Talk:United Launch Alliance

Delta II Ribbon Cutting

Hello! I'm back with a request to update this page. For the end of the Delta II section (after " These parts will be assembled to create a nearly-complete Delta II, for exhibition in its 7420-10 configuration"), I propose adding mention of the Delta II opening and adjusting text to state it has happened.

• On March 23, 2021, United Launch Alliance’s Delta II rocket joined the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex (KSCVC) Rocket Garden to preserve the legacy of the rocket that launched 155 times over nearly 30 years for NASA, the Department of Defense and commercial customers.

I've used a Florida Today source here, but here are ULA links as well, if helpful.

• https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/delta-ii-public-exhibit-honors-legendary-rocket
• https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news/2021/03/23/united-launch-alliance-delta-ii-rocket-honored-at-grand-opening-ceremony

References

I've taken a first stab at proposing specific text for consideration, but I'm open to editors' preferred wording and sourcing. Help updating the page on my behalf is appreciated. Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry @ULA Megan:, what you've proposed simply isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. The tone was already questionable and this compounds it. Please keep the tone of your proposals encyclopedic and remember that this isn't ULA's corporate website. Seddon ^talk 22:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the sentence to reflect the rockets installation as KSC. Seddon ^talk 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cautionary and only warning to United Launch Alliance

@ULA Megan: Recently a change to the article was made an IP recently located from near Greenwood Village, Colorado - home to ULA. Could you please ensure that no employees edit the Wikipedia article and that changes continue to be proposed through this page. Undeclared conflict of interest editing is a source of major concern for the Wikipedia communities and we have a zero tolerance policy. Preventative action will be require to be undertaken should this occur again. Seddon ^talk 02:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Classify products as “operational” or “retired”

Hello! I’d like to request an edit that reverts the addition of the “retiring” section and changes the “retiring” language to “operational.” As shown on multiple NASA resources, rockets are categorized as “operational” if they have an active manifest, not “retiring.” See where Kathy Lueders, associate administrator of NASA’s human spaceflight directorate, referenced the Dragon spacecraft’s “operational phase”: https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/11/10/nasa-formally-certifies-spacexs-crew-dragon-for-operational-astronaut-flights/ [spaceflightnow.com]

This is relevant as Atlas V has 17 flights remaining and ICPS has two missions remaining, as noted in their respective sections. We recommend that the “retiring” section be changed to “operational,” and include Vulcan Centaur following its successful first launch, or the “retiring” designation be removed entirely.

See language on NASA’s Launch Services Program Rockets webpage that refers to the Falcon Heavy as an “operational rocket”: https://www.nasa.gov/launch-services-program-rockets/ [nasa.gov]

NASA’s “Basics of Spaceflight” guide only uses “retired,” not “retiring,” and “in operational service” to describe launch vehicles in Chapter 14: https://science.nasa.gov/learn/basics-of-space-flight/chapter14-1/ [science.nasa.gov]

Lastly, NASA’s Space Shuttle was not considered “retired” until its final mission was complete: “In January 2004, President George W. Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration. Among other goals, the Vision called for the retirement of the space shuttle after completion of the assembly of the International Space Station. In July 2011, the STS-135 mission with NASA astronauts Christopher J. Ferguson, Douglas G. Hurley, Sandra H. Magnus, and Rex J. Walheim aboard, completed that objective. During this final space shuttle mission, the last flight of the orbiter Atlantis, they delivered payloads and supplies to support the International Space Station for more than one year. The successful completion of the 12-day mission to the station brought an end to the 30-year space shuttle program.” (https://www.nasa.gov/history/10-years-ago-sts-135-the-space-shuttles-grand-finale/ [nasa.gov]) ULA Megan (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We are not required to use the same language that ULA uses or that NASA uses. We are supposed to use our editorial judgement, based on what secondary sources say to describe the situation. Customers can no longer book new Atlas flights and ULA has announced EOL. In my opinion the word "retiring" most accurately describes this situation. "Retiring" does not preclude "operational", just as a "retiring" employee is still employed. -Arch dude (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@ULA Megan: Separately, thank you for the care you are taking as a paid editor. Not all paid editors are as scrupulous as you are. -Arch dude (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Closing this edit request as a duplicate of the one below. Rusalkii (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Subject: Classify products as “operational” or “retired”

Hello! I’d like to request an edit that reverts the addition of the “retiring” section and changes the “retiring” language to “operational.” As shown on multiple NASA resources, rockets are categorized as “operational” if they have an active manifest, not “retiring.” See where Kathy Lueders, associate administrator of NASA’s human spaceflight directorate, referenced the Dragon spacecraft’s “operational phase”: https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/11/10/nasa-formally-certifies-spacexs-crew-dragon-for-operational-astronaut-flights/ [spaceflightnow.com]

This is relevant as Atlas V has 17 flights remaining and ICPS has two missions remaining, as noted in their respective sections. We recommend that the “retiring” section be changed to “operational,” and include Vulcan Centaur following its successful first launch, or the “retiring” designation be removed entirely.

