Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Template:Orbital launches by year

Members of Timeline of spaceflight working group,

Orbital launches by year template needs 17 more yearly templates to be created. I had decided to work on the same, this month. Anybody, interested to reduce the workload is WELCOME. All I need is an EXPERT REVIEW to be done once the template is created / or placed on the respective Spaceflight page (For eg, To check whether only Orbital launches are listed, Manned flights indicated in bold text, Uncatalogued launch failures listed in italics & Payloads deployed from other spacecraft in brackets). Also, Kindly update the below table in order to avoid duplication of work.

@WDGraham, Thanks ! for the Review of 1990. - Ninney (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Orbital launches by year
Year Status Review Year Status Review Year Status Review
{{Orbital launches in 1970}}  Done  Done {{Orbital launches in 1972}}  Done  Done {{Orbital launches in 1973}}  Done  Done
{{Orbital launches in 1974}}  Done  Done {{Orbital launches in 1975}}  Done  Done {{Orbital launches in 1976}}  Done  Done
{{Orbital launches in 1977}}  Done  Done {{Orbital launches in 1978}}  Done  Done {{Orbital launches in 1979}}  Done  Done
{{Orbital launches in 1983}}  Done  Done {{Orbital launches in 1984}}  Done  Done {{Orbital launches in 1985}}  Done  Done
{{Orbital launches in 1986}}  Done  Done {{Orbital launches in 1987}}  Done  Done {{Orbital launches in 1988}}  Done  Done
{{Orbital launches in 1989}}  Done  Done {{Orbital launches in 1990}}  Done  Done
  • I appreciate the sentiment, but while I've been doing a lot of review work recently - such as adding language tags which is boring as hell - I prefer to write stuff. --W. D. Graham 20:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done ----W. D. Graham(editing from a public network) 22:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Naming of GPS SVN articles

I recently noticed that the articles on specific GPS constellation SVs use the USA spacecraft designations, e.g. USA-183 for GPS-SVN 53. While the USA spacecraft numbers are interesting, and well-suited to retention in a list (List of USA satellites), they are not used commonly at all. GPS satellites are primarily referred to by PRN, but because this is ambiguous because PRN slots are occupied by different SVs over time, the SVN numbers are what are used by the GPS community when referring to a particular spacecraft. I would suggest renaming all of the articles on GPS satellites to GPS SVN XX or something like that per WP:COMMONNAME. Objections? Issues? Discussion? siafu (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Each satellite has three names which are widely used in three different fields. When discussing the satellites in the contect of their place in the GPS system, then yes the PRNs and SVNs are typically used; however when discussing them in the context of launches their block numbers are tyically used, and when discussing them as satellites then their names are used - those names being he USA designations. While it is very field-depndant I would argue that the SVNs aren't actually names, and in any case due to the lack of a common name, we've defaulted to their "official" names. It also helps to avoid confusion between SVNs and SV numbers, which were introduced with the IIF series. --W. D. Graham 21:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The SVN #'s are just as official as any other names, and have the benefit over the USA spacecraft designations of actually being used, e.g. at the NGA, USCG Navigation Center, and the USNO. You will be hard-pressed to find any references to the USA #'s outside of wikipedia; this is not field-specific. siafu (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
It also appears that nearly all of the articles named for USA satellite numbers were created by you last July; while the effort and work is appreciated, I think we've gone astray on this one, and I hope we can get some more discussion on the topic. siafu (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
One point of note: NORAD uses the SVN as the spacecraft name (e.g. NAVSTAR 64). Interesting case - I would need more time to think about which stance to take...... Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure the "NAVSTAR" names used by NORAD correspond exactly to the SVNs. My view is that there are so many competing names available the best option is to use the "official" ones and put plenty of redirects in place for the rest. The articles are stable and fit nicely into a series of other spaceflight articles using USA/Kosmos/OPS designations. --W. D. Graham 09:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no reason to suggest the USA numbers are "official" in a sense that the SVN numbers are not. Moreover, the claim that they are stable and fit well is irrelevant-- certainly they fit well in part because you made so many articles with the same naming scheme. We are, however, bound by policy to use the names for subjects that are in common use, and by this principle the SVN numbers have the much greater claim. siafu (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"Apollo Eleven"

The usage of Apollo Eleven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Apollo Eleven -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that Reconnaissance satellite, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Articles should be merged

A new article Orbiting skyhooks and an older but far shorter article Skyhook (structure) need to be merged as they are basically about the same topic. I don't know enough about the subject to do the merge myself, so I'm passing the buck here. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The merge discussion is progressing, with two editors having weighed in to date (including me). However, it is not clear which title of the article ought to stay and go into the future:Orbiting skyhooks or Skyhook (structure). Could definitely use comment by a few additional editors, especially someone more familiar than I with spaceflight article naming conventions. N2e (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

Turksat 1-A & Türksat 1A

Turksat 1-A redirects to the article Turksat (satellite) but there is an article by the name Türksat 1A, so do we need to delete the redirect ? - Ninney (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There would be no reason to delete the redirect. I've simply changed it to point to "Türksat 1A". — Huntster (t @ c) 04:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 Resolved Thanks! - Ninney (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tianzhou (a.k.a. future Chinese space station logistics spacecraft)

Is it time to start an article on the planned Chinese cargo capsule? [1][2] It's been discussed for a few years now, and isn't a Shenzhou variant. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As someone who have followed the Chinese space program very closely I have several news sources, unfortunately (as with all news on Chinese spaceflight) it's all over the place and almost every one of them are in Chinese. I may be able to start one depending on getting spare time to do so. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ion thruster

In the second paragraph article: "Ion thrusters' exhaust velocity are often in the range of 15–50 kilometres per second (1,500–5,100 s), and will have a specific thrust usually below a newton per tonne. Thruster efficiency may reach 60–80%."

But Input power: 1 to 7 kilowatts Exhaust velocity: 20 to 50 kilometers per second Thrust: 20 to 250 millinewtons Efficiency: 60 to 80 percent. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Number of first stage engines of the Titan GLV etc

There is a discussion at Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles and Talk:LR-87#Affected articles that is within the scope of this Wikiproject. Please discuss it there. Andrewa (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

New article Jack Kinzler

Just an FYI that I've created an article about NASA's "Mr. Fix It" Jack Kinzler, who recently died. He was responsible for the sunshade that saved Skylab, the Lunar Flag Assembly, the Lunar plaque, and the six-iron head that Alan Shepard used to invent the sport of lunar golf. Get in there and edit! --JohnPomeranz (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Cubesats and micro-payloads in "year of spaceflight" articles

The recent surge of large number of cubesats launches since late 2013 has caused problems with listing them in individual "year of spaceflight" articles. Here are a selection of them:

  • Many of these satellites are transported to the ISS by logistics spacecrafts and are either deployed from the Japanese Experiment Module's experiment airlock or manually deployed during EVAs, and the numbers are rising quickly (34 were launched on the last Cygnus, and at least some are planned on the next Dragon/Cygnus/HTV). Should we find a way to individually mark them as being deployed from the ISS?
  • Many of these cubesats seems (or will be) launched in clusters, often copies of the same cubesat design (e.g. the 28 Flock-1 imaging cubesats deployed from the ISS lately). In these cases can one shorten the list item for these cubesats into one single group to save space? (e.g. compare this shortened version of the Flock-1 listing with this one)
  • What constitutes a "satellite"? To be launched on the next Dragon spacecraft is a cubesat called KickSat that will deploy into LEO ~200 "Sprites" that are little more than circuit boards with solar array and sensors attached. So would we need 200+ listings for that? If not, where should the line be drawn?

