Talk:Missile launch facility

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Missile launch facility article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Cold War

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Rocketry

	Rocketry portal This article 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Group2Guy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Configuration

I'm replacing the sentence "Personnel would access the LF and LCC through tunnels connecting the two." in the paragraph; the sentence is important since early ICBMs were physically located next to the operations personnel. Only in the Minuteman system were the ICBMs moved far away from the C2 site. TDRSS (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting site pictures on Google Maps

I doubt there are good and free satelite photos released for printing, but many interesting areas can be seen from above, thanks to Google Maps. By entering one of these locations in Gooogle Maps, there are several clusters of rocket silos well visible at Kastrikum, Urup, Kuril islands, Pacific Russia.

loc: 46.208,150.517
loc: 46.212,150.530

(User @ No.Wiki) - TorSch (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above the sea

Is launch facility capable to operate above the sea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.49.30 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The apparent consensus was Do not merge. (sdsds - talk) 05:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: One article focuses on underground facilities (missile silos), the other on above-ground facilities; one on military ICBM's, the other on military and civilian missiles/rockets more generally with an emphasis on spaceflight. Seems distinct enough to me to warrant two articles. Morgan Riley (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per the above. A crappy idea; they are two completely different subjects. And the propposer, Codename Lisa, has not given any reasons for it. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because both are entirely different things. Moreover, Codename Lisa has not given any reason for the proposed merger. - Jayadevp13 15:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article name

The name "Missile launch facility" does not seem to exactly match this article's content. (Not all missile launch facilities are described.) Instead the more familiar term "Missile silo" might be a better option.... That might have helped prevent the good-faith merge proposal above. (sdsds - talk) 05:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]