Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/RTV-A-2 Hiroc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No consensus to promote at this time - Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

RTV-A-2 Hiroc

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

RTV-A-2 Hiroc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I got it to GA class recently, and I believe it is good enough to be A class, or at least can be improved until that point. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I get a 404 for the page it links to, did you find a non dead-link for the image? Not sure if it requires an active link or not, seems like it should though? Kees08 (Talk) 03:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is a direct link and here is how I got to it.

Oppose by Kees08 (Talk)

• Infobox
  • Propellant in the infobox should include both an oxidizer and a fuel, right now just has an oxidizer.
•  Done? I know it used Liquid-fuel, but I couldn't find the exact type.

  No worries, I will make the edit, revert if you would like. Alcohol is the fuel, liquid oxygen is the oxidizer, and combined they make the propellant. Kees08 (Talk)

  • Believe this is capitalized incorrectly in the infobox - Prototype Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
  •  Done

    Sorry, should have been more clear. It should be Prototype intercontinental ballistic missile, since it starts with prototype and since intercontinental ballistic missile is not a proper noun.

     Done

  • Makes more sense to me if Newton is spelled out or if lbf is used as an abbreviation for pounds-force, so they match - 2,000 pounds-force (8,900 N) each
  •  Done
• Lead
  • This does not seem appropriately capitalized: High-altitude Rocket
  •  Done

    If we are going with the actual capitalization, it should be high-altitude rocket. If we want to show how the acronym is formed, we should do HIgh-altitude ROcket. I prefer the first, but am indifferent. Kees08 (Talk)

  • Same comment on lbf/Newton
  •  Done
  • Expand the lead to include a brief description of the rocket test failures.
• Design
  • Consider rewriting this sentence:
    • From: Gas pressure support reduced the empty weight but made the missiles very fragile and dependent on being pressurized continuously.
    • To: Having gas pressure provide rigidity to the structure reduced the empty weight by requiring less metallic components for structural reinforcement, but made the missile very fragile because it required continuous pressurization
    •  Done
  • Consider rewriting this sentence:
    • From: The nose cone, which contained the ordnance was separated from the rocket.
    • To: The nose cone, which contained the ordnance that would impact the target, would separate from the rocket booster.
    •  Done
  • Try adding in more detail on this, the fact that less heat shielding is required, and that heat shielding is a lot of weight - This made the rocket lighter as only the nose cone and its ordnance had to be able to survive re-entry, rather than the rocket.
    • I have added all the details I could find. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The Hiroc engines had a specific impulse of 210 s at sea level, not the Hiroc itself - The Hiroc had a specific impulse of 210 s at sea level.
  •  Done
  • Rewrite:
    • From: such as the gimbal engines
    • To: such as the gimballed engines
    •  Done
• History
  • What does MX stand for? - and test ten MX-774 Hirocs.
    • Experimental Missile I believe. I know thats the case for the Peacemakers, but I couldn't find a source here for it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Some real long sentences here. Maybe it makes sense to break up the sentences and to have a paragraph for each test?
  •  Done

    Initial concern is resolved, but you should add the sources to the end of each of the newly generated paragraphs. Kees08 (Talk)

  • It is White Sands Proving Grounds, with an s at the end
•  Done

The Google Book I link below says they are specifically swivelled and not gimballed engines. I am not sure what the difference is yet, I have not heard of swivelled engines (probably because I need to brush up on my engine history).

I believe that Gimballed engines can swivel, but swivelling engines are not necessarily gimballed.

I see multiple sources stating it used V-2 technology, which is important considering the Operation Paperclip scientists. Should probably mention that somewhere.

Sources with some additional information (and that make verifying without the books a little easier)

• Astronautix

  Added some refs using this.

• Air and Space Museum

  I used this to add in things about the fuel.Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• The Development of Propulsion Technology for U.S. Space-Launch Vehicles

  This is the wrong MX-774; the MX-774A's were this one; with XLR35-RM-1 engines; the one described here used XLR35-RM-2 engines.

• @Kees08: I believe that's all of them done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: I would like to see a lot more expansion based on the limited sources I have available to me. Some examples include, but not limited to: first missile to use gimballed engines instead of thrust vanes, had the nickname 'Old Fashioned', there is currently no mention of Karel Bossart, no mention that the fins were fixed, a future work section talking about how it led to the development of Atlas would be useful (including what features Atlas used from HIROC), a small background section that talk about MX-774 A and C would be useful to give a general feel for the whole program, no mention of the nitrogen pressurant in the vehicle, and no mention of the H2O2 that powered the turbopumps. I think all of that information is very important to an A-class article on a missile. I did not go through all the sources to gather all the facts, just went through a couple to cherry pick things I thought were important. I can go through the rest if you would feel more comfortable with that. Let me know if that all makes sense, thanks! (all information in this paragraph was found in the sources you have already provided) Kees08 (Talk) 03:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Maury Markowitz

• This article is not suitable for A-class IMHO. I found a number of issues from minor to less minor in the existing text, some of which would make me question it for GA. But more broadly, this article is clearly missing most of the history of the design. I have added a few bits from other articles that touch upon these topics (like Navaho), but I suspect this could be expanded to roughly double its current size without breaking a sweat. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.