Talk:Model rocket motor classification

Image:Srbthrust2.svg

The chart doesn't go high enough. Assuming that after Z it should go ZZ, ZZZ, ZZZZ, ZZZZZ the space shuttle boosters should be approximately ZZZZZ10000000.

72.40.45.79 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually ... model rocket motor designations only go up to E or G depending on your definition of "model rocket." The current definition based on FAA regulations limits model rockets to a G motor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadebox (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like this page should be renamed, considering rocket impulse classes that are far beyond consumer-grade are listed (i.e. Shuttle SRB.) 76.174.237.125 (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone please flag this page. It reads like a blog article. Saad Mirza (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Model rocket motor classification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160425210118/http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Diverse/Impulse/index.htm to http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Diverse/Impulse/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Liquid rocket engines (e.g. Rocketdyne F-1) do not belong on this chart. This chart goes by impulse, which depends almost entirely on the size of the propellant tanks. Putting the entire Saturn 1-C stage on here would make sense, but not the engine by itself.

Somebody please review the chart's use of links to commercial products, all by the same vendor. The 1/2A, A, C, and D classifications all have links to a commercial website called bnbrockets.com and takes the user directly to pages where they can purchase products. This is all in the "Aerospace Vehicle or Rocket(s)" column. If we're going to point to typical model rockets, shouldn't we point to pages such as rocketreviews.com, where it's not giving free marketing to a specific company? Kemkerj3 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Came here to say the same, it looks like advertising. The linked pages have no obvious mention of the actual motors used to achieve said impulse either.

2001:7D0:8C42:B400:A288:69FF:FE94:F2E6 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

:University rocketry teams are also adding their in-the-scheme-of-things insignificant rockets. More examples for each class is a good thing but this is ridiculous. See both GTXR rockets and THRUST TU-1 as examples. Mostmadmonkey (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The "Vendors" section reads terribly. It uses very similar wording for "largest vendor in the world", with no citation, and causes confusion. It also fails to mention Aerotech, one of the large vendors oh high-powered motors.

Changes to make:

• Clarify within the text the vendor's field - "model" and "high-power" being defined earlier in the article shouldn't be substituted. Something like "Model rocket motors (G impulse or smaller)" would be an improvement.
• The historical aspect feels disjointed, especially because it goes back to short sentences after.
• Areotech is missing from the list.

MyzMax (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)