See language on NASA’s Launch Services Program Rockets webpage that refers to the Falcon Heavy as an “operational rocket”: https://www.nasa.gov/launch-services-program-rockets/ [nasa.gov]

NASA’s “Basics of Spaceflight” guide only uses “retired,” not “retiring,” and “in operational service” to describe launch vehicles in Chapter 14: https://science.nasa.gov/learn/basics-of-space-flight/chapter14-1/ [science.nasa.gov]

Lastly, NASA’s Space Shuttle was not considered “retired” until its final mission was complete: “In January 2004, President George W. Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration. Among other goals, the Vision called for the retirement of the space shuttle after completion of the assembly of the International Space Station. In July 2011, the STS-135 mission with NASA astronauts Christopher J. Ferguson, Douglas G. Hurley, Sandra H. Magnus, and Rex J. Walheim aboard, completed that objective. During this final space shuttle mission, the last flight of the orbiter Atlantis, they delivered payloads and supplies to support the International Space Station for more than one year. The successful completion of the 12-day mission to the station brought an end to the 30-year space shuttle program.” (https://www.nasa.gov/history/10-years-ago-sts-135-the-space-shuttles-grand-finale/ [nasa.gov]) ULA Megan (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We are not required to use the same language that ULA uses or that NASA uses. We are supposed to use our editorial judgement, based on what secondary sources say to describe the situation. Customers can no longer book new Atlas flights and ULA has announced EOL. In my opinion the word "retiring" most accurately describes this situation. "Retiring" does not preclude "operational", just as a "retiring" employee is still employed. -Arch dude (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and thoughtful feedback. I appreciate the time and care with which you’ve made edits to the page. However, I’d like to note existing Wiki content on this topic, including the “Comparison of orbital launch systems [en.wikipedia.org]” page, which categorizes launch systems as “operational,” “in development,” or “retired.” Other major launch company pages [en.wikipedia.org] also categorize launch vehicles as “current,” “in development,” or “retired.”

Additionally, one of Wiki’s Five Pillars [en.wikipedia.org] is that content should be written from a neutral point of view. It states that “personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.”

In accordance with Wiki content guidelines, it would be most accurate and verifiable to label rockets as I originally recommended, which is supported by the reliable sources that I cited and existing Wiki content on the subject matter. ULA Megan (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

As someone with no dog in this fight, I have to agree with ULA Megan. I have seen no RS that refers to Atlas V status as "retiring", or indeed any source that uses that term for any launch vehicle's status. While it's true that no additional launches can be ordered, I don't think that impacts its flight status - it shows on the "Medium-lift launch vehicle" page as operational (the only options there are "Operational", "Under development" and "Retired") and it has quite a few additional launches booked, going on until (at least) 2030 (when the ISS retires). It can certainly be stated in the text that it is going to be retired after the currently booked flights are completed, but unless you have an RS that uses that term for its status, in my opinion, you basing using that term on "In my opinion the word "retiring" most accurately describes this situation" seems to be OR. Otl1973 (talk) Otl1973 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Although the final flights aren’t scheduled until 2030, the Atlas is no longer in production. We could say “no longer in production” but that’s wordy. The company CEO has said the Atlas “will retire.” So saying “retiring” seems like a brief and accurate way to describe the state of the program. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not make up "retirement". Here is the announcement in an article based on a statement by Tory Bruno at the time:

• ULA stops selling its centerpiece Atlas V, setting path for the rocket’s retirement

Tory said "will retire". In English, "will retire" means "retiring". You (with your declared COI) seem to think "retiring" has negative connotations. I do not see it that way, but this is a subjective interpretation, so reasonable folks may disagree here. Since this article is about ULA and its products, I feel that Atlas V's retirement status is perhaps its single most relevant attribute as a ULA product. Those other Wikipedia articles are mostly about technical comparisons, not about actual availability. I do not think the two of us will reach a consensus on this, so I will wait until we get additional input.

I'm reviewing old edit requests. Just to confirm, the issue is over the word "retiring" in the infobox after Atlas V, and the description of Atlas V as "in the process of being retired" in the lead? And the request is to remove this language and ... replace it with "operational"? The edit request mentions a "retiring section" which doesn't appear to exist anymore, so I'm not sure if this can be closed as obsolete. Rusalkii (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Closing this. If the COI editor want anything further changed around the "retiring" language, please gain consensus of the other editors in this discussion/talk page before reopening the request. Rusalkii (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox cleanup

My changes were reverted by @Arch dude. I propose cleaning up the infobox by:

• Adding a comma to the 2,500 in the number of employees
• Not listing prior numbers of employees in the infobox. This could be better displayed as a table, if proper references can be provided.
• Trim down the products list by grouping into Retiring: and Retired: lines
• Use Template:US$ for the financial figures.

Any objections? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No objections to this approach. The prior employee count table could go in a footnote. My objections was mostly because it looked like an attempt to sanitize the article. -Arch dude (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Any citations for the 2009 and 2014 employment figures? RickyCourtney (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)