Comments are welcome. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As for the last: I think the sane answer is "no". The term subsatellite has been applied for one orbital spacecraft deployed by another (e.g. in the last 3 Apollo lunar flights). I think it makes sense to draw the line at multiple subsatellites deployed by a single satellite, which is what that sounds like. I certainly don't think it's Wikipedia's job to catalog every object launched into space; other agencies do that.
(And I realize this is a bit off-topic, but please forgive, this begs the rhetorical question: Why, in heaven's name, are they planning to do things like this given the existing problem with space debris?) JustinTime55 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it makes intuitive sense to bundle constellations into one article, particularly when dealing with large numbers of small or otherwise individually uninteresting spacecraft. siafu (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
In response to Siafu, we currently assume spacecraft are notable enough to warrant their own articles if there is sufficient material to produce an article about them beyond a basic stub. This policy has served us reasonably well and trying to revise it is likely to reopen a can of worms which would best remain shut. In principle a few years down the line if somebody were to do enough research on the individual satellites they probably could create articles on each of the Flock-1 satellites, maybe even some of the Sprites. The chances of this are slim, but with things like CubeSats we have been continuing to list them in TLS articles and OLBY templtes, etc, for completeness. I would be strongly opposed to any blanket proposal, anything which would leave us without somewhere to put information on satellites launched for a particular mission (as opposed to constellation) and anything which would make our coverage of these mission uneven.
In principle I agree that a line should be drawn - the problem is finding the right place to draw it. In the templates I've written I excluded things such as "Romb" subsatellites deployed from Soviet calibration spacecraft, film capsules and (mercifully) the Westford Needles. That said there are some notable subsatellites (the Apollo ones probably should have articles). So my suggestion would be excluding something along the lines of "Multiple identical subsatellites deployed from a single parent satellite as part of its primary mission" from the lists and templates.
The "year in spaceflight" articles were always intended to be comprehensive lists, so all individual missions should always be listed. I would see each of the Flock satellites as having its own mission (they're not part of the ISS' mission), while I would see the Sprites as part of the KickSat mission. --W. D. Graham 19:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem, of course, being that we don't currently assume that spacecraft are notable enough in their own right to warrant their own articles, and frequently wrap them together in articles on constellations, like COSMIC and Iridium for example. It's not opening up a can of worms to simply acknowledge that. We could also, for the purposes of the list, use a table with collapsible sub-cells, showing something like "Flock constellation" when collapsed and listing the SVs when expanded. siafu (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
That is simply not the case. Articles such as those are the exception rather than the rule, where they do exist they are often eventually spun out into articles, and the purpose of pages such as the Iridium one is to cover the constellation as a whole rather than the satellites themselves. We do see all individual spacecraft as notable; we tend to treat them much like individual ships: a typical communications satellite is an engineering project on the same scale and order of cost as a typical naval vessel while smaller spacecraft break new ground in science - c.f. research vessels - so it is a good analogy. You have an article on the ship itself, an article on the class of ship - such as the type of satellite, bus, etc - and an article on the fleet it belongs to. For Iridium most of the individual satellites don't currently have articles; Eutelsat is perhaps a better example:
I am yet to see any convincing argument that our current system for individual articles doesn't work. --W. D. Graham 21:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Galactic Penguin's post starting this discussion is a convincing argument for how the system can fail us. It seems that in all these discussions, you plead bureaucratic objections to the proposals-- "we can't group satellites together because that's just not how it's done", essentially. Not only can we do so if we choose, but we do, and there are numerous examples, like GRACE and GRAIL. We don't need a hard and fast rule as to when to have one over the other since we aren't drones, and it's not at all unreasonable to suggest grouping large constellations of small satellites-- KickSat being an extreme example. We are not likely to, nor should we, produce 200 individual stubs covering every picosat involved. Again, as for the list, we can certainly leverage the technology to have it both ways-- a collapsible sublist will include every little entry without overwhelming the reader with hordes of near-identical entries. Also, for the record, I'm a working spacecraft engineer (working on COSMIC-2), so I'm familiar with the engineering challenges involved in building, launching, and operating spacecraft-- so let's leave that aside. siafu (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I very much disagree with the 'each satellite has its own mission' assertion. For instance, there were three round balls launched with CASSIOPE called POPACS 1, 2, and 3. The mission is POPACS. it has 3 satellites. Each one by itself would be worthless. They only give information when their orbits are compared with one other. Likewise constellations of satellites have a mission. Each one performs just PART of the mission. In many cases individual satellites are just not noteworthy. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
To me, it does not make sense to distinguish individual satellites if they all are the same hardware, they're flown at the same time, and the only real difference is in where they happen to be positioned. For the 'year in spaceflight' articles, they should be listed on a single line, with a notation as to how many there were, to avoid clutter and adding to navigation difficulties. The individual lines for each Flock-1 satellite in the 2014 in spaceflight article is nonesense. No one gives a hairy rodent's behind to any particular one of those satellites. Comm and positioning satellites are the same way. --14:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.154.0 (talk)
One more thing - no information is lost by listing the satellites on a single line with the notation of how many were launched. Let me repeat that - NO INFORMATION IS LOST by listing the satellites on a single line. You just clutter the article by listing each on a separate line. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

````

Nothing is lost except for orbit data, decay information, satellite names, individual mission outcomes and consistency of style without the need for arbitrary discrimination? --W. D. Graham 09:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
A solution might be to use drop down lists that can be shown or hide for smaller payloads - this can make the list less cluttered while keeping all the data on the list. I don't know if it is doable with the Wiki lexicon though.... Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I did some experimenting, and it seems that it is possible, see this example. siafu (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
We're talking about the listing on the 'xxxx in spacelfight' articles, whether to list each copy of the satellite on a different line, or all together on one line. The orbit data, decay info, etc. are not listed there anyway. If someone is interested, they can find the appropriate article. So, I repeat -- no information is lost. --02:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.154.0 (talk)
Oh - and advocating that each of the individual satellites should be listed is like advocating that each person should have their own article in wikipedia because of the potential that they may someday be notable. That's against wiki policy and rather foolish. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there further consensus needed on this topic? Also, at which point do we employ collapsing? For example, GRAIL and GRACE both sensibly can be put in one line each as constellations, but TerraSAR-X and Tandem-X, since they were launched so far apart in time, might be best left separate. Does anyone care, or should I just make a sandbox version? siafu (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Years in Spaceflight

I've noticed that some articles on years in Spaceflight (for example: 1961 in spaceflight) have been divided into separate articles based on months. Why do we do that ? Is it not better to keep it a single Article like 2012 in spaceflight, 2013 in spaceflight or 2014 in spaceflight? Zince34' 09:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The articles for those years got so large they started to cause problems; some wouldn't save properly and in some cases they even hit the parser limits. --W. D. Graham 20:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Rfd for redirects to Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

There is discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_2#Gravitational_observatory regarding redirects to Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Redirects

Can we nominate the below redirects for RFD ? Note, their is no trivial edit history pertaining to the satellites. Please suggest, if their are any alternate ways.

There is no article by the name AMC-2 or Americom-2 & is currently redirected to an article on a ship, USS Magpie (AMc-2). Refer {{SES World Skies}}.

There is no article by the name Iridium 77 & is currently redirected to an article on an alternative hip hop artist from Guelph, Ontario.

- Ninney (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel AMC-2 should be made a disambiguation page. Zince34' 10:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
AMC-2 should, in fact, be a disambiguation page. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Iridium 77

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.
Discussion closed for Iridium 77. Thanks! Zince34', The Bushranger & FoCuSandLeArN. Please also do participate in the redirect discussion of Iridium 77 here.
Iridium-77, well, should be nominated. Zince34' 10:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Now I realized Iridium-77 should redirect to the element. Zince34' 11:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am trying to create an article about Iridium-77, so we should probably wait for some more time. Zince34' 11:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Go Ahead for the article on Iridium-77. Thanks ! - Ninney (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2014 (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.

AMC-2

  • It's an incorrect capitalisation of a little-used alternative designation for an obscure ship. I'd say do what we've already done with most of the AMC series; make AMC-2 about the satellite and put a hatnote in place just in case anyone happens to be looking for the ship. WP:NATURAL/WP:DIFFCAPS alone would be enough to justify putting the article about the satellite at AMC-2. --W. D. Graham 11:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Rocket engine naming

A discussion is underway at WT:ROCKETRY#Article naming that may interest the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yury or Yuri

While looking at the list of astronauts by first flight I noticed that there are two varieties of the spelling of the given name Yury. In the list are 7 Yury’s and 5 Yuri’s their Russian name are all spelled Ю́рий. I was wondering if some are wrong translated? Pindanl (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yuri would probably be a wee bit closer to the Russian pronunciation. The translations are basically phonetic. The name of the Russian mathematian, Tchebychev, gets translated with about 6 different spellings. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Mockup Inspiration

The Space Shuttle Orbiter mockup refered to as Inspiration is not located in Florida and never has been. It is located in Downey currently in the City of Downey Public Works Yard. It is constructed of plywood and plastic with no steel used in its structural fabrication. The mockup was not abandoned but donated to the City by the Boeing Company when they left the property. There never was an OV designation assigned to this mockup.

@108.185.42.205:: What makes you open a new section here ? Zince34 (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

See Space Shuttle Inspiration. I've distinguished the subject of this article from the replica located at the Astronaut Hall of Fame. They are two completely different objects. I've also done some cleaning, but it needs quite a bit more work. I'd like to write a separate article on the HoF vehicle, but there just isn't any information out there that I can find. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

'year' parameter in Infobox year in spaceflight

{{Infobox year in spaceflight}} now has a |year= parameter, for improved data granularity, and an emits an hCalendar microformat. The parameter would allow us to add "previous" and next" links, for instance, if people thought that desirable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

For assessment purposes, how should we assess "Comparison of..." articles?

WikiProject Spaceflight has a decently large number of "Comparison of ..." articles. These seem to differ a bit from pure "List of ..." articles in that the comparison articles attempt to marshal quite a bit of data, generally in sortable columns, that are (conceivably) sourced so that the reader can both compare some metric or the other in the various items in the comparison table, whereas List articles may merely be some sort of a bulleted list with links to related Wiki articles.

Examples include Comparison of orbital launch systems, Comparison of orbital rocket engines, Comparison of space station cargo vehicles, Comparison of orbital launchers families, etc. Some of these comparison articles are incomplete and/or rather poorly sourced, and so are of rather low quality on the project assessment scale; others are more complete and/or better sourced.

Our assessment of these articles is uneven. For example, in the four articles listed above, two are assessed as Lists (which require no importance assessment), while one is assessed as a Stub article of Low importance, and the other is unassessed.

My question is, for purposes of standardization across the Spaceflight Wikiproject, should we think of these articles in the ordinary Stub/Start/C/B/GA scale of article quality, each with an importance criteria assigned? Or ought we just assess them all as List, where no importance assessment need even be made?

Will appreciate input from others in the project with interest in general article improvement of spaceflight-related articles. Thanks. N2e (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd say assess them as lists, as I can't see them ever really being able to progress in terms of quality in the same way that lists can't. There again I think they should actually be turned into lists, so feel free to treat my view with a pinch of salt. --W. D. Graham 18:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Skyhooks

I have been attempting to write an article on Skyhooks on the Skyhook (structure) page, and have been running into non-stop vandalism from a specific wiki editor. I have attempted to engage this editor in rational discussion but to no avail. You can see it all on the Talk page for the article. Now this editor has locked the article. It is an issue that needs to be resolved and I would appreciate your investigating the issue. The article in dispute is as follows: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.145.35 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 April 2014‎

<removed inappropriate copypasta of article, folks can look at the history if they're interested> — Huntster (t @ c) 04:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Your preferred version of the article was removed because it appears to pay no heed to reality, amongst other things, to put it bluntly. I for one support the reversions, and you need to follow the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, in which you go to the talk page and find consensus for your proposed changes, rather than edit war to have them included. Remember, while WP:BOLD is encouraged, if someone disputes them, you do not have a right to those edits remaining in the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If it pays no heed to reality then why is it included in this NASA report? [3]

And don't forget this one.[4]

And these. Other scientists and engineers, as well as NASA, Lockheed Martin, and former astronaut Bruce McCandless II have also investigated, validated, and added to the concept.[5][6][7][8]

And here is another one.[9]

  1. ^ "China expects to launch cargo ship into space around 2016". Space Daily. 6 March 2014.
  2. ^ Morris Jones (3 March 2014). "The Next Tiangong". Space Daily.
  3. ^ Smitherman, D. V., "Space Elevators, An Advanced Earth-Space Infrastructure for the New Millennium", NASA/CP-2000-210429 [1]
  4. ^ Sarmont, E. (October 1994). "How an Earth Orbiting Tether Makes Possible an Affordable Earth-Moon Space Transportation System". SAE 942120.
  5. ^ Mottinger, T., Marshall, L., “The Bridge to Space – A space access architecture”, AIAA 2000-5138 [2]
  6. ^ Mottinger, T., Marshall, L., “The Bridge to Space Launch System”, CP552, Space Technology and Applications International Forum, 2001 [3]
  7. ^ Marshall, L., Ladner, D., McCandless, B., "The Bridge to Space: Elevator Sizing & Performance Analysis", CP608, Space Technology and Applications International Forum, 2002 [4]
  8. ^ Stasko, S., Flandro, G., “The Feasibility of an Earth Orbiting Tether Propulsion System”, AIAA 2004-3901 [5]
  9. ^ Wilson, N. (August 1998). "Space Elevators, Space Hotels and Space Tourism". SpaceFuture.com.

class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.145.35 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Same drama, different page. User Skyhook1 (aka 72.199.145.35 and 192.34.40.26): Several updated references in the current version explain that the tether material required (for both: orbiting skyhook and space elevators) must have a tensile strength only the theoretical limit of carbon nanotubes fiber might provide in the future.
You are indulging in WP:original research when you don't source your assays, when you do it often fails verification, and you indulge in WP:synthesis when you state that TORAY T1000GB fibers can and "will" be used for a skyhook orbiting Earth, but provide no reference stating so. Then you even include SpaceX when there is no relation whatsoever and were told so by 2 editors. I personally explained WP:verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources several times for at least one month. You don't need to keep demanding "freedom of speech" but understand WP:what Wikipedia is not. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

And Cheers to you. Try reading the references, hopefully the words won't be too big for you. I am not going to restate our disagreements here, if anyone is interested they will go to the Skyhook (structure) Talk page. You have also made it very clear that your mind is 100% closed and that you have no understanding of even the simplest of engineering concepts so what is the point? I still find it amazing that wikipedia would allow a self-proclaimed biologist from England and a police dispatcher from Tenn. to speak for them regarding space science issues. I guess you two are both smarter than all the folks at NASA and Lockheed who have worked on this. Wow! Maybe you should both apply to work at NASA, Lockheed, or SpaceX, then you could really turn around the space program for us all. Well, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance when you go for your interview you can always try to baffle them with bull. And if that doesn't work for you, you can always go back to reading comic books, playing tough guy on the internet, and eating donuts. So all is not lost even for someone like you. In any case it is obvious that we are not going to settle our disagreement without an adult third party who is knowledgeable about space science. So why don't you try acting like an adult and wait for the results - or does that make you so nervous that you can't remain silent? Tsk, tsk, children can be such a burden. Well if you want to keep on trading insults you know where to contact me. It will pass the time while we wait and I do find you amusing. Sweet dreams little one, don't let mummy forget to tuck you in, and no reading comics under the covers with a flashlight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.145.35 (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________

Huntster After thinking about it for a bit and considering your background, I don't consider you qualified to make the rules regarding the appropriateness of my placing my version of the article on skyhooks here where it is easy for all the other editors to read and form their own opinion. From my perspective there appears to be a pattern of behavior here where the established editors attempt to control everything by controlling the information and making rude comments. Then there is the fact that BI removed my version of the article from the Skyhook (structure) Talk page which only adds fuel to the thought that the two of you have something to hide. If I am incorrect about that then maybe the two of you should start taking responsibility for how you come across in your messages. So here it is again. Obviously you can remove it again but that will at least let me know that you are reading this and that you do have something to hide. If not, hopefully someone with an aerospace, engineering, or physics background will be willing to look into it and checkout the supporting peer reviewed references and validate the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.145.35 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 22 April 2014‎ (UTC)

<removed copy/paste article again>

You don't have to consider me qualified in the field of skyhooks; I'm telling you as an administrator on this site that it isn't appropriate to copy and paste an article onto any talk page, end of story. I really don't understand the "something to hide" comments, either. Regardless, if you want feedback on your material, which is absolutely encouraged, then on the article talk page lay out the points you'd like to see changed and invite comment on those. This is not the appropriate place. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
And Hunster beat me to it. Copying nad pasting an article anywhere is called copyright violation. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
And after reading the above, blocked the IP 24 hours for personal attacks. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Micro-Imaging Dust Analysis System (MIDAS)

Hello, space technology experts. This old Afc draft was never submitted to be in the encyclopedia, likely because it lacks reliable sources. Is this a notable topic that should saved from deletion as a stale draft, or is this information covered in another article somewhere? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  • The references section needs to be puffed out a bit and there are a few issues with the tone it takes, but it is certainally salvagable and probably worth saving. There are plenty of precedents for giving spacecraft instruments their own articles - including two other instruments aboard Rosetta (although admittedly both of these articles are in bad shape). I'm not sure whether I'll have time but if I get a chance to look at cleaning it up over the weekend I will. --W. D. Graham 21:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this. I have postponed its deletion for six months to give time for references to be found. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I added 3 more references and inline citations. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Great, BatteryIncluded! It would be good to have some news sources to go along with the govt ones. Is this useful: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/20/rosetta-comet-space-probe-european-space-agency/4661123/ ? or this: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rosetta-00c.html ? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 Done. I added those and a few more. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I have moved it to Micro-Imaging Dust Analysis System (MIDAS) and added an item to the Midas (disambiguation) page. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Space Shuttle launches.

At Comparison of orbital launchers families, the number of total space shuttle launches have been listed as 135. But OV-101 flew a number of Approach and Landing Tests which is not included in the total. Zince34' 07:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So did OV-101 went orbital in those tests? ;) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@Galactic Penguin SST: Well, there is a seperate column for launches that reached space other than the total launches. Anyway STS 51-L did not go orbital either, did it ? Zince34' 09:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
It was intended to, though, which is the difference - there were 135 launches. The A&LTs aren't launches, and thus aren't included in that total - and as they're not included in the tally in sources, to include them would be WP:OR. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Lunar coords and quad cat}}

Template:Lunar coords and quad cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for merger. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Move of Lynx (spacecraft)

Someone has proposed a move of Lynx (spacecraft), here: Talk:Lynx_(spacecraft)#Requested_move_28_April_2014. Thought it might have some relevance to broader project-wide discussions I've seen recently so am bringing it up here. N2e (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A subsidiary discussion has come up there, where it's suggested that the article is an advertisement for XCOR... -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
In a SEO sense, where the commercial entity is gaining a lot of high value links from Wikipedia. I've been removing some of the primary sources and replacing them with government or industry news sources, so that situation is improving.
N2e is correct in noting the project-wide implications. Wikipedia treats spacecraft by using the name only eg Skylab or Apollo (spacecraft). There's only been one Skylab, but obviously there are other Apollo entities out there, from the god on down to the perfume brand. Aircraft are treated differently by including the manufacturer name eg. Beechcraft Lightning, English Electric Lightning and Lockheed P-38 Lightning.
Our difficulty comes with spaceplanes such as the Lynx or Dream Chaser. An expanding field, and while obviously they aren't traditional aircraft, seeing as how they are launched into space by rocket propulsion, a feature not found on a regular Cessna, they do have wings.
Rather than wrangle over the same things each time a new spaceplane concept is launched, and instead of having two editing camps fight a turf war ("Hey, we got the North American X-15, not to mention the North American DC-3, so this is our corner.") we could establish criteria to prevent any future conflict and distraction.
Lots of spacecraft have wings - the Space Shuttle and the SpaceShipOne for example - but the vast majority of aircraft do not come anywhere near the Kármán line of 100 kilometres. Undoubtedly there are other criteria.
I trust that there is enough good will in the fraternity of aerospace editors to sort this out, rather than have border raids from one armed camp or another, such as the current proposed move of Lynx (spacecraft) to XCOR Lynx, a discussion which has reached AN/I once already. --Pete (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The ANI discussion is archived at ANI Archive 837 -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Modified Template:Launching

Be aware I modified the {{Launching}} template with the intent of generating "details" text in past tense when a launch had failed. (The event motivating this was a Proton failure.) I hope there are no unintended side effects of my change, but since template syntax is a bit opaque there may well be. Feel free to revert the change if you see problems! (sdsds - talk) 05:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Taurus rocket to Minotaur-C - what to do with the article?

With the decision by Orbital Sciences to market the next upgrade of the Taurus rocket as the Minotaur-C rocket, what should we do to the Taurus (rocket) article? Moving it, re-naming it or marking it as "retired" and open a new Minotaur-C article (which I strongly disagrees with due to the two being almost the same except for upgraded avionics)? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose adding a Minotaur-C section to the Taurus article, above the OBV section. Then in the Minotaur article put a {{Main}} link to that new section, after the Minotaur VI section. (sdsds - talk) 05:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Support redesigning the Taurus article. The article should be about both the variants, and there should be sections for both. Should look like the Variants section in the PSLV article. Zince34' 05:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd say move it to Minotaur-C; use the current name rather than former one, but it is clearly the same rocket. --W. D. Graham 21:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

There is a discussion at Talk:List of Progress flights in which you might be interested. AtHuLYaTHul1 (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comments for balancing bias in Soviet space program

I'm soliciting comments for changes to the article "Soviet space program" to present a more balanced perspective on the value of the long list of "firsts".[6]

Leptus Froggi (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Distance travelled in STS articles

Some of distances in space shuttle articles are wrong because of assumption that distance was given in international (or statute) miles while these are nautical miles probably. I described it in my post at Talk:STS-42. Same error in STS-45 and many more probably. It looks Encyclopedia Astronautica has correct values. Pikador (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Spaceflight At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Titan V

The article Titan V has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. (sdsds - talk) 04:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree (sdsds - talk) 07:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Laika (dog)"

The usage of Laika (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dogs#Requested_moves -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Space_Shuttle_main_engine#Requested_move3

All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 08:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

AFC needs subject specialist help with assessing a Draft article

AFC needs assistance to evaluate Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source for inclusion in mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Naming Particular Space Shuttle in Opening Paragraph(s)

Every satellite/probe that has been launched aboard a Space Shuttle and has its own page on Wikipedia mentions which Shuttle it was launched from in its opening paragraph(s) with the exception of Magellan and Hubble (See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). I would assume that the formatting should be the same across these articles. Therefore, either the launch Shuttle name should be added to Magellan and Hubble or the other 9 articles should have the name removed from the lead paragraphs. Thoughts? -Martinman (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this is already under discussion at Talk:Hubble Space Telescope. --W. D. Graham 18:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Low-Density Supersonic Decelerator

I just started it and am making a bit of a pig's ear out of it. Could someone please have a look-see. Also, someone added some strange "see alsos" that I'm not sure about. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

American Islander

I think it's time for an article to be created for SpaceX's recovery ship, American Islander. There is information available at MarineTraffic.com, but some help finding more information to make a proper article would be appreciated. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 13:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Purported Sputnik signal

Could someone familiar with Sputnik-1, and/or early Russian satellites in general, please check out the stalled discussion at commons:File talk:Possible PDM signal labeled as Sputnik by NASA.ogg and comment there? Thanks. Note that this potentially affects many Wikipedia articles (in different languages), since they link to that file. - dcljr (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Haven't had time to analyse the signal, but if it is Sputnik then it can't possibly have been recorded by NASA, as NASA was not formed until after Sputnik had decayed from orbit. --W. D. Graham 22:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the NASA-related claim about that file (according to its current filename) is that they "labeled" the signal as belonging to Sputnik, not that they originally recorded it. - dcljr (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thinking of retiring from WP

I just wanted to give you guys a heads up that I'm considering leaving Wikipedia. Over the last few months I've grown tired of the increasing sensationalisation and trivialisation of spaceflight topics. The current discussion at Talk:Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 has highlighted the growing trend to regard fictional and cancelled missions and concepts that will never fly (such as UFOs and the recent ISX Enterprise news story) as notable while real and significant missions such as OCO-2 are deemed non-notable.

The OCO-2 discussion is also showing something else that I have grown frustrated with; a small number of users trying to railroad through a move/merger against wider practices and guidelines, with minimal discussion before a hasty, allegedly "binding", vote and ignoring the concerns raised by those who oppose the proposal.

I'm not on my way yet, but I'm seriously considering heading that way so I thought I had better let you know. --W. D. Graham 17:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't let it get you down. I'm frustrated by that same discussion, but if it comes to it, I'll simply unwatchlist it. I would suggest the same strategy. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Convention for units of Isp

With this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fregat&curid=8534779&diff=616376277&oldid=598858432 a new user seems to be implying it is more proper to use SI-specific units for specific impulse (Isp), rather than the more common units-independent convention of "seconds." Does WikiProject Spaceflight have an established opinion on the matter? (sdsds - talk) 07:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Both units are SI, it's just a matter of which baseline we use. Seconds are the most commonly used units, but they are baselined against weight, wheras newton-seconds per kilogram is baselined agains mass and therefore doesn't vary with altitude. I'd be very much in favour of adopting Ns/kg as standard with seconds as a conversion. Thrust should definately be given in terms of newtons and not kilograms, but I'd suggest giving kg and lb as conversions. --W. D. Graham 18:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I've mocked up a {{Convert}}-style template at User:WDGraham/ConvertISP (e.g. 2300 Ns/kg (235 sec), 2043 Newton-seconds per kilogram (208.3 seconds)). If we want to proceed with something like this I'll write the final version in Lua, but it should give an idea of what we could do with it for now. --W. D. Graham 19:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the consistency a convert-style template provides would be great! My sense is that editors will mainly have a value from source material that expressed it in seconds. To make wikipedia articles appear consistent would they want a template that took seconds as its input parameter, but still generated output with Ns/kg given first? Similarly editors might want a thrust conversion template that took lbf as its input but generated output with newtons given first.... (sdsds - talk) 05:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
This is just a prototype; I was planning to put that in the final version anyway. {{convert|3000|lbf|N|disp=flip}} can be used for thrust. --W. D. Graham 06:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, excellent! By the way I happened to notice this: {{convert|360|isp}} generates "360 seconds (3.5 km/s)". Is that a conversion to effective exhaust velocity? Can/should that be deprecated? Is there a way to tell if it is being used anywhere? (sdsds - talk) 14:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe European sources generally use specific impulse as a synonym for exhaust velocity and use m/s as the unit. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems to be undocumented. I'm not sure what it is. --W. D. Graham 16:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed this again, in the RS-68 infobox. I would like to first establish this is not consistent with the standards of WikiProject Spaceflight (or Rocketry), and then look at fixing them all. Might it be possible to edit the convert template such that all pages which use this {{convert||isp}} functionality are automatically added to a category "pages using deprecated isp conversion" or some such? Then they would be easy to find and fix.... (sdsds - talk) 03:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Seconds are the most commonly used units, but they are baselined against weight, wheras newton-seconds per kilogram is baselined agains mass and therefore doesn't vary with altitude. Oh this is so wrong. NONE of the units ever vary with gravity.
All the 'weight' units are referenced to g0 by everyone, always, everywhere; the idea of a vacuum Isp that varies with altitude makes grown engineers and scientists shudder and cry.
There's nothing 'righter' about Ns/kg than m/s they're both correct SI; and actually m/s is more useful, because it's numerically the same, and dimensionally correct to use in the rocket equation.
Frankly Ns/kg is an abomination that should probably just die. But our opinions as editors shouldn't matter; and that's why we shouldn't go through and make large scale imposition of non widely used units like Ns/kg.
In my opinion you should simply stick to whatever the source uses as the primary unit to quote from and convert to another unit- either m/s or seconds depending on whether the original source was SI or imperial; because m/s and seconds are the ones that are by far in most frequent use. That seems to be the most NPOV thing to do, and that's how convert is currently set up.GliderMaven (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for providing those insights. I agree that in addition to consistency (which seems particularly important in infoboxes) we certainly want to remain NPOV. Thanks also to Mmeijeri for the suggestion that European sources might report Isp as a velocity. (Personally I hadn't seen that. Does e.g. the ESA website do that anywhere?) I feel like m/s takes us down a slippery slope, though. Would we also provide ft/s? Lb-sec/slug? I don't think we have impartial data on what units (other than seconds) are most frequently used in reliable sources, nor do we know much about what our readers would expect and find useful! (sdsds - talk) 20:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Convert

I maintain {{convert}} and while I understand basic physics, I have no grasp of the topic of this discussion. Nevertheless, following a request at my talk, I am providing some information on the current situation.

GliderMaven provided definitions for related units for {{convert}} (for the record, the initial discussions were here (December 2013), but there's nothing of interest there now). The official definitions are here, reproduced in slightly different form below.

Unitcode Symbol Name Default Scale Extra Link
isp s second km/s 9.80665 – Specific impulse
kNs/kg kN-s/kg kN-s/kg isp 1000 – Specific impulse
Ns/kg N-s/kg N-s/kg isp 1 – Specific impulse
si tsfc g/(kN·s) g/(kN·s) tsfc 1/101972/9.80665 invert Thrust specific fuel consumption
tsfc lb/(lbf·h) lb/(lbf·h) si tsfc 1/9.80665/3600 invert Thrust specific fuel consumption

Unit isp is used at Ariane 5 and Space Shuttle and several others (over 170 converts in articles). Unit tsfc is used at Rolls-Royce Olympus and a few others; "si tsfc" is used at Eurojet EJ200 and a couple of others. Here are some examples:

  • {{convert|275|isp}} → 275 seconds (2.70 km/s)
  • {{convert|275|-|295|isp}} → 275–295 seconds (2.70–2.89 km/s)
  • {{convert|0.81|tsfc}} → 0.81 lb/(lbf⋅h) (23 g/(kN⋅s))
  • {{convert|21|si tsfc}} → 21 g/(kN⋅s) (0.74 lb/(lbf⋅h))
  • {{convert|2510|Ns/kg|isp}} → 2,510 N‑s/kg (256 s)
  • {{convert|450|isp|ft/s}} → 450 seconds (14,000 ft/s)
  • {{convert|1.2|tsfc|m/s}} → 1.2 lb/(lbf⋅h) (29,000 m/s)

Is this of any use? Are any variations wanted? If anyone wants to experiment, the procedure for adding units is a bit complex and the simplest might be to provide the information and I'll add the unit. Or, see Module:Convert/extra (specifically the documentation at the top). That includes a link to Template:Convert/unit sandbox where I have put an extract from the speed definitions. That can be edited, then "purge" clicked on the talk page, then the wanted unit can be pasted into Module:Convert/extra. Changing an existing unit should not be done without a heap of discussion first. For example, if some change to "isp" were wanted, you might make "isp2" or "ispx" and use that for experimenting. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

RFA: Sentinel Mission articles

As many members are probably aware, the Chelyabinsk event last year was the second large NEO impact on Earth since the start of the 20th century, the first one being the vastly larger 1908 Tunguska event in basically the same region of Russia. Planetary scientists are in agreement that its not a matter of 'if' the Earth will experience such potentially catastrophic impacts again, but only 'when'. There have been a number of proposals to establish an asteroid deflection capability, which remain unfunded to the point that even substantive asteroid detection programs are not being undertaken by world governments.

That situation changed somewhat just two years ago when the B612 Foundation, a U.S. non-profit (NGO), decided it was imprudent to wait for government action while the clock was ticking down. In 2012 they committed to launching their own asteroid surveying mission, called Sentinel, at a cost of $450M funded by public donations. Its executives and technical members are blue chip planetary and asteroid scientists, former NASA astronauts and space industry executives. They're working with a leading prime contractor, Ball Aerospace, for a 2017-2018 launch into a Venusian orbit where the first broad, and effective, survey of NEOs can be undertaken.

The importance of effective asteroid survey missions and deflection capabilities can't be understated. While commercial/military satellites and space science probes provide an immediate benefit to those organizations sponsoring them, the possibility likelihood of future catastrophic impacts similar to the Tunguska event makes the launch of asteroid-surveying space observatories a very wise undertaking, IMHO, even if such impacts are rare. However they are not that rare: only several months ago a new study based on the infrasound signatures of such meteors provided a new estimate that puts monster impacts on Earth at once per century, not once per millennium as originally thought. Essentially, some have said, people are living 'on borrowed time'.

In that spirit I invite project editors to contribute to the B612 Foundation page, and its companion article Sentinel (space telescope), and if possible to also have them translated to other wiki languages as well. Best, HarryZilber (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How about spacecraft in 2014?

I notice that there are quite a few articles in Category:2014 in spaceflight but no subcategory for any spacecraft which reentered in 2014. For those categories for 2013 and back I have added navigation boxes for past/future years eg Category:Spacecraft launched in 2013 or Category:Spacecraft which reentered in 2013. Hugo999 (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

News on lists of rocket launches

Hi all. I have 2 things to ask for assistance about the lists of rocket launches:

1. I have just completed a brand new List of Zenit launches (all 82 launches till May 2014) - feel free to check it out, improve it and find/correct errors if you can. :)

2. With the list of Zenit rocket launches completed, it seems that most of the main rocket families that requires (a) separate page(s) of list of launches (I arbitrarily put this at 50 launches; any rocket that has below 50 launches and probably will not exceed that in the near future can just put the list in the rockets' main articles) have complete lists on Wikipedia already.

The only major missing ones I can remember are for the long retired Scout rocket (100 orbital launches + 25 suborbital), the R-36 family (Tsyklon - 259 launches till today, most of them with non-notable payloads and the 260th launch may never happen - and Dnepr-1, which may or may not be included in the same list due to drastic changes from the R-36 to the R-36M; also I don't know if there's a list of R-16/36 missile launches somewhere) and the Kosmos rocket family, which has 600+ launches under the Kosmos name but with few notable launches, as well as an unknown number of R-12/14 missile launches. I don't know if they are worth doing (the latter two will require quite some hard work to complete them) or if there are other rockets that you feel would worth having a separate list of launches page. So I would like to ask if someone here is/are eager to join me in writing them up for good quick reference for the web, as well as feedback about what lists should be there, should not be there and how should they be structured.

Also I think the existing launch lists, while now completed (well it was hard work - the R-7 list is looooooonnnnnngggg! ;) ) will need extensive editing due to the sheer number of different table styles used and edits being made by so many people over a long period of time, which can cause errors to creep in and styles of data listing being incoherent (look at the Thor/Delta lists for example). I can only hope that our project group will have enough members to actively do the clean ups and maintain accuracy and consistency found in other types of lists for spaceflight.

So, any comments? How can we do this? :)

Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus: using UTC to date off-world events

An editor recently "corrected" Buzz Aldrin's page to state he stepped onto the Moon on "July 20, 1969". While I, as one of many Americans, also remember seeing this on TV shortly before midnight in the Eastern time zone, I reverted the edit because I know this was discussed in the past, and consensus was reached that UTC should be used for events which happen off of Earth (as this one did at about 3:15 AM UTC). I can't remember exactly which talk page this was on, but it's probably been archived now. This editor is experienced, seems to be a valued contributer and holds admin rights, but probably isn't familiar with our little neck of the woods -- labeled it a "bad decision" and said "it is now inconsistent with other articles" (? I don't know this to be true, and this person hasn't replied.) (discussion is at the bottom of my talk page.) We also occasionally get the stray IP or newbie who thinks the same thing.

I think a reasonable case could be made that Houston (Central) time would be appropriate for the Apollo program, which was flight-controlled from there, though someone argued that no time zone has been established on the Moon, so this is the most appropriate (accepted as region-neutral). Do we want/need to revisit this, if at least just to document that there is a consensus? (Can anyone happen to remember where the discussion of this would be, or can easily find it?) JustinTime55 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've got a feeling it was either in the archives of this page, or one of its predecessors. In any case MOS:DATE is very clear that the timezone where the event actually occurred (i.e. the Moon) should be used, and UT(C) is used for timekeeping in space. --W. D. Graham 19:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, WD. I think I found a good one: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_5#Spaceflight article standards and conventions. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Chang'e 4 & return module

Is [7] the new lunar Earth reentry module part of Chang'e 4 [8] ? From my understanding Chang'e 3 does not contain an orbital component to bus this new module, but Chang'e 4 will still repeat Chang'e 3's mission profile, lacking a component from which to perform the sample return capsule test. So is this new mission Chang'e 4 or some other mission? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's actually not related to Chang'e 4 - that's something else (I have seen reports of it being called "Chang'e 5 Precursor Mission" or "Chang'e 5-T1" - neither of which has been confirmed as the official name). <rant> Shame that the Chinese are so sparse on details of this spacecraft at around 2 months to launch, that I can't even start writing an article about it here! </rant> Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Reusable launch systems Template

Please, take a look at Template talk:Reusable launch systems - we need to sort out this template, cause it's a complete mess (or depending how you look at it - biased by US POV) right now. SkywalkerPL (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Oleg Ivanovsky

Do we have an article on "Oleg Ivanovsky" obituary? Obviously it isn't under this title. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
He's only mentioned here in two articles: Sputnik 1 and Gagarin: First in Space (a movie). That's an inherent frustration about Russians in the English Wikipedia: the only reason I could see an unknown article exists is if there is an alternate Western spelling of the name, and I have no way of knowing what that would be. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Mars Orbiter Mission

There has been quite a bit of chaotic editing of the article over the past few hours post-MOI. Heck I put up some arguments over the disputation of some of the claims on it ("cheapest mission"/"first nation to get a S/C to Mars on first shot") on the talk page for others to discuss, and someone actually reverted it for being inaccurate/imprecise/un-neutral (!). Can some of our members check out and clean up it a bit, as I am sure it will get many views over the next few days? Thanks!
Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a "space race" going on so expect propaganda and WP:peacock terms. The price is part of the propaganda, but the capacity of the payload (and orbit) cannot be compared with the other 4 orbiters currently around Mars. The editing rush will calm down in a few days, and a tune-up will be easier then. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Would appreciate some more opinions on this

If anyone is interested in the topic of launch vehicle reusability, and how that might or might not affect the economics of space launch, I would appreciate it if you would take a look at a discussion going on over here: Talk:SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program#Jeff Foust economic fallacy. Consider weighing in if you have a view, as I have offered an opinion but have recused myself from the WP:!vote consensus building effort. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Mars orbiter - Dab page?

Hello, I wonder if a disambiguation page would be useful for the term "Mars orbiter". The term currently redirects to Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Other unrelated articles are:

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

ISRO PR creeping in again

Looks like someone's added a re-added a couple of ISRO's more dubious claims to Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle and Indian Space Research Organisation and Pvpoodle (talk · contribs) has been reverting attempts to clean it up. ISRO do have a tendency to inflate their achievements and manipulate statistics to generate milestones, and the problem here is that lazy reporters in the mainstream media have circulated the claims ISRO make in press releases without carrying out even basic fact-checking, so there are seemingly-reliable sources for these assertions. A good example of this is the announcement that they had launched a "record" ten satellites in 2008, despite Russia having launched 14 the previous year.[9][10][11] He's also trying to assert that the rocket has made 27 consecutive successful flights - ISRO ignore the failure of the C1 mission (referenced in the PSLV article) to boost their statistics and this has again been picked up by news sources without verification.

ISRO made similar claims about its "100th mission" a year or so back - later publishing a breakdown which listed many missions more than once to make up numbers. I don't think this has been reintroduced yet but we should probably keep an eye out for it.

The question here is what can we do about this. It's hard to provide a reference for removing text from an article since there is no text left to display the reference against, and there are some "big name" websites selling the ISRO party line so this is just going to keep getting re-added. Any ideas? --W. D. Graham 20:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that any "'big name' websites selling the ISRO party line", where those statements turn out to be demonstrably false, lose any legitimacy as reliable sources, at least with respect to ISRO in particular, and maybe with respect to spaceflight more generally. After all, some "news" sites just parrot news releases, and don't do sufficient fact-checking of their own, while not clarifying that the reported news are from a press release or an inside-source website. More reputable media that are merely reprinting a press release clarify that it is just that, sort of a "this is what the company/organization says" -- so that then clarifies that it is not a reliable secondary source claim, but rather a primary source claim.
Might this approach of decertifying a new sources' "reliableness" reputation be useful? I've worked at getting some news aggregator sites that parrot Wikipedia listed a non-reliable sources in the past; perhaps there lies a path forward. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


Regarding the multi satellite launch, i suggested rewording the sentence rather than outright removal as WDGraham (talk · contribs) did. I agree that the ISRO pr people didnt do enough research before disseminating the news, however launching 10 satellites simultaneously is still a remarkable achievement for a relatively minor player such as ISRO. As i suggested remove the reference to the world record in the text while continuing to mentioning that 10 satellites were launched simultaneously.
Regarding the number of consecutive launches, a launch vehicle's job is to put the satellite into orbit. You can even be more specific in saying its job is to put a satellite into a usable orbit. Both of which PSLV C1 did. While it may not have achieved the intended orbit, the satellite was recovered and continued to function (albeit for a shorter duration). You can choose to view the glass as half full or half empty, and that's on you personally (perhaps you had a troubled childhood that made you this way? i really don't know or care), but in this context the satellite was launched and continued to function and that would count as a success in most peoples books.
And i don't like how you seem to insinuate how "I" seem to be resisting all attempts of your "valiant attempts" to clean up the article. That information was added by someone else and i just happened to have the page on my watch list the last few days because i was looking forward to finding out what happened to the recent launch. If you weren't so hasty in removing content and used a modicum of common sense before making decisions, we would not be having this conversation. And since when is the ISRO a party, for its Party Line to be followed? Next thing we know you probably start talking about the ISRO Gulag where they send people who disagree with them and don't toe the party line perhaps even mention and the ISRO Politburo's Manifesto. I really don't get where all this whining and angst is coming from, but maybe in the future you could use the article's talk page itself to achieve consensus and add any relevant information for future editors, maybe that is an idea enough for you. Peace Pvpoodle (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


@N2e (talk · contribs), I agree that news outlets dont do enough fact checking of their own and tend to blindly follow press releases. heck i even happen to think the PR clowns dont do a good enough job of fact checking. however the link in question happens to be a BBC article, there are several other major outlets that also blindly followed the same release. i doubt we would be able to list the bbc as a non reliable source. hence my suggestion to explain things on the article's talk page since most experienced editors would check that first before adding something. Less experienced editors can be pointed to the same.
My problem with editors like WDGraham (talk · contribs) is that as an experienced editor you should be able to retain relevant information while removing all the gloss since this is an encyclopedia and not just blindly remove everything they happen to have a personal bias / prejudiced against. Peace Pvpoodle (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
First of all, personal attacks (on childhood? seriously??) are never appropriate, Pvpoodle. WD Graham was perfectly in line when he described your role the current situation. Re: consecutive successes, spaceflight articles generally list any significant deviation in final injection orbit of the satellite to be a "partial failure." The satellite didn't end up where it was supposed to be, therefore the launch vehicle failed in some way. A more accurate number would be 24 consecutive successes, as listed on http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/log2014.html#rate . Regardless, it remains India's most successful launcher to date, which is still a notable bit of information. Re: news sources, I don't think we should judge the reliableness of certain news sources, just be careful to check those numbers against numbers available at sites that have a good reputation as sources for spaceflight articles. A(Ch) 21:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that the claims and substantial accomplishments of ISRO and the other agencies involved in the current Asian space race, should be addressed in an appropriate encyclopedic perspective and in neutrality, over at the Space Race, where in September I proposed (Talk:Space Race#Ongoing space race) the addition/update of such subject. Another suggestion for any interested editor would be this succulent, flamant, red-hot red link: Asian space race. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That has been tried before and rejected as inappropriate; check that talk page again. Asian space race should be cleaned up, if necessary. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback Requested: List of space shuttle missions

Hi, everyone!

I'd like to request some feedback on an article I am attempting to bring to Featured List status, List of space shuttle missions. I've been working at the article for a while and would like to request some additional feedback before I formally bring it through the process. If you have any thoughts or feedback, I would love to hear it!

Thanks much! ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 21:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Left some comments. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: I have split this article to List of Space Shuttle missions and List of Buran spaceplane missions. I am noting it here to avoid confusion. ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 21:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! The articles should have never be combined in the first place.--Craigboy (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox for spaceplane needed

I came across some information today that the Avatar (spacecraft) shuttle project is still going. I updated the article the best I could and I have a question. Its infobox uses "Infobox rocket", while the Russian Buran (spacecraft) uses the "Space Shuttle" infobox. Which one should we use for the AVATAR? It is supposed to do horizontal take off and horizontal landing. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Infobox rocket is inappropriate, which I think is intended for legacy missile/launch vehicles. But Infobox space shuttle seems to be specifically dedicated to the retired NASA vehicle, so also would be inappropriate. Check out Template:infobox spacecraft class; maybe this would have to be expanded. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you are onto something, @JustinTime55:

With more and more spaceplanes in development, we could probably develop a spaceplane infobox. Somebody has the sKiLLz for that? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, AVATAR is a mnemonic for "Aerobic Vehicle for hypersonic Aerospace Transportation", so should we move the title to all caps? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with this move. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with moving to AVATAR (spacecraft). {{Infobox spacecraft class}} should be used for any "class" of vehicle that flies in space. If there are particular parameters that are needed for spaceplanes, they can be added. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Huntster in principle, however there are a few exceptions - IXV is a one-off so it should use {{infobox spaceflight}}, Falcon is a programme not a specific vehicle/type of vehicle so shouldn't have either infobox, and as I recall Saturn-Shuttle deals more with the launch system than the spaceplane, and so should probably stick with {{infobox rocket}}. --W. D. Graham 17:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree completely with those cases. I was just speaking broadly in terms of spaceplane articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I just wanted to mention that the In The News section on the Main Page has a few articles listed. To quote, "An Antares rocket explodes (pictured) during the launch of the unmanned Cygnus CRS-3 spacecraft to the International Space Station." I am not sure if all three articles need to have the {{ITN talk}} template on their respective talk page, but I thought I should bring it up. Also, I was wondering if I had made a mistake by including the {{Launching}} template on the Castor (rocket stage) article. I had added it due to the Castor 30 section, but I am not a bit unsure if it should be used. Sorry for the trouble, --Super Goku V (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

