Talk:Multistage rocket

Engineering High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocketry High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Old talk - 2005 - merging articles - & engine/motor

I merged my multi-stage article with this one. I kept almost all of both, except for (if I remember correctly) one sentence which was basically redundant. I think I did an OK job. I'll probably merge this with Staging (rocketry) later, although I think that will be tougher.... Nvinen 09:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I merged Staging (rocketry) too. I replaced all instances of "engine" with "motor" because "motor" is more specific. According to wikipedia:

An engine is something that produces some effect from a given input.
A motor is a device that converts energy into mechanical power.

Granted, a rocket produces some effect from a given input, but that's rather vague. The definition of motor suits its effect much more closely in my opinion. If you really object you're welcome to change some/all instances back.. but I think we might as well be consistent here? Nvinen 09:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those definitions are obsolete in 2018. According to today's Engine:

Motor and engine later came to be used largely interchangeably in casual discourse. However, technically, the two words have different meanings. An engine is a device that burns or otherwise consumes fuel, changing its chemical composition, whereas a motor is a device driven by electricity, air, or hydraulic pressure, which does not change the chemical composition of its energy source.

However, rocketry uses the term rocket motor, even though they consume fuel. This applies only to model rocketry and high-power rocketry, not real-world (i.e., spacegoing) rockets. Accordingly I've changed it back, except when referring to solid rocket motors. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Independently?

Article states that This concept was developed independently by at least four individuals. I find it strange - I'd rather assume each based his work on that of his predecessors (most of them lived in different times). Can anybody confirm this?\ one way or another? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Tsiolovsky did not write about staged rockets ("trains" as he called them) until the concept had become well know, in the 1930s. Oberth's writings came several years after Goddard, whom he had read. But Oberth refused to give Goddard priority and took the attitude "You published first, but I really thought of it before you" (if you compare notebooks, Goddard was still years ahead of Oberth). Goddard was angered by Oberth's attitude and nationalistic style, and told many people that Oberth was a plagiarist. DonPMitchell (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest link to Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, and explanation of importance to multistage rockets

When explaining the performance benefits of staged rockets, including a link to Tsiolkovsky rocket equation can help understand this. Unfortunately that article is worded at a fairly high level, but this web page better explains it: [1]. If appropriate information from these two sources were integrated into the article that would help clarify things. Joema 16:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delta III picture caption

The Delta III launch vehicle had 9 GEMs (Graphite Epoxy Motors) as strap on boosters, and not 8 as the caption indicates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.205.225.19 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusually formatted content -- please check this article for plagiarism

The introduction and "Performance" sub-sections of this article had a whole lot of content that was improperly formatted -- but all improperly formatted in the same way, by including an indentation at the start of a paragraph. Clearly this messed up the wiki formatting but it also got me thinking that a lot of this article may have been pasted in from another source. It's more likely that this was a well-meaning contributor who didn't have a great handle on wiki markup, but if there's anybody watching this article with more time on their hands than me, it might be worth checking for plagiarism. A Train^talk 10:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be cleaned up and better citations and sections added

In my opinion this article could be much better written and in a more logical layout.

The Performance and Optimal and Restricted Staging are good sections but their order seems odd and the entire article does not flow well. Also the Section of Upper Stages and Passivation and Space debris could easliy be made in to their own article ( Upper Stages of Rockets) or link to the Space Debris Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris). The history and Development section should be right after the abstract. The separation events section is self obvious and the delta V section could really do with expanding with examples.

I think that the more logical layout after the abstract would be 1. History and Development 2. Performance 3. Tandem vs Parallel 3.1 Tandem Staging 3.2 Parallel staging 4. Optimal Staging and Restricted Staging 4.1 Optimal 4.2 Restricted 5. Delta V calculations 5.1 Parallel (example in a hidden area) 5.2 Tandem (example in a hidden area) 6. Space Debris (brief desc and link) 7. See Also (make Upper Stages into its own true article and link it) 8. References

I would like some imput on the proposed changes before I start making them. B787 300 (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful Info - speed to exit atmosphere - fixed

The introduction paragraph states that a rocket needs 11.416 km/s speed to exit atmosphere. Can anyone verify this fact? Escape velocity is not to escape atmosphere, but to reach infinity (out of gravitational field). Also, from surface of earth, its value is calculated to be 11.2 km/s which is slightly off from the value given in the article. So, may be this is not escape velocity, which the article is pertainig to. Can anyone verify? As far as I know Phsics, there is no speed requirement to escape atmosphere. Even the slowest particle can also exis the atmosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenitingrewal (talk • contribs) 03:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Atmosphere" was technical ignorance on the part of Harsha10042003 (talk · contribs). It's been corrected. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The intro DEFINITELY has to be modified in regards to mention of that escape velocity line.

11.2 km/s is the escape velocity from earth's surface, if you have no means of propulsion once you leave the surface, and there's no air resistance, and as mentioned above, escaping "to infinity". A multistage rocket never needs to reach this speed to get out of the atmosphere because as you get higher, the escape velocity gets lower due to further distance from earth's center. ANY upward speed, if you have enough fuel to maintain it, can "eventually" get you out of the atmosphere if your craft stays together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A2A0:C17:CCB1:4EC0:1E9D:911F (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Three-stage-to-orbit into Multistage rocket

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Three stage to orbit don't warrant an article and can be easily explained on the context of multistage rocket. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support — As it has been 3 months with no other comments, and as this is an obvious fit, and as it will be a very simple merge, I will go ahead and merge both Three-stage-to-orbit and Four-stage-to-orbit to this article. I will not merge Two-stage-to-orbit because I think most of its content would be better suited for a merging with Air-launch-to-orbit. ~~Jared.h.wood~~ → JHelzer 💬 00:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~~Jared.h.wood~~ → JHelzer 💬 00:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion for new section - hot-staging

Hot-staging (starting an upper stage's engines while still in contact with a lower stage) is likely to become a hot topic soon, and a quick search of Wikipedia turned up only four brief mentions on vehicle specific pages. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Since staging (rocketry) redirects here, it could go under Separation events, the choice of retrorockets for positive separation, or hot-staging. - Rod57 (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]