Let's make a rocket chart.

[Kerbiter]

Let's make a really long rocket chart. Small, medium, heavy, super heavy orbital launch vehicles are welcome. Itty bitty little different configurations (different huge series of configs or very different upgrades of an LV are allowed) are not allowed. Please recommend some rockets. On the main chart, it'll be sorted by payload lift capacity.

The list so far:

Small: Falcon 1, Pegasus (air launch), Sputnik-R7, Juno I, SCOUT, Vanguard, NOTS Pilot (air launch), SS-520-4, etc.

Medium: Vega, Falcon 9 v1.0, Falcon 9 v1.1, Antares, Atlas V 400 (401 to be shown), Delta IV Medium+ (Medium+ 5/2 to be shown), Saturn IB, Space Shuttle, Soyuz ST-Fregat, Soyuz-2.1b, Soyuz-R7, Soyuz-R7 + Progress, Molniya-R7, Vostok-R7, Voskhod-R7, Delta II, Titan II GLV, Titan 23G, etc.

Heavy: Delta IV Heavy, Proton-M, Falcon 9 FT, Atlas V 500 (531 to be shown), Titan IIIC-Centaur, Vulcan-ACES (561 to be shown), Ariane V

Super Heavy: Falcon Heavy, SLS Block I, SLS Block IB Crew, SLS Block IB Cargo, SLS Block II Cargo, Saturn V, N1, Energia, etc.

Please help add more LVs to this list, contribute with some good art, and please help me define the lifting classes and sort the lifters.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Kerbiter
Added stuff

[winged]

This may be useful for you:

 

[Dfthu]

• Delta II
• Atlas 400
• Titan II ( And the whole family )
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbital_launch_systems ( Tons of rockets )

[kerbiloid]

54 minutes ago, Kerbiter said:

Small: Falcon 1, Sputnik-R7, Juno I, SCOUT, Vanguard, etc.

R-7 ~ 270 t, while F1,J1,V are ~20-30 t. It's medium class.

Edited July 22, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Streetwind]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

R-7 ~ 270 t, while F1,J1,V are ~20-30 t. It's medium class.

Weight of the rocket is not relevant. Launcher classes are ordered by payload to orbit. The R-7 Semyorka ICBM that launched Sputnik could orbit no more than 1.4 tons, so it is classified a small lifter.

Small Lift: 1 kg to 2,000 kg
Medium Lift: 2,001 kg to 20,000 kg
Intermediate Lift: 10,001 kg to 20,000 kg (this classification is used only very rarely, mainly by the US military, but even there not consistently)
Heavy Lift: 20,001 kg to 50,000 kg
Superheavy Lift: 50,001 kg to at least 130,000 kg  (no rocket large enough to warrant another category step up has ever been built, although that might change soon)

There are however some issues with classifying rockets this way, which anyone making such a list should be aware of. For starters, very few rockets specify the same target orbit when naming their payload capability. The most common metric is a 200x200 km parking orbit of the inclination of the launch site. This immediately means that a Soyuz-U launched from Baikonur and a Soyuz-U launched from Guyana Space Center have different payloads to orbit, even though they are literally identical rockets. And then there are rockets which use a different metric altogether, such as Rocket Lab's Electron rocket, for which the only officially advertised payload figure is towards a 500 km sun-synchronous polar orbit.

Even if you succeed norming every launch vehicle to a satisfactorily similar orbit, your list will still look different depending on which orbit you pick. For example, if you choose geostationary or Earth Escape, hydrolox rockets like the Delta IV will be higher up the list. Whereas if you choose a tight low Erth parking orbit, kerolox, solid and hypergolics-burning launchers are going to be further up. This is due to how different fuel types scale in efficiency as you transition from atmosphere to vacuum.

