This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proton (rocket family) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please somebody correct the performance figures, they are a full two metric tons below what they should be. The latest version of the rocket (Phase III) can lift 6150+ kilograms to GTO instead of 4140 as claimed. Naturally some satellites don't weight as much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.107.106.197 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following lines:
"They are stored at ambient temperatures avoiding the need for low-temperature-tolerant components and also allowing the rocket to sit on the pad indefinitely without need for continuous topping up of boiling off cryogenic fuels."
..is understandable, but what happens when the rocket reaches the altitude where there is no oxygen needed for burning process and thrust anymore? Then liquid oxygen must be poured to engine nozzles to keep the burning process and thrust active which still requires a cooling system even when still on launch pad. So, what does the Proton use when it reaches the "no-oxygen" altitude (if the article says there are no low-temperature-tolerant components needed)?? Is there maby enough oxygen released during the chemical reaction between two components itself?
Under the section 8K82K, the article says:
Note that the six structures around the base of the vehicle .... the core is the oxidizer tank, and the six units are outrigger fuel tanks.
but later contradicts the statement that the fuel tanks are outside the body with:
(the Titan rockets avoided this by having its fuel and oxidizer tanks located in the body itself, thus the Titan II and III rockets can be flown with or without solid boosters).
(GoAirForce 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This section seemed to be a bit confusing. I've reworded it in an attempt to clarify the comparison between the Proton design, which cannot have solid boosters because of the Proton's external fuel tanks, with the Titan design which can have solid boosters. (Sdsds - Talk) 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your clarification helped. I think I understand this now, but it's after several re-reads, it could probably still be improved. (GoAirForce 19:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I just removed this from paragraph 2:
This is garbled. If anyone knows what it means, please rewrite before reintroducing into the article. Tempshill 03:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proton rockets takes their name from proton satellites, which were their first payload. Those satellites were made for scientific investigation of the space enviroment, so they had particle detectors for their research. Thos particle detectors were made with heavy materials, so the weight of the satellites was too high for the available rockets before proton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.39.21.35 (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In arrticle:
Total launches 329
Successes 289
Failures 40
Failures = 12% ???? Wrong Number. Nasa tall: Successes 96% ???????.
In this web, 10 launches is failure, add one in 2007:
http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/Scfam-failures.html
Total: 327 (last: 5 Sep 07); Failure: 11;
List All Failure:
24 Mar 66; 9 Aug 90; 27 May 93; 19 Feb 96; 16 Nov 96; 24 Dec 97; 5 Jul 99; 27 Oct 99; 5 Sep 07
Huyphuc1981 nb (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
..... Huyphuc1981 nb (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_rocket#Proton_M section says that payload to GSO is about 3 tonnes (I assume these are metric tonnes), and payload to GTO is about 5.5 tonnes. How come that Proton has been routinely injecting 6-tonne payloads to GSO? I am not sure about older launches, but the latest one just put the 6-tonne Inmarsat 4 into a GSO. Here is the flight plan (pdf): http://www.ilslaunch.com/assets/pdf/INMARSAT-4-F3-MOFinal.pdf From the flight plan and ILS blog it is obvious that it was Proton/Breeze that injected the satellite, the satellite did not use its own engines (if it has them) for that.
Also, should not all numbers that quote payloads specify launch site? I don't know whether Proton is being launched from other sites besides Baikonur, but in any case, the payload mass is limited not only by structural rigidity of the rocket and power of its engines, but by location as well. A much smaller Zenit rocket injects 6-tonne satellites from equatorial Sea Launch site. Mikus (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
_______ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.90.89 (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Proton initially started life as a "super ICBM." It was designed to throw a 10-Megaton (or larger) nuclear warhead over a distance of 13,000 km."
100 megaton. 10-25 megaton it R-36 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)
> Proton ... would very likely have launched the first humans to circle the Moon <
Proton was never human-rated! Its fuel is so toxic, the communist party central comittee banned its use for human lunar flight, even after the soviet astronauts staged a street demonstration in Star City to demand a totally crazy dual-Proton "crush launch" with in-flight EVA to beat the americans around and onto the Moon!
Spontaneous street protest was highly unusual in the USSR, yet the top brass still shunned the Proton rocket, because they knew the cosmonauts would come back very ill from the toxic fuel, even if they managed to evade death and they would not be in a suitable shape for public celebrations display and pre-arranged festives so essential to communism. All in all, Proton is a strictly thing-launcher and has never been a being-launcher, not even on the drawing table! 87.97.48.253 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Proton was never human-rated! Its fuel is so toxic"
spaceship hermetically
According to everything we know about Soviet space program, Proton was meant for manned flights, just like N-1 was. Thus, on Wikipedia it should be called a manned launch system just like N-1 is, right? Also, the Zond-type Soyuz was not even the only manned spacecraft to be launched on Proton, there was also TKS that was a very successful program, just none of the launches actually had people on board. Sorry, this is just terminology - I'm wondering what Wikipedia's definition of "manned" launch system is. Mstuomel (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the specs listed the thrust of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th stage only in pound-force. i consulted the web and found numbers in kgf and newton. i found that the 1st stage (specified as 10.47 MN) matched up *exactly* with the webpage, while the amounts in pound-force of the later stages were off by big margins (in the order of 10%). this may be the result of inaccurate conversion by the editor. also a value in newton lacked. where did these numbers come from? why were they (exclusively, and primarily) in pound-force? this rocket was made in USSR so the official specs were likely not in pound-force, it's US-centrism. Bewareircd (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good article in SpaceNewsontwo new Proton variants for smaller satellites. "The Proton Medium and Proton Light, which ILS officials said Krunichev has been quietly developing for Reston, Virginia-based ILS for more than a year, are on track to debut in 2018 and 2019, respectively. - See more at: http://spacenews.com/ils-unveils-two-proton-variants-sized-for-smaller-satellite/#sthash.VsItRMcR.7MgE4xtx.dpuf"
Definitely a good source for improving the Wikipedia Proton article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Future developments section seems unclear. When was the KVRB stage development initiated and cancelled ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]