- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete. Whether it is moved, merged, etc. is an editing decision. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Skyramp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article fails to show notability for 'Skyramp'. Skyramp seems to have no major references from reliable sources either in the article or to it elsewhere. Additionally the article fails to show generality- I doubt the only rail launch concept is Skyramp, but the article has been linked with that assumption. I believe that its place in the wikipedia has not been justified. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rick here.
I disagree, I believe that it is worthy of its own page. Most rail launch systems are planned to go on flat ground near sea level. (For example, see the reference to the planned European Phoenix space craft). This is sub-optimal in two respects. First the high air friction means that most of the energy imparted by the ramp is lost while the space craft is flying up above most of the air. Further, low level launch still has the problems with Max Q and sub-optimal shape of the rocket nozzle. (A ground level rocket sled may be able to get a craft going fast enough for a ram jet engine however.)
Furthermore, an inclined rocket sled is the only practical method we could get a fully reusable single stage to orbit space craft any time in the near future. No new science is required, nor any significant new engineering as the rocket sleds at China Lake have already proven the tech. Since this is (in my opinion) the single most likely way to cause a significant drop in the price to orbit in the next few years, I think that it is _extremely_ notable.
I agree that the concept is not well known, but that is the point of creating the page. I hope that with time it will gain more interest based on its merits. I intend to improve the article given time, and hope that other people will do so as well. I am very busy, and don't have a lot of time to spend on this. For example, I receintly have added two in line references. I have not found an proper URL that explains how much savings will be made by such an inclined rocket sled, but intend to work out the savings from the rocket equation.
As for the name 'skyramp' I agree. I've only seen it used on the skyramp web page (and several pages that link to it) but a good name is useful in popularizing an idea and it is better than "an inclined rocket or jet powered sled for launching space craft" which is accurate but lacks pizazz.
RichardWayneSmith (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, 'I agree that the concept is not well known, but that is the point of creating the page.' Um. No. That's called 'advertising'. The wikipedia is supposed to give things a neutral point of view, it's supposed to reflect how it is already regarded, not create new interest. You're basically admitting that you're abusing the Wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but move to rail launch, rail-launched spaceflight or some other more appropriate title. Whilst I see no evidence that the name "Skyramp" is a genuine name for this system, rail launched spaceflight has been seriously proposed, and does warrant an article. I think that some parts of this article might be salvageable, so its history would need to be preserved for attribution. --GW… 12:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move as per previous comment - and of course remove the reference to "Skyramp" unless it can be stood up as notable, which I doubt. andy (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Rocket sled--it seems to me that that is what we have here, only at an incline. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rick here. It is hardly advertising if I'm not making money off of it. What is the point of an encyclopedia that does not have new and interesting things in it? A skyramp is the coolest thing involved in spaceflight that I've heard of in years. Using it we COULD have a reusable single stage to orbit which would transform spaceflight.
If you want to rename the page, 'inclined rail launched spaceflight' then that is fine with me. It is beyond my comprehension why using such an awkward name would be better for anyone.
Drmies said that it is a rocket powered sled. However a sky ramp can use jet engines, rockets or (theoretically) a mass driver as its motive force.
I'm very busy, but I hope to free up some time this or next week at improving the page further.
Warm regards, Rick RichardWayneSmith (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As others have pointed out, it violates WP:SOAP. And just because you're not making money from it, doesn't make it not advertising, one lesser use of adverts are to make a political or other kind of point.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and remove non-notable brand-specific references (SkyRamp) and otherwise clean up to comply with SOAP. This info can incubate as a section of Rocket sled; perhaps in future it will be sufficiently comprehensive and supported to merit splitting out as its own article. —Scheinwerfermann T·C16:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep needs work and editing, but that's not a deletion issue, it's an editing issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can turn banana into cow with enough editing. That doesn't save it from being on a non notable topic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.