Talk:List of orbital launch systems

Create Section Private / Public Private Partnership

I think it would make sense to introduce a new category for private or private public partnership developed launch systems. In the articles today form, categorized by country it seems like all the launch systems are publicly developed, which is not true for at least rocket-types falcon 1, falcon 9 and falcon heavy. Climbertobby (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It shows the country of origin, not the developer or operator. I am British, that doesn't make me part of the British government. --W. D. Graham 11:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Climbertobby, WDGraham — I would tend to agree with Climbertobby. Independent of WDGraham's argument, the choice to list these launch vehicles by categorization of large nation states, does give a rather WP:POV perspective to the article.

Given that all launch systems developed in the first five decades of humans having developed spaceflight technology were government funded and entirely government directed, this choice of organizations by "country" (as Graham asserts) comes off with a very strong POV. There are many other ways such a list could be organized that would lessen the nation state POV (by decade, or by alphabetical list of the government bureau or company name that built the hardware, or ....) Alternatively, we could eliminate the by-country organization and just list the "country of origin" (Graham) as one of the column data fields. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

VEGA appears twice

VEGA is as Italian as Ariane 5 is French. They are both European Space Agency Projects whose main contractor is Italian(VEGA) or French(Ariane 5), with funding from a number of countries, and some supervision from the national space agency CNES/ASI. Either erase VEGA as Italian or add Ariane 5 as French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.252.213 (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Rename to add "by nation"

Could add "by nation" to distinguish from Comparison_of_orbital_launchers_families and Comparison of orbital launch systems ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Change SpaceX ITS and big falcon rocket from canceled to renamed

while the design has been revised, I don't believe they were canceled as much as they were just changed and renamed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.44.213 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statistics

Number of launches by rocket model:

• Voskhod - 300 in 14 years (Retired)
• Molniya-M - 297 - in 47 years (Retired)
• Delta II - 155 - in 23 years (Retired)
• Long March 3 - 130 - in 38 years
• Long March 2 - 124 - in 47 years
• Tsyklon-3 - 122 - in 33 years (Retired)
• Soyuz-2 - 111 - in 17 years
• Proton M - 111 - in 20 years (Retired)
• Ariane 5 - 109 - in 25 years
• Falcon 9 - 106 - in 12 years
• Tsyklon-2 - 105 - in 38 years (Retired)
• Atlas V - 85 - in 19 years

Number of consecutive successful launches without any failure or partial failure:

• Soyuz-U - 112 - in 7 years (Retired)
• Delta II - 100 - in 22 years (Retired)
• Tsyklon-2 - 92 - in 34 years (Retired)
• Voskhod - 86 in 4 years (Retired)
• Ariane 5 - 82 - in 15 years
• Falcon 9 - 78 - in 5 years
• Atlas V - 76 - in 14 years

Number of launches per year by rocket family:

• Soyuz: 47 in 1979
• Long March: 37 in 2018
• Kosmos: 34 in 1971
• Voskhod - 32 in 1969 and 1973
• Falcon 9: 26 in 2020

- Barecode (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Is interesting information; but I can think of two issues. Without clear reliable sources, it's a non starter for the article space. Also, it might be hard to keep up to date for the active rocket systems. Could be done, perhaps. But it would take a particularly dedicated set of editors willing to keep up with it.

Question: if a launch system is "Retired", can we get by without a citation?

If a launch system is "Retired", can we get by without a citation in the list?

It's complicated, 'cause per WP:CIRCULAR, articles are not to be cited with merely sources/citations to other Wikipedia articles.

Still, this List article is a mess, and is currently composed of mostly original research, with verifiable source citations missing. I've challenged a number of the active or "Under development" statements to get sources.

But should we perhaps let the Retired rockets go for now, without sources? ... while we prioritize cleanup on the active/under development launch systems? N2e (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Soviet Union is missing

Soviet Union orbital launch systems are missing in this list and they should be added. They can be found in the following page: Comparison of orbital launch systems. JGG13 (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Specific Space Agency names in India

In Indian list The names of few space agencies are listed as launch vehicles. Instead their names should be bold and the point shouldn't be there before the name of agencies. Science.tech.aio (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)