And then, there's an issue with paper stats versus IRL performance. SpaceX is a convenient poster child for this. For their latest Falcon 9 upgrade, to be completed sometime this year, they are advertising as much as 22,800 kg to LEO. This would make Falcon 9 a heavy lifter. However, should it be listed that way, if it is never going to fly that way? Because this is a fully expendable performance, and SpaceX does not plan to fly fully expendable ever again. Additionally, the payload fairing of the F9 is not that large. The largest payloads ever fit under it so far were less than half that mass. It might be physically impossible to place that large a payload onto this rocket. So is the F9 still a medium lifter then, despite its potential raw performance, which largely exists to offset reusability losses? You can argue either way.

The Falcon Heavy sits in the same boat. Fully expendable, it pushes 53,000 kg to LEO, and that's superheavy territory. However, that rocket too will never fly fully expendable. Also, it is stuck with the same tiny payload fairing that the F9 has. You're not putting half a fully loaded shuttle orbiter under that thing! The rocket is largely designed to lift ~10 ton payloads to geostationary orbit and Earth Escape, compensating the poor performance of kerolox in vacuum and the reusability penalty by sheer fuel mass. So do you put the Falcon Heavy under superheavy lift, or under heavy lift? You can argue either way.

[Kryten]

You've got big rockets pretty-well represented, but there are launchers much smaller than you've got; Japan's SS-520-4 is under 3 tons, and the NOTS Pilot was under a ton (albeit with air launch). You'll probably also want Ariane 4, given how much of a workhorse that was.

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, Streetwind said:

So do you put the Falcon Heavy under superheavy lift, or under heavy lift? You can argue either way.

I would use "orbital (kinetic energy + potential energy) of cargo" value if I build my personal classification. Maybe divided by (7900²/2) to operate with tonnes.

Also, though Space Shuttle optimistic payload is 29.5 t (afaik, the real one was 24 t), but it's cabin (10 t or what?) would also be added, because it's like a dragon-class ship attached with nails.
(But yes, in both cases it's between 20 and 50).

Edited July 22, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Streetwind]

True, the shuttle was sorta special because it blurred the line between lifter and payload. (Like, you can't even take the orbiter off and examine the STS lifter alone, because it needs the orbiter to fly.)

[CaelumEtAstra]

This may or may not help. Note the "untitled space craft" at the end.

[Kerbiter]

7 hours ago, Kryten said:

You've got big rockets pretty-well represented, but there are launchers much smaller than you've got; Japan's SS-520-4 is under 3 tons, and the NOTS Pilot was under a ton (albeit with air launch). You'll probably also want Ariane 4, given how much of a workhorse that was.

Alright, I am looking to add that.

 

8 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Weight of the rocket is not relevant. Launcher classes are ordered by payload to orbit. The R-7 Semyorka ICBM that launched Sputnik could orbit no more than 1.4 tons, so it is classified a small lifter.

Small Lift: 1 kg to 2,000 kg
Medium Lift: 2,001 kg to 20,000 kg
Intermediate Lift: 10,001 kg to 20,000 kg (this classification is used only very rarely, mainly by the US military, but even there not consistently)
Heavy Lift: 20,001 kg to 50,000 kg
Superheavy Lift: 50,001 kg to at least 130,000 kg  (no rocket large enough to warrant another category step up has ever been built, although that might change soon)

There are however some issues with classifying rockets this way, which anyone making such a list should be aware of. For starters, very few rockets specify the same target orbit when naming their payload capability. The most common metric is a 200x200 km parking orbit of the inclination of the launch site. This immediately means that a Soyuz-U launched from Baikonur and a Soyuz-U launched from Guyana Space Center have different payloads to orbit, even though they are literally identical rockets. And then there are rockets which use a different metric altogether, such as Rocket Lab's Electron rocket, for which the only officially advertised payload figure is towards a 500 km sun-synchronous polar orbit.

Even if you succeed norming every launch vehicle to a satisfactorily similar orbit, your list will still look different depending on which orbit you pick. For example, if you choose geostationary or Earth Escape, hydrolox rockets like the Delta IV will be higher up the list. Whereas if you choose a tight low Erth parking orbit, kerolox, solid and hypergolics-burning launchers are going to be further up. This is due to how different fuel types scale in efficiency as you transition from atmosphere to vacuum.

