Talk:Blue Origin Goddard

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


Generally unless the vehicle in question is going to be forever unique and important in its own right, the individual vehicles should be part of the main article on the class as a whole. For instance, there were only a few YF-107's built, but we don't give them all their own articles. One might argue that the Goddard is the first and thus important, but no more so than the first B-1, for instance. Maury 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I stronly disagree. I think Goddard will not only be the first but the only one of its type. Subsequent vehicles will be larger and with different rocket engines. You couldn't send a cat at 100 km with a vehicle this size. Goddard is a demonstrator, not a prototype. Hektor 20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to be at odds with the company's public statements. But even if this is the only one built, there are more things to consider:
The name is Goddard, they still call the design the New Shepard.
Even if future versions are larger, the design appears to be largely the same. Would you agree that this represents a sub-scale demonstrator? Well then...
Sub-scale aircraft don't generally get their own articles either, consider the Short Stirling.
Neither do other prototypes, as I mentioned. In both cases they get a sub-section in the main article.
The entire article is one paragraph long. How could this not be folded into the main article?
Maury 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You are reasoning aeronautics I think. In space there are separate articles for demonstrators. See Hopper and Phoenix, X-38 and Crew Return Vehicle. I think also that Goddard will have many tests flights before moving to a larger prototype of the New Shepard and that this will justify many sections about its flight history and characteristics in the coming months. Hektor 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RVing my comments, they were wrong. However it remains unclear to me if these examples are the same thing. Only time will tell, so I will remove the notice for now. Maury 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not enough information is available on Goddard to make it stand as its own article. If there is anything not in the New Shepard article, which I doubt, then merge it and drop this article. If history shows any significance to this one vehicle then a separate article can always be forked from the parent article later. --StuffOfInterest 13:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep -- many people may search for Goddard, who may not have heard of Blue Origin, or Blue Origin New Shepard !! GT40 13:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blue Origin Goddard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]