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
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
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was no consensus —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Skyramp → Rail-launched spaceflight — Following up on AFD discussion, whilst there was not consensus to delete, I don't think there was consensus to keep it as is either. Therefore I feel that it should be given a more general title to allow broader coverage (to clarify, "skyramp" is the name for a single proposal). --GW… 21:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think that simply Rail launch is sufficient. The item in question is the launch mechanism, i.e. launch vs. spaceflight. I don't think there is enough written on the subject to come up with a common name.[1] On second thought rail launch won't work because the navy is working on EMALS, a similar launch system for aircraft carriers. And the Rail space launch is very different from the EMALS system. Different in application, identical in operation. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Although another (undiscussed) move has taken place, I do not feel the new title is sufficiently succinct, so I would like this request to still be considered. Had the new title bee proposed, I would have raised objections. --GW… 16:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Please could you explain your rationale for closing as no consensus? The anon had withdrawn his objection ("On second thought rail launch won't work"), so I make it two (or one if you don't count the anon as he didn't make it explicitly clear if he supported the proposal after withdrawing his !vote, but it was implied) in favour, none against. --GW… 08:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
It did not look like there was agreement among the few participants, but it's also very possible that I got confused from all the different names being thrown around. Considering that the article was abruptly renamed "rocket sled launch", there should be a discussion whether this new name or the proposed name is better. —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thanks. I've sent it back to RM for another try. --GW… 17:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was No consensus. — V = I * R (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Current title is grammatically poor, and was chosen unilaterally whilst discussion of other names was ongoing. Proposed title is more succinct and grammatically correct. --GW… 17:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oppose.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Support as proposed name is grammatically correct and more descriptive of the actual subject. - Dravecky (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Ignoring what I personally know to be true, what is currently referenced in the article is the name "Sky ramp". IAW with WP:COMMONNAMES then, the original move either should not have occurred or should have have been a move to Sky ramp (with the space)... Any other name needs to be supported with reliable sources. Really, this whole article should probably be merged into Single-stage to orbit (probably into the Launch assists section) or someplace similar, however. — V = I * R (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
At least it's actually used in a reference... Anyway, that's partially why I suggested merging, below. All of the other references seem to be talking about SSTO development in one fashion or another. — V = I * R (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rocket sled launch. 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.