And then, there's an issue with paper stats versus IRL performance. SpaceX is a convenient poster child for this. For their latest Falcon 9 upgrade, to be completed sometime this year, they are advertising as much as 22,800 kg to LEO. This would make Falcon 9 a heavy lifter. However, should it be listed that way, if it is never going to fly that way? Because this is a fully expendable performance, and SpaceX does not plan to fly fully expendable ever again. Additionally, the payload fairing of the F9 is not that large. The largest payloads ever fit under it so far were less than half that mass. It might be physically impossible to place that large a payload onto this rocket. So is the F9 still a medium lifter then, despite its potential raw performance, which largely exists to offset reusability losses? You can argue either way.

The Falcon Heavy sits in the same boat. Fully expendable, it pushes 53,000 kg to LEO, and that's superheavy territory. However, that rocket too will never fly fully expendable. Also, it is stuck with the same tiny payload fairing that the F9 has. You're not putting half a fully loaded shuttle orbiter under that thing! The rocket is largely designed to lift ~10 ton payloads to geostationary orbit and Earth Escape, compensating the poor performance of kerolox in vacuum and the reusability penalty by sheer fuel mass. So do you put the Falcon Heavy under superheavy lift, or under heavy lift? You can argue either way.

Those are some good definitions for the lift classes (intermediate is not being added as it intersects with medium), Falcon Heavy is still in Super Heavy. Calling it a Heavy lifter is an understatement.

10 hours ago, Dfthu said:

• Delta II
• Atlas 400
• Titan II ( And the whole family )
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbital_launch_systems ( Tons of rockets )

Delta II, Titan II have been added to the list. By Atlas 400 do you mean Atlas V 400 series?

[Dfthu]

3 hours ago, Kerbiter said:

By Atlas 400 do you mean Atlas V 400 series?

Yes I do.

[Kerbiter]

7 hours ago, Dfthu said:

Yes I do.

That was there already.

[Quantum_XERO]

Don't forget the Chinese rockets

Long March Family (1-11)

Class: probably medium

 

[theeternalpotato]

On July 22, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Mrsupersonic8 said:

This may or may not help. Note the "untitled space craft" at the end.

Haha, found this picture in a daily mail article 

 

[AlmostNASA]

Falcon X and falcon XX in heavy or superheavy. Angara in medium or heavy. Delta A-N small. 

[Kryten]

36 minutes ago, AlmostNASA said:

Falcon X and falcon XX in heavy or superheavy. Angara in medium or heavy. Delta A-N small. 

If you're including Falcon XX you might as well have the Starship Enterprise.

[Bill Phil]

54 minutes ago, Kryten said:

If you're including Falcon XX you might as well have the Starship Enterprise.

Which enterprise?

 

On topic: The space shuttle is a bit strange, since the effective payload was different depending on which orbiter you used. I think its maximum was 24 tonnes. So, if heavy is greater than 20 tonnes, it should be in both. 

A small rocket would be the Thor based ones. Delta II is a descendent, but not all Thors were straight cylinders. The early ones used different engines, SRBs, upper stages, and so on than Delta-II.

[wumpus]

6 hours ago, Kryten said:

If you're including Falcon XX you might as well have the Starship Enterprise.

Maybe not the Enterprise, but certainly lolKerbal.

[magnemoe]

5 hours ago, wumpus said:

Maybe not the Enterprise, but certainly lolKerbal.

Yes, also sea dragon and similar paper heavy lifters. 
However untitled spacecraft wins in stupidity, that is an obvious joke craft. An SLS block 2 with SLS block one boosters is kerbal but make sense. However not using 4 falcon9 with upper stage and dragon as boosters, nor putting dragon pods on two SLS SRB. 
Payload is just as stupid, its the Saturn 5 payload + a space shuttle. Why not a block 2 for moon and the shuttle in an operate launch  

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

I say that we put fh expendable in super heavy and fh reusable in heavy.