This page 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
HEAT-1X is a prototype of the HEAT rocket. The rocket which will actually be used for spaceflights will be either HEAT or HEAT-4 (official documentation is rather vague). Since this article seems to cover all the prototypes so far, I would suggest naming it HEAT (rocket family) in line with established naming conventions. HATV and XLR are not HEAT, and belong in a separate article. --GW… 16:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that is why the original title combination of HEAT1x and Tycho Brahe was perhaps more appropriate, since they are closely connected for the foreseeable future. Renaming to HEAT family and excluding HATV and XLR is less appropriate as they are part of the rocket program. Perhaps Rockets of Copenhagen Suborbitals would be the correct title? Changing titles and content purely for technical reasons without regard for reality's complexities should be avoided, at least without discussion beforehand. TGCP (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since HEAT-1X is only relevant for one or two flights and will not be used for any of the manned launches, I fail to how its connection is quite so close. Equally, Apollo and the Saturn V were closely related, but each has its own article - this is the format that other articles of this type follow. As for HATV and XLR, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be covered, its just that they shouldn't be in an article about HEAT. They should have their own articles, with a small amount of central information in either of the two existing articles (Tycho Brahe or Copenhagen Suborbitals). If enough information can be found then HEAT-1X can have its own article as well, but it shouldn't stray so far from the subject - other HEAT rockets should be covered separately. Part of the issue is that you don't seem to realise that HEAT-X1 and HEAT are not the same thing. --GW… 17:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is the shaping factor here. HEAT has only recently achieved sufficient notability to be on the verge of having it's own article, but that is debatable since it didn't launch. HATV/XLR are part of the same program as HEAT, and are notable enough to be mentioned in related article, but not enough to have their own articles. By HEAT I mean HEAT family, not individual rockets. I agree that English info is not as available or accurate as that we read and hear in Danish, and efforts are being made to make CS aware of that. HEAT-1X will remain the only rocket in question for launch for the next 9-21 months, after that we can review the family order again. TGCP (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are both right on different points. HATV/XLR are heavily related to the HEAT rocket family and, since as far as I know none have actually been launched, they are effectively a technological demonstrator for the family rather than an entirely separate one. I also doubt the amount of reliable third-party sources available on them, or for that matter notability, will justify a whole article to themselves so it think it would be better to incorporate them into HEAT referring to the family's development. On the other hand it is right to say the convention is to split a rocket family from any spacecraft it may launch, provided there are enough third-party sources to justify both that is. HEAT-1X can always be split off from the family at a later date into a main article once the HEAT family one accrues enough information. At this stage I don't think separate "HEAT (rocket family)" and "HEAT-1X" are justified, especially given the main Copenhagen Suborbitals page itself isn't that big yet anyway. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Until launch has been achieved (whatever the outcome other than standstill), HEAT-1X and Tycho should be regarded as a combined ground experiment, not a flight vehicle. In any case, name change and split should have been discussed before action. I favor the previous name "HEAT-1X Tycho Brahe", but will not oppose a split as long as rockets get own article too. TGCP (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the others are not notable, however setting that aside for now, how about having an article on HEAT, covering all variants and named appropriately, an article on the spacecraft, and putting the stuff about HATV and XLR into the Copenhagen Suborbitals article until such a time that sufficient sources and information can be found to produce an article. I would also like to point out that this would still be far below the level of coverage for similar future programmes such as Project Constellation, SpaceX Dragon, etcetera. --GW… 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually HEAT-1X should be called HATV because it will remain in atmosphere for at least 20 months, but that is the decision of CS, not us. The point is that naming should not be the deciding factor in placing content; technology and use should. Dividing the rocket programme into separate articles merely because of name is a disservice to the subject - as mentioned, all CS rockets are part of the same program, and are interrelated, so they should be kept together until such time as they achieve individual notability (=launch). We can have the current three articles for CS, MSC and rockets and hope to dig up refs, but that's it. I favor adding content first and then spawning. I agree that money and publicity should not be a deciding factor in judging notability, but we have to make do with the refs we are given. I don't know about notability for Dragon and others. TGCP (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
