Talk:Air-launch-to-orbit

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocketry

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Air launch to orbit

The article talks about "Figure 1", "Figure 2", and "Figure 3", but none of these exist. Was this just copied verbatim from somewhere? --164.67.235.138 (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is a problem. I feel like the stuff referring to it should just be deleted. Leefkrust22 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not up to Wikipedia standards. It appears to be a cut-and-paste, with the repeated refernce to non-existant figures and the total lack of attribution or other references a rather glaring problem.--98.155.250.197 (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Figures 2 and 3 don't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.250.73.168 (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: "Launching at altitude also presents significant performance benefits to the rocket." but doesn't indicate what those might be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.77.62 (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and references

I think this article isn't neutral because it's only mention the advantages, without mentioning the disadvantages, technical challenges, constraints, and why most orbital launch still prefer conventional (vertical) launch. By the way, where was the cost equation came from? Is it only original research, or used elsewhere?

A r d W a r ^(T•C•L) 23:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article.

The following article discusses pros & cons of air launch, with commentaries from people who actually work on those technologies below the text.

http://selenianboondocks.com/2008/01/orbital-access-methodologies-part-i-air-launched-ssto/

It is a bit specific on single stage vehicles, but seems like a good source. So, anyone with more time and interest than me, please improve this wikipedia article. Caroliano (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced article contradicts this page by claiming that the speed and altitude benefits provided by a carrier aircraft are "small", although it also claims that they make a "big difference", whereas this page claims that "the delta-V required to reach orbit can be significantly reduced". Given that the referenced article mentions a low-orbit speed of at least 8km/s, a merely supersonic speed doesn't seem to be a significant portion of that. PaulBoddie (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Figures for Supersonic air launch section?

Was this cut and pasted from somewhere? "Figure 3 shows..." "Figure 4 shows the cost per kilogram..." These figures don't seem to be part of the article. Keelec (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any disadvantages?

I came to this article after reading in the news about the IRIS satellite launch on a Pegasus air-launched rocket, seeking to learn why more satellites aren't launched this way. But there's no "disadvantages" or "tradeoffs" section. Weight limitations, I presume? Is there anything else? xenotrope (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's primarily Not invented here - but I only have original research for that, not suitable for the article. Being limited to carrier aircraft is no small part of it, though.Winged Cat (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I added a source on this from Aviation Week. I'm sure there's a lot more, but that was all the article mentioned. Hopefully, it at least balances the article a little bit as is, since clearly air launch to orbit is not the end-all solution.--Appable (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I'm interested in this article having a robust disadvantages section, but is it appropriate for the vast majority of the disadvantages section to be dedicated to quotations from a gentleman that has a fortune invested in a competing technology? Are there more objective / academic sources that can be used here? Nolandda (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree. Something really should be done to make this section on-topic and encyclopedic and not just a quote from one individual with direct interests in competing solution. SkywalkerPL (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mmeijeri it is not a notable opinion though. Person in question has interest directly in attacking said topic as it's in a direct competition to this method. It's also not an expert to any degree in a said topic. It's a clear NPOV. SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV doesn't require the person we cite to be neutral, as long as we make clear we are reporting on a person's opinion. And being a competitor in the launch services market is actually a large part of what makes Musk's opinion notable. That said, we should also be neutral in our *selection* of notable opinions. It wouldn't do to include only skeptics if there are also notable proponents. If you want to provide balance, you can add opinions by other experts, including people associated with air launch specifically. That shouldn't be too difficult. They too will have their biases and that too will not be a problem, as long as we report their opinions as opinions. It's useful for readers to know what various experts think about the matter. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article is not encyclopedic, although it remains informative. Reading "Advantages" is like reading a well-developed brochure from some PR department. For better balance, the disadvantages needs to be milled by the same machinery. The hypothesis is appealing, the theory is still being tested, the pros and cons are more battle plans than hard science. How much fuel and hardware does it cost to lift something into orbit? In the long run this battle may belong to the bean counters.

I ended up here looking for some sort of chart about payload costs per ton overview. That quest continues. GeeBee60 (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a place for such overviews, especially given inherite inaccuracies of them (there are a number of reasons why costs per ton comparsions out there are grossly misguided, in almost all cases comparing apples with oranges). This article is meant to be an encyclopedic description of the subject, and as such list of an advantages and disadvantages is the very flesh of the topic. However I disagree that the advantages are written like a PR, they're very much on subject and factually correct, though I agree that they could use more editing to further improve quality of the content. Disadvantages list however is missing equally on-topic list of arguments which, as it states now, is instead replaced by a quote, which by itself is non-encyclopedic way to cover the subject, and to make it worse - it's a quote from a person with a direct interests against this technology, making it completly NPOV. SkywalkerPL (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air launch to orbit. 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/20091229175301/http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/ISJ/Reports/BurtonJSRPaper.pdf to http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/ISJ/Reports/BurtonJSRPaper.pdf

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) 18:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]