Jump to content

Talk:Sounding rocket

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

Todo

[edit]

Sounding Rockets are often used for purposes other than justthis page should be shifted out of the Weather Measurements listings??

If you know of other projects this would be important to, add their tags to the top. There's no rule that says there should just be one tag per article. Thegreatdr 02:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reza

[edit]

".....instruments from 50 to 1,500 kilometers....." Are you sure this is 1,500 Km, this sounds to high, I think it is perhaps 150 Km. Reza 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is 1500 km: for instance, a Black Brant XII was launched to over 1400 km a few days ago. --[[User:The rockets are used to carry instruments from 30 to 90 miles (48 to 145 km)[1] above the surface of the Earth, |AndersIE]] (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The rockets are used to carry instruments from 30 to 90 miles (48 to 145 km)[1] above the surface of the Earth, /.../"

AFAIK, Esrange has launched sounding rockets to over 700 km (heard from people associated with Esrange), i.e. well over e.g. ISS, using the Maxus (rocket). Sounding rockets going up to 1500 km (not 150 km) sounds right but I do not have any immediate source. --Erik J (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without Instruments

[edit]

"Sounding rockets" have been used without instrumentation simply to make smoke trails for researching shock waves, etc. Current edit ignores this use of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.118.143 (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sounding 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) 09:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Rocketsonde into Sounding rocket

[edit]

Basically a Rocketsonde is a subset of a Sounding rocket. I propose the merge here as there is no need for a separate article. Pierre cb (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, maybe there should be a "types" section in this article or somesuch. -- Beland (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Eleven "External links" is cultivating a link farm. Otr500 (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The manual of style recommends against linking to article names that are already linked in the article. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#NOTSEEALSO . Here come the Suns (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no resume on your prior edit, there was no way to know what you were doing and thus it looked like a vandalism. Pierre cb (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, we cleared it up. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The units of measurement

[edit]

The units of measurement were given as the miles/pounds first, km/kg second. I have corrected it, albeit without using conversion templates. Also, should it be written as miles or mi? And should those ridiculous American units even be used? They clutter so much space, including them makes it hard to read.--Adûnâi (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technical challenges and Biological sounding rockets

[edit]

I think a section is needed which elucidates some of the technical challenges faced by sounding rockets, as well as a subsection about the unique technical challenges associated with performing biological experiments on a sounding rocket.

I don't have time to write this section now, but I found a source that I believe will be helpful to whoever chooses to take on this task. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2011ESASP.700...63D

    — QuintessentialAnomaly [talk] 08:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox ship

[edit]

BilCat and Whpq, I think that forking the "Infobox ship class" template to "Infobox rocket class" may be appropriate here, but I doubt it's usefulness if it is only used in half a dozen articles and the potential to break the complicated template in the future. That's why I prefer to use a ship infobox rather than doing so, it is just plain easier. Cheers, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article like this doesn't need an infobox, as it's far too general a topic. BilCat (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I won't add the infobox back again. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Not every article needs an infobox. Whpq (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major Improvements Warranted

[edit]

The Sounding Rockets article has significant deficiencies.

The article claims that Sounding Rockets are "solid fueled." Not always so. In fact in the first 40 years or so all, or later many, were liquid fueled.

There were Sounding Rockets which were air and artillery launched. Some Sounding Rockets carry no instrumentation, for example Nike Smoke.

Most are not strictly related to weather research. The Black Brant XII can loft a payload over 900 miles up. How much "weather" is there 900 miles up. It is ceiling and visibility unlimited all the time,

Nor were rockets the only systems used for launches. The High Altitude Research Program (HARP) utilized 5", 7", and 16" artillery guns as the "first stage" of sounding rockets, especially Martlet 1, Martlet 2, and Martlet 3 rockets.

There was also The Sparrowair I, II, and III which were launched by McDonnell F3H and F-4B aircraft. Some "Internet" sources credit Sparrowair as being launched from F-3Bs which would have been amusing to watch as the F3B was a Boing biplane in service from 1928 to the early 1930s. A good example of why published sources are both more reliable and far less likely to go 404. All together too many "sources" cited on Wikipedia go 404 for a variety of reasons.

I have an extensive library upon the subjects upon which I post to Wikipedia. I have run into problems with other editors when posting. Most notable the subject of the correct designation of the British airship R.100, which is called the R-100 by the Wikipedia. I do not wish to bother some other editor, especially one distraught over the death of their cat, so if anyone objects to an intrusion of facts upon their fantasies please let me know now so that I may avoid effort on my part resulting in offending their sensibilities.

Sounding rockets is a large and continuing subject. Sounding rockets were an absolutely vital factor in the early history of modern rocketry. I believe sounding rockets deserves thorough coverage by Wikipedia.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit in Progress

[edit]

The Sounding Rockets edit is to expand the article in order to broaden its scope to better cover the origins and scope of the entry. I have not finished but much essential work has been done. As I believe that one objective of the Wikipedia should be to provide as broad a coverage of the subject as necessary to provide the reader with the essentials. While at the same time providing researchers with sufficient leads to ensure they have the essential referrencees to further pursue study. My field of expertise is in the period of rocketry through the 1970s. I have not sought to improve coverage of much of the later period. I have been a reader of Aviation Week sincce 1958 and have been a subscriber since the very eaarly 1980s. I do not intend any criticism of the previous editors. I have documentation including many books, and over three megabytes of material on Sounding Rockets including a great deal which is beyond the scope of this Wikipedia article.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why Everything Must Be Checked Carefully

[edit]

Memory is fickle and sources may easily be wrong.In my post "Major Improvements Warranted" I state "There was also The Sparrowair I, II, and III which were launched by McDonnell F3H and F-4B aircraft. Some "Internet" sources credit Sparrowair as being launched from F-3Bs which would have been amusing . . ." For a quick refresh I accessed a usually reliable sourcw Astronautix, from which I learned that a Sparoair launch platform was "Launch Platform: F-3B". For which I arrogantly made a snide remark about the F-3B being an aircraft which was long out of service in 1960. Astronautix is the work of the tireless Mark Wade and is usually quite reliable. In the case of Sparoaire it is not. See http://www.astronautix.com/s/sparoair.html for an example of how a source might be in error. To further confuse the issue Sparoaire used a Sparrow motor as its booster while Wade's article on Sparoair lists a number of Cleansweep III launches from a RB-57C. The booster of the Cleansweep shots was cited by Wade as a Shrike, http://www.astronautix.com/c/cleansweepiii.html. Was Wade in error even in including the CleanSweep missions in his articles on the Sparoair? Darned if I know. How might any Wikipedia editor be ccertain? In his seminal book "Strategic Intelligence Production: Basic Principles" General Washington Platt states that the major difference between strategic intelligence production and historical research is that intelligence production requires a prompt product while history requires the best research may produce. Elisabeth Babcock's seminal work "Magnificent Mavericks" about the Naval Ordinance Test Station China Lake is a fine source for the subject. That produced nothing. AS search of the Office of Scientific and Technical Information produced a lead "CLEANSWEEP III B Air Launched Particulate Air Sampling System. Final Report No. TR67-1500-1" from 1967. Alas there was no copy available on line. The web page did provide the lead to "Feasibility Study of Rocket and Launching Systems For Particulate Sampling of Clouds" prepared for the Lawrence Radiation Lab, Livermore California, from 1962. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4757031. That produced an interesting mention of three possible air launched modes being with Sword, Archer or Sparrow rockets. On page 19 of the document it cites the B-57, B-47 and F-4H as possible launch vehicles. On page 24 it states that the missile systems considered were the Sidewinder, Shrike, and Falcon. On page 25 it says that the Shrike " . . . and the fact that this system is still in the development phase, this system was not considered feasible." Further research showed that OSTI has "Deployment Handbook for the Cleansweep IIIB Rocket Sampling System" but alas it is not digitized. I believe that as they say in the oil patch this hole is dry. So does this "prove" anything? I did turn up at the OSTI "Cleansweep IV, Phase II. Final Status Report." That document had some interesting leads which lead to "Cleansweep V Phase Final Status Report" which features a cover showing the missile launch from a parachute stabilized tube as a RB-57D flies off. Aside from that the quick search for information is at an end. Mark Wade has nothing, OSTI and DITC have little. Sic Gloria Transit Mundi.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sounding_rocket&oldid=1247057555"