Talk:Boilerplate (rocketry)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: High

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Moved from main article

"The term should not be confused with the term Battleship, which refers to a rocket or stage built for ground testing, i.e. not flight-weight.

A "boilerplate" in rocketry means a simply robotic mission. an example is Big Joe 1. (I believe this to be incorrect)" Source unknown.

Big Joe 1, an Atlas rocket, was used to test Mecury boilerplates, and NASA webpages used the terminology robotic missions... sooooo, the unknown source was correct. LanceBarber 15:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New

I suggest visiting the main article Boilerplate for various definitions and usages. LanceBarber 07:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub removed

Various NASA subject related articles that uses the boilplate terminology has been searched and links to boilerplates have been made... and conversely. Variety of uses, photos, internal and external links have been established. LanceBarber 07:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where from?

Could someone describe where the use of this word comes from? To me it is not yet intuitive -DePiep 19:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Boilerplate, a relatively thick sheet of high quality steel, suitable for building boilers. LanceBarber 07:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. My 8 year puzzle is over. I think it's worth putting this in the article itself. -DePiep 20:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, not Wiki format, see Boilerplate disambig page, where it is appropriate for multiple definitions and links. Another example, Gemini has many definitions, and each Wikipedia article can not have all the definitions in each one.LanceBarber 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise

The entire section entitled "Space Shuttle OV-101" should be removed. Enterprise was not a boilerplate Shuttle. It was a full-production model, which was originally intended to be converted to flight status. The only reason that it never flew in space was that design changes between its construction, and the construction of Columbia made conversion impractical. If we are going to mention any Shuttle, Pathfinder would be more appropriate. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the Enterprise is not a boilerplate. Paragraph is written from the wiki article links and sources as a "boilerplate configuration". This gives depth to the article in how NASA used the Enterprise as IF it were a boilerplate for the vibration test. Don't you agree? I have not investigated enought of Pathfinder to voice an opinion, at this time. How would you write and reference Pathfinder as a boilerplate? LanceBarber (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"Boilerplate configuration" and "Boilerplate test program" imply that Enterprise is boilerplate. You posted on my talk page that the term was first used in another article. Another wiki article should never be used as a source. I think that it should be removed from the article, as it was not a boilerplate. As for pathfinder, have a look at its article, and see if it warrants inclusion. One option for a compromise could be renaming the section "Space Shuttle programme" or something, mainly about pathfinder, and other test articles such as MPTA-098 and MPTA-ET, with a few brief notes about Enterprise being used in place of a boilerplate for some tests. We must be careful not to confuse boilerplates and battleships, though. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 09:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Found some NASA articles that uses the terminology, "boilerplate configuration". I added another subsection. As for Patherfinder, no mention in the article nor references in using or refering to Pathfinder as a boilerplate. For all practical purposes, Pathfinder was a boilerplate. But if we stretched the Pathfinder and used it in that context, we'd be "stretching" it, not good, may be considered "original work". As for using it as a source, probably should have used maybe as a internal link... which is what I did. I can rewrite a few sentences and improve its context. LanceBarber (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boilerplate configuration

In researhing boilerplate configurations, I found a few references of NASA 's usage of the terminology.:

It may be appropriate to create a new article on Boilerplate configuration... or continue to expand this article. Any thoughts?LanceBarber (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)