a rocket scientist. Qualifications for being considered a rocket scientist are not specifically needed if we have an external reliable source that names him as one. Also, the article's focus is not on the Falcon Project so the fact that there is no web page for it shouldn't disprove any facts about Daniel Jubb; again, we have reliable sources that speak of Jubb's involvement with the Falcon Project. As far as a perceived advertising tone with regards to Bloodhound SSC, I disagree that this is the case. Information in this article about the Bloodhound is fairly straightforward and completely neutral; in either case, it's all reliably sourced as well. If there is different information that you possess that can disprove The Times article or any of the other sources, please let us know so that it can be corrected.

Nibios, the claim of being "the first amateur to launch a rocket into orbit all by the time he was 14 years old" is obtained from here. I don't really know anything about rockets but it's possible that CBC Radio One got this one wrong. Since you seem to know a bit more about this than I do, would you be willing to shed some light on this issue? For example, if we know the speed and height needed to launch a rocket into orbit we can then compare it to Jubb's actual results and see if the CBC source is indeed false.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

To reach Low Earth orbit you need to reach an altitude of at least 100 miles. 20,000 feet is less than four miles. You also have to reach a speed of about 18,000 mph. Mach 1.2 is about 900 mph at sea level, less at higher altitudes. As you can see, his Falcon Seven didn't even come close. Cheers! Nibios (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that this is just publicity. All the articles you refer to are based on interviews with Jubb himself. There are no corroborating facts. . You've been had SWik78--Weespunky (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

He did not claim his M1.2 20k ft rocket went to orbit. An error in a report did. He himself denies the claim. That article should be redacted. He does not use the web to promote his activities due to MOD involvement. His efforts on Bloodhound SSC are very public because he conducted the first three rocket tests associated with the project including a 2009 hybrid firing in CA, a HTP monopropellant firing in 2009 in CA and an increased pressure and thrust hybrid firing in 2012 in UK. These are all on the Bloodhound SSC website as well as YouTube, and of course the website of the technical associate in the USA. In a prior edit I provided many added links to verify the accuracy of those claims by showing the actual tests.

One notable thing is he flew a rocket to sufficient altitude in UK he bumped up against the national altitude limit. He then went to USA for further flight testing. He had no involvement with UKRA at all and even if he did, as a monor he would not have been accepted to submit a record claim. He operated on a military range! That's hard to do.

He is director of a major physical facility in UK, the details of which he appears to not discuss in public. I have seen it. It's huge and impressive. To my knowledge his education is through mentorships and self-teaching, not a formal degree in the subject. However rocketry is sufficiently niche that is probably a better way to learn the aspects needed to actually make rockets.

I would simply like the main page to focus on facts and verifiable links. I provided a half dozen or more.

What other companies do or don't do on Bloodhound or anything else is not relevant ho his bio.

71.95.225.136 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.225.136 (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war

This is a message for @71.95.225.136 and Dingowasher: please, is there any chance you two could discuss the pros and cons of your respective positions, here on this talk page, rather than irritating each other by this undo/redo cycle? This isn't my field of expertise, so if you two do know something about Daniel Jubb then I'm sure WP will improve for your collaboration. Thanks. Nick Levine (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I made an effort to add valid links which were deleted by dingowasher. I made an effort to contact dingowasher per your great suggestion to discuss this among ourselves first which he ignored. My concern is he doesn't post much according to his edit history but is fixated on this entry. I have first hand knowledge of the issues he is maliciously editing (forcing error and forcing contention and deleting factual information with supporting links). I object. 71.95.225.136 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.225.136 (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I propose Nick Levine and 71.95.225.136 negotiate the proper language and attributions to show the actual rocket experience this guy has, and not focus on the apparent dingleballs conflict re bloodhound, nammo, and falcon. That is best left to dingo's personal blog. 71.95.225.136 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.225.136 (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Daniel Jubb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708073245/http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/_db/_documents/The_Team.pdf to http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/_db/_documents/The_Team.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Jubb. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612101300/http://thechap.net/content/section_news/?p=20 to http://thechap.net/content/section_news/?p=20

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) 19:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)