Jump to content

Talk:Aerobee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Units

[edit]

Given that the Aerobee and most of those who worked on it were American, and used US customary units rather than the Metric System, the measurements quoted here should be expressed in both units. If anyone has this information already and wants to add it, that would be helpful. If not, I'll give it a shot myself. Bricology 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, any references to space should use the conventional definition, that is, 50 miles, vice the foreign definition of 62 miles and the supposed "Karman Line" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:6480:B640:75B2:C0F5:E3DD:D718 (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aerobee. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major Additions / Revisions

[edit]

I have made major additions and minor revisions to this article. Published information on the Aerobee is as with many other early rockets and missile difficult to find. Books are few and hard to come by. Published histories are few and likewise obscure. Online sources are as often inaccurate as accurate. They are also given to hobbyists who may or may not be driven by sound historiographic principles. Thus many Wikipedia articles on early rocketry and missile development fall far short of the quality and quantity of information required of excellence. I have utilized the best sources available within the constraints of Wikipedia standards prohibiting "original research." This does not mean that I do not have access to material which would be deemed "original research." I have just avoided citing them. I do cite one such document in response to a "citation needed" request. When data is demanded the question is raised and a valid response is the results. I do not wish to disparage the research of prior authors/editors. I am old and have a considerable library on rocketry from the 20th century and thus access to considerably better data than many. My exclusion of the Aerobee 75, AKA Aerobee HAWK is based entirely upon it being in total variance with all other Aerobees in having no connection with the WAC Corporal derivative liquid fueled sounding rockets which compose the other Aerobees. The use of deceptive designations was common in the budgetary environment of the late 1940s and 1950s. It was a time when it was easier to get funding for something proposed as a new version of an old program rather than as something new. For example the ever changing goals of programs like MX-770 Navajo, the XF-96A was quickly redesigned as a XF-84F to defeat pre-Korean war budget cuts. As was the YF-95 transformed into the YF-86D. This does not mean I have found solid evidence that the Signal Corps intended to deceive but it had been purchasing Aerobees for years and another new version of the old purchase may have been more easily sold to Congress than a new rocket competing for missile motors with an active air defense weapon program.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is correct...

[edit]

The "first payload to interplanetary space" part just feels wrong. A sounding rocket is supposed to only go on suborbital flights, or even as little as atmospheric flights. But this part of the article, says that this went to not just orbit, but to INTERPLANETARY SPACE. It does not list the mission name, so I am not sure it was a real mission. When I look up "first payload to interplanetary space," no sources I see mention an aerobee rocket launch. You would think that if that mission ever occurred, then SOME source would say what rocket it was launched on. However, all I see is stuff saying that a mission was launched on something OTHER than an aerobee. So that is my case for why I think this part of the article is incorrect (but I am pretty sure that the other parts of this article are perfectly fine). TrollingSpin (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check the sources. The rocket, itself, didn't go to interplanetary space. Its payload, a grenade, was supposed to send pieces to interplanetary space, and at the time, the success of the experiment was much ballyhooed. Subsequent analysis by MacDowell suggests the celebration was ill-placed. --Neopeius (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC) (The Nov. 23, 1957 Tulsa World newspaper has a piece on the flight, and it specifically says it used an Aerobee.) --Neopeius (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. TrollingSpin (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aerobee&oldid=1256232592"