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 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
The Vega stage came out of the Naval Research Lab, but it did bear some structural similarities to Centaur, in that it was meant to use Atlas "steel-balloon" construction. DonPMitchell (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure who's watching this page, but if there is anyone who is, what are your thoughts on renaming it to either "Centaur launch vehicle" or "Centaur rocket stage"? I note that "Centaur rocket stage" already exists as a redirect, but I personally kind of prefer "Centaur launch vehicle", except... that name somewhat implies that it's self sufficient, which isn't really accurate. Anyway, I wanted to see if I could solicit any feedback, and see if this would be controversial at all, or if I might need to start a WP:RM, or what. Thanks! — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Centaur launch vehicle" would be misleading because it is only a stage. As for "Centaur rocket stage", past discussions including WP:RND have shown a preference for bracketed disambiguators over non-bracketed ones, so I would say that the current title is preferable. I notice you don't provide any rationale for moving it, why do you dislike the current title? --GW…09:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just wanted to stick to the point at first, without obscuring the issue with rationales. Before getting into a specific rational though, what made me consider the issue in the first place was the link here from Abe Silverstein: As Lewis's director, he oversaw a major expansion of the center and the development of the [[Centaur (rocket stage)|Centaur launch vehicle]]. (It's the last sentence in what is currently the NASA Career section). Now, I tend to agree with the sentiment regarding "Centaur launch vehicle" being inaccurate (I wouldn't really say misleading, but it's certainly inaccurate), which I briefly addressed myself in the post above. It's a bit more awkward, but "Centaur rocket stage" actually achieves the same effect. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To use your example, without changing the wording, wouldn't that link be better as [[Centaur (rocket stage)|Centaur]] launch vehicle", or even "[[Centaur (rocket stage)|Centaur]] [[launch vehicle]]"? There's no need to link additional words after the name. Either of these links could be made using the pipe trick, which means the link can be entered as "[[Centaur (rocket stage)|]]" rather than "[[Centaur (rocket stage)|Centaur]]" thus saving time. Finally, if the parentheses were removed from the title, then the title of the article would be misleading as it would imply that the proper name of the stage was "Centaur rocket stage" rather than simply "Centaur". --GW…18:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the best solution would be to use, simply: "As Lewis's director, he oversaw a major expansion of the center and the development of the [[Centaur rocket stage]]." However, I don't necessarily want to become lost is a specific example. That link is what initially grabbed my attention, but it doesn't... uh, embody the entire problem, to me. Regardless, I take the point about the proper name of the vehicle. I guess that I generally just don't like the use of parenthesized disambiguators, so I tend to look for ways to get rid of them. They are a necessary evil, however. I'll probably go back to my original plan in dealing with this and simply create a redirect from Centaur launch vehicle, eventually. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, the Centaur is listed as unflown on the shuttle, but it was flown on Shuttle Atlantis for the Galileo mission, so unless I am missing something the infobox should be changed. Not an expert so I'm just suggesting the change here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRat262 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Centaur project started at Lewis. I believe administrative control began at Convair, then got transferred to Marshall (von Braun hated it, but he put a good man in charge), then finally it was transferred to Lewis. That's the administrative control. Physically, the Centaur was built at Convair. Also, according to astronautix.com, the first successful Centaur test was in November 27, 1963 (not 1965). He claims that AC-2/Atlas 126D placed a dummy payload into geosynchronous orbit. NASA's website about centaur agrees Nov 1963 was the first success. DonPMitchell (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DonPMitchell's statement on the development history. Lewis was involved in the 1950's (actually earlier than 1956) on research into the use of LH2 in aircraft engines. They did a lot of work on project Suntan for the Air Force, including work with on a LH2 turbojet engine with Pratt & Whitney. This work provided Lewis with a unique competency in the use of LH2 as a propellant, and directly lead to the RL-10 engine. As Don states, Lewis was not the birth place of Centaur, but it would play the role of champion for Centaur once control was transferred from Marshall to Lewis (which occurred between 8 October 1962 and 1 January 1963, according to Taming Liquid Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket 1958-2002). LESJet (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading information in the first paragraph of "Shuttle-Centaur"[edit]
Hello everyone. I was looking at the paragraph of "Shuttle-Centaur" and I noticed something strange.
This paragraph states that: "During its first mission on May 16, 1986, a Centaur-G boosted the Galileo probe towards Jupiter. Just six days later, another Centaur-G boosted the Ulysses probe towards Jupiter where it used the planet's gravity to reach a highly inclined solar orbit to observe the Sun's polar regions."
This is not true, as both Galileo and Ulysses were launched on the IUS, a totally different stage which uses solid propellant. Of course, they were planned to launch on the Centaur-G, but weren't actually because of safety concerns after the Challenger disaster. The paragraph does not state this in that sentence, however. When I read further, the article says that the Galileo and the Ulysses probe were launched on the IUS so it is only this first paragraph that contains (potentially) misleading information.
"After the Challenger accident, and just months before the Shuttle-Centaur was scheduled to fly, NASA concluded that it was far too risky to fly the Centaur on the Shuttle. Galileo, Ulysses, and Magellan were boosted by the much less powerful solid-fueled IUS, with Galileo needing multiple gravitational assists from Venus and Earth to reach Jupiter."
I can imagine someone that did not read the whole article might then get the impression that the probes were launched on the Centaur-G while they were not.
Since I have never edited a article it seems wrong when I do edit it. I would just like to state that this potentially misleading information is in that paragraph, to help researchers (or space nerds) find true information.
There is a lot of unsourced information on the historical claims in the article[edit]
Sources are totally absent on a good bit of the historical claims in the article. Some, but not all, of it has been explicitly challenged for some months now.
Also, the very first line is "Centaur has been designed to be the upper stage of space launch vehicles and is used on the Atlas V", which is very bad. 93.73.16.77 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone published estimates of the cost of Centaur-III[edit]
Has anyone published estimates of the cost of Centaur-III ? It would be good to see an idea of what a single-engine or dual-engine Centaur costs ULA or their customers. Or the costs for Centaur G/G-prime if that's available. - Rod57 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would be great if someone knew how to approach ULA Comms and get them to agree to release this image via a Creative Commons license. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just recalled that a ULA employee has been active on the United Launch Alliance Talk page in the past; most recent on that page seems to be June 2020: User:ULA christa Also, User:ULA Megan, as recently as March 2021.
ChristaorMegan, would you possibly be able to add some graphics that ULA has already publically released to media outlets or to Twitter (via Tory Bruno, CEO) to Wikimedia with a Creative Commons license? So that they might be able to be used to improve Wikipedia? N2e (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under characteristics it says 20 (2x2 + 4x4), but lower down under specification it says 12 RCS thrusters. (Maybe the 20 mistakenly includes the 8 retro thrusters on the common core ?) - Rod57 (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section on Atlas configs and fairing attachments needs to be updated, but I do not know where to find a reference. The section mention only fairings, but Starliner does not use a fairing. Does anyone have a reference? -Arch dude (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