CRS-3

Shouldn't CRS-3 be a disambiguation page or be repointed to the Orbital failed mission? We already have atleast 4 uses for the term (SpaceX's mission, Orbital's mission, CRS3 Canadian airport, CRS-3 Cisco product, possibly NASA CRS phase 3 ) ? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely. Using your suggestions, I'll fill out the dab page. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

VSS Enterprise explosion - article and VMS Eve article could do with some help

I came to Wikipedia, following the explosion, to read up on Virgin Galactic. I followed the links over to the VSS Enterprise article (Rated B-class, Mid-importance) and the VMS Eve article (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) and both articles are probably going to be getting much more attention over the next few days. I wonder if anyone from WikiProject Spaceflight would be able to help clear up the following issues:

  • 'List of test flights' (VSS Enterprise) vs 'Flight test program' (VMS Eve): I got confused because these sections are actually in different orders. The talk page, for the VSS Enterprise article, actually had a discussion called "List of Test flights" back in September 2013, but the issue has not been resolved. This is the main reason I wanted to flag this up over here.
  • The VMS Eve article has no data after flight 149 (GF28) on January 14th 2014. Prior to this, there have been between 2 and 7 flights a month. An editor named N2e has questioned the detail given in the 'Flight test program' section of the VMS Eve article (see Excessive detail in the "Flight test program" section on the talk page). I actually disagree with that - I think that non-experts are going to want to know exactly how many tests were made before the 2014 Virgin Galactic crash, rather than have that cut down to four powered flights of the VSS Enterprise. They might not need to know every single detail, but knowing that there are over 150 test flights of the mothership changes the context a lot from knowing that this is the fourth powered flight of the actual spacecraft.
  • I do think there needs to be a bit more information about PF01, PF02, PF03 and PF04 (the failed flight) in the VSS Enterprise article. These are the 'important' test flights and any details about things that went right or wrong will help people understand the failed flight. At the very least I think people will want to know how high each flight went and how long the spaceship was in the air. Links to videos of all the powered test flights (like Virgin Galactic's Third Powered Flight might also be appropriate (and I think that videos of the first of each other sort of test flight - including the captive flight - could also be helpful). From what I currently see on the '2014 Virgin Galactic crash]] article, there has been a switch from one type of fuel to another type of fuel between PF03 and PF04, so I think non-experts would be interested in knowing more about both fuel types (in case the switch to 'thermoplastic polyamide' contributed to the explosion).
  • The Star Trek/USS Enterprise connection needs to be looked at too. I'm pretty sure that VSS Enterprise has that name to capitalise on the popularity of the USS Enterprise, from Star Trek, and there is some level of discussion of Star Trek and William Shatner on the VSS Enterprise talk page. Those issues need to be investigated...or shut down.

I do not know the Wikipedia convention for listing test flights, so that isn't something I can do myself. I'm also a bit hesitant to add a bunch of video links to the article/s.

The fact that the entire Virgin Galactic website has been replaced by a press statement about the crash (and the fact that news of the crash is flooding search engine results) is also making it very hard to research things that happened before the crash.

I hope you can help with a bit of clean up...or at least advice. Big Mac (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You're mixing up two different test programs. VMS Eve documents the test program for VMS Eve, that is not the test program for VSS Enterprise. VMS Eve is a WhiteKnightTwo, and it underwent a test program when SpaceShipTwo was still under construction. VMS Eve article should not contain the test program for VSS Enterprise, except where it impacts VMS Eve in some major manner. So yes, it would be excessive detail to list every flight that VMS Eve operated. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
About Star Trek The VSS Enterprise's name was an acknowledgement of the USS Enterprise from the Star Trek television series. -- it is already written in the VSS Enterprise article. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Life insurance and space tourism

Per [12] insurance companies are thinking about space tourism exclusions and policy riders, where would we cover this? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Private spaceflight? ... since both commercial arrangements to transport humans to space and purchasing insurance are private transactions. N2e (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Has there ever been any discussion, with consensus achieved, in the spaceflight project on the consistent use of gender-neutral language in spaceflight-related articles?

I know that Wikipedia has a guideline on such matters—MOS:GNL—and as a result, when building content, I occasionally endeavor to write some of the traditional spaceflight-related terms (e.g., manned spaceflight, manned mission, manned capsule, when man first walked on the Moon, etc.) in more gender-neutral prose, which sometimes can be a bit awkward (e.g, human spaceflight, crewed mission or human-carrying mission (when the humans are not explicitly crew), when humans first set foot on the Moon, etc.).

However, when I do that, I have several times found later on that some editor, even perhaps important or well-known participants in the Spaceflight WikiProject, will have gone and edited it back to the traditional (and thus more familiar) prose, but a prose that legitimately seems to leave some "outside" the club, and which other spaceflight sources have taken to eliminating by writing in more gender-neutral ways. When this happens, I never revert, nor really even discuss at an article-by-article level basis, as it is just not that important to me. So while I've done no research, I would expect that a lot of our articles use the more traditional, and less gender-neutral, terminology.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I don't personally care for the awkwardness, and used to be quite comfortable personally telling half of the human race that "manned" just means human, etc., and so "get over it." But over time, use of language changes, as does policy, and I've become a bit less comfortable with that approach. So I think we ought to kick it around here and see if 1) there is consensus, and 2) if we might write a WikiProject Spaceflight guideline that might provide some approaches to handling the writing of article prose in a gender-neutral way.

So, what do others think? Should we develop a working understanding of how we, as a project, will handle this matter? Or do we leave it as an article-by-article and editor-by-editor choice of prose style? (and in the latter case, risk giving the impression to some readers, or propagating an existing impression, that spaceflight-interested folk are a somewhat insular men's club? Yours for a better Wikipedia, and spaceflight-related articles, best, N2e (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Gender-neutral language is the last furuncle this project needs to gear towards. Please. Go on and cover essential topics that aren't here, improve content. We're not here to redefine language. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Been there and done that. Although in principle I support gender-neutral language, the reaction from several opposing editors was extreme. It turned to be a sticky subject that required Administrators to defuse it. My advice is to write any new article using GNL, not change the existing ones. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I would be okay with that. I'm not supporting any sort of mass changing in spaceflight articles. In both of the cases (or three) that I have very occasionally stumbled into it was new prose, about the current sort of (usually NewSpace- or Commercial-Crew-inspired) human transport spacecraft, where something written to attempt to be gender neutral was then changed to non-gender-neutral terminology. In other words, perhaps a very minimalist spaceflight guideline that explicitly does not support wholesale changes in existing articles, while also would encourage editors who might personally prefer the traditional non-GNL phraseology that they should not be changing such new prose to non-GNL terms. N2e (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Some argued it was copyvio to use the references' "phraseology", some argued paraphrasing was indulging in OR that altered history. I'm not willingly going down that road again. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@The Bushranger:, from what I understand, the WP:GNL guideline does not apply at all to direct quotes etc. And it seems to me that we in the spaceflight project could add to that list: use the term or terms used in sources. I certainly think that any spaceflight consensus need not even apply to the articles on historical missions of decades ago; in fact, I'd support a spaceflight article guideline that restricted itself to all of the new topics and articles that are referring to the transport of human passengers or human crew from some point forward, such as 2014, or 2012 (after Shuttle...) or some other point in time.
So could I ask you to clarify? Are you opposing any and all use of gender-neutral language, or opposed to the development of any guideline by Spaceflight on the topic? Or is your opposition just to specific things of the type I just (rather poorly, perhaps) summarized? I'm interested in understanding the width and breadth of your "Oppose as such" comment, since my original question was about the value of us perhaps developing a simple guideline that actually might reduce the churn, where editors come in and change articles written one way to conform to the other way. Thanks. N2e (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Basically, what I'm saying is that (I assume) NASA, ESA, etc. use gender-neutral language currently (for good or ill), whereas in the past they did not. When articles are being written on subjects during the time period 'manned spaceflight' (to use the most obvious example) was used should use 'manned' etc., while those during the time period 'human spaceflight' was used should use 'human' etc. I.E. 'Human spaceflight' wouldn't be used in articles on the Apollo program, while 'Manned spaceflight' (presumably?) wouldn't be used in articles about the International Space Station. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose first and foremost I strongly resent the suggestion, accusation and implication that I'm (or that we all are) misogynist simply because I'm interested in space matters. It is too bad that you drew that conclusion from your experience. The door is open for any woman to join this project and edit any space article, there's no lock. We should use terminology the sources use as long as it is comprehensible to the layman, not invent our own. AadaamS (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
See what I mean N2e? There will always be somebody that will "strongly resent", be "deeply offended" and "vehemently opposed" to GNL. Such move will suck the life out of you and will catalize a circus to be remembered. I am with you, but IMO, the strategy presented above by The Bushranger is the most practical approach. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that. But I think there is considerable room for a simple consensus on spaceflight articles that keeps the old (in historical or where all sources use only the non-gender neutral language) AND also have a working agreement that editors ought not go around changing gender-neutral language describing the newer stuff back to traditional gender-specific locutions. I think the animus that surfaces here is from folks who don't want the old stuff edited. And since I'm not pushing any rampant change to the old stuff, I don't see why it is not possible to have a guideline that provides that "stability", while also being clear that this is the 21st century, and the use of the English language has changed a good bit in the past 60 years, and we would not be using non-gender-neutral language on all the many newer articles describing the newer stuff. N2e (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose to making decision basing on wikipedians' personal preferences. Our (wikipedia) terminology is based on prevalent mainstream language. If and when the word "man" will be banished to human males exclusively, and reasonable alternatives will be accepted for the derivations thereof (manned flight, "man the battlestation!", etc), then we may think of getting rid of language made archaic. Wikipedia cannot be a driving force of this process, which I agree would smack of original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. Manual of style, which applies to all of Wikipedia, including spaceflight. Shouldn't have to be more complicated or controversial than that. As for sources, a newspaper from 50 years ago might have used the phrase "three-man crew," but that doesn't mean using the phrase "three astronaut crew" in a Wikipedia article is original research. Wikipedia uses modern English. A(Ch) 04:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral, leaning towards oppose on doing something at the project level. While I appreciate the advantages of adopting such language, I'm just not sure that a project-wide drive - be it active or passive - is a good use of our resources. If we do decide to adopt some form of guideline I would suggest we only apply it when articles are being brought up to GA or B-class standard, depending on how viable it is to do so at each of these points - individual editors would of course be free to make their own changes. We would also have to decide where to draw the line between WP:GNL and WP:COMMONNAME, but that probably won't be a major issue. --W. D. Graham 19:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is a consensus that we shouuld not develop any such spaceflight-project-specific guideline. I'm fine with that, and Wiki will move on just great using only the Wikipedia-wide stuff.

Still, from the discussion above, it seems to me like a consensus is present amongst us on a few points. For the older/traditional/early spaceflight articles, where sources specifically use the "manned" or other gendered language, it appears that the consensus of the spaceflight-interested editors is to use the same language in the Wiki article. And for ones where the sources don't, or only some do and some don't, then there seems to be no huge objection—amongst the spaceflight-interested editors—to follow the MOS:GNL and use ungendered English prose.

More particularly, on the more recent spaceflight articles/subjects, and those for which the sources do not exclusively use the gendered descriptors, we as a project would seem certainly to not support, nor condone, editors changing ungendered prose that has been in articles for a while to gendered forms. (and that was the behavior that originally motivated me asking for a discussion here.)

Does that seem a decent summary of the discussion? Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing sats launch from the 2014 category

I noticed that there is a launch are some sats missing from Category:Spacecraft launched in 2014. The ORBCOMM OG2 second-generation satellites, six sats launched on Falcon 9 Flight 10, don't show up there. Is this possibly because no satellite article has been created for that particular primary payload sat launch of six sats. The only sat-specific article appears to be the main Orbcomm (satellite) article, which cover both the first and second generation ORBCOMM sats, from multiple launches, including an earlier flight of a single ORBCOMM OG2 test sat, which stayed in orbit only a few days, and completed only a partial set of tests. And it definitely does not seem appropriate to Categorize the Falcon 9 Flight 10 launch article there. Any ideas? Perhaps a redir might work, which could be specific to that particular sat launch??? Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't that category actually only refers to articles directly about the spacecrafts themselves? Your case won't be suitable there I think.....(maybe in others like 2014 in spaceflight?) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that is exactly correct. It is sat specific and not launch specific. I've updated my comment, above. And of course, the only way to capture the individual spacecraft might be to perhaps create a redir for each sat. Hmmm. But I'll not argue that at present, as I'm not sure if that is a generally good idea, or a bad idea.
But I think I can say that we will be facing this question as a project a great deal more in the coming years than we have in the past: as more and more launches (or space deployments (say, from the ISS)) are launches followed by deployments of larger and larger numbers of satellites from a single launch vehicle; some to fly in constellations, and some not. So, yeah, we will be seeing this issue more frequently in the future, where small sats deployed as a group are (typically) not captured by Category:Spacecraft launched in 20yy, but larger spacecraft (say 2x the small spacecraft size I just mentioned) launched singly will be mentioned in Category:Spacecraft launched in 20yy.
So this issue will come back again later. N2e (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Template for accidents and incidents?

Aviation has {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014}} etc. I was wondering if spaceflight should have a similar one, per decade? {{Spaceflight accidents and incidents in the 2010s}} etc -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, do you not think that the existing formatting within the Orbital launches in YYYY, such as {{Orbital launches in 2014}}, serves the purpose just as well? — Huntster (t @ c) 04:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the information is lost in the mass of launches, being relatively minor differences in formatting. It is good for navigating launches per year, not so easily for accidents and incidents. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, that is a good point. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Even at a decade level there are nowhere near enough accidents of that nature to justify a navbox. There have been four Loss of Crew or Loss of Vehicle incidents on manned spaceflights. Even if you redefine "spaceflight" loosely enough to include the X-15 crash, Apollo 1 and SpaceShipTwo - the last two of which cannot be considered spaceflights under any reasonable definition, while the former is only classified as a spaceflight by its operators under a definition which is not accepted by the rest of the world - there just aren't enough articles to warrant it. --W. D. Graham 22:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think he was speaking solely about manned spaceflight, but of incidents in general. Do you still hold that there would not be enough to justify? — Huntster (t @ c) 08:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Then it becomes a question of drawing a line - such a template would probably become rather trivialised and unnecessary. --W. D. Graham 19:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Automation of assessment progression templates

I'm currently looking at re-activating WikiProject Systems, and one of the things that I've been working on is automation of a number of tasks. I've noticed that the assessment {{Progression}} templates are manually updated, so I figured you might appreciate auto-updating templates:

I didn't want to dive in and add them myself, since I'm not a project contributor. Hope it helps! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to take a look at this, since I have manually updated those lists every year or so in the past couple of years. If anyone gets there before me, or wants to help, that's fine by me. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
If it helps, they're essentially written to add together the number of articles in all quality and importance categories for the project - first without unassessed/unknown articles, and then with them - and then use the two figures to produce the percentage ratio. I found the code implemented at WikiProject Military history while looking for model WikiProjects. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done I have implemented this on the project Assessment page. Thanks to Sasuke Sarutobi for providing the source code! Others please see what you think. N2e (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for Spaceflight WikiProject ambox notice

Hello,

I was on the Philae spacecraft page when I noticed that the ambox notice had the American space shuttle as thumbnail.

Since the shuttle has long been retired, I suggest Wikipedia use the Hubble Space Telescope as a thumbnail instead on those notices.

What do you think?

Techno Singular (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I would oppose that suggestion. This isn't an astronomy wikiproject, and the primary connotation of the HST is astronomy, not spaceflight. What about using Sputnik 1 instead? It's recognizable, and was the first permanent orbital spaceflight object, without confusion with rocketry or astronomy. It is the epoch marking object of spaceflight. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sputnik 1 would be a good idea. What I really aim for here is to replace the space shuttle thumbnail. It's just that on this very page, Wikipedia is using a Hubble Space Telescope. I'm opened to anything that represents spaceflight more significantly.

Techno Singular (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If we are proposing that the Shuttle should be removed because it is no longer current, I fail to see the logic in replacing it with an image of a spacecraft which reentered long, long before the Shuttle was ever conceived. --W. D. Graham 18:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the need to change this. That said, if there is a consensus that the Shuttle should not be shown because it is no longer flying then I think the new image should satisfy four criteria; it must be of a spacecraft which is a) globally recognisable, b) of worldwide significance, c) currently in operation and d) the image must be clearly representative of spaceflight rather than a related field such as planetary science or astronomy. Under these criteria I would suggest that the ISS would be by far the best candidate should a need to replace the image arise. That said, I disagree with the need for criterion c and as such oppose changing from the current image which does meet the other three criteria. --W. D. Graham 19:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am very much in favour of using the ISS as a new thumbnail. I proposed the Hubble Space Telescope because it is being used on this page. However, the HST is more representative of astronomy while the ISS meets all four criteria (criteria I admit I had not considered in my initial suggestion). Techno Singular (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated cables in the sky

Is it my imagination or does pretty much the same content show up in Skyhook (structure) and Orbital Tether and perhaps a few other articles? Jim.henderson (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment aren't skyhooks a type of moment exchange orbital tether, that is used for space launch? (ie. orbital tethers can just be used to change orbit, and not reach down to the surface, and can work on different principles, by using electrical charge instead of moment exchange to change orbits) Or atleast that was my understanding of the topic. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, several images on Commons have come up for discussion at WT:MOON relating to the Apollo mission artefacts. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Constellation

Hi all,

I've just tidied up List of Constellation missions, having noticed last week's Orion flight getting listed there. I've rewritten the lead to emphasise that Constellation effectively ceased to exist in 2010 and the current/planned missions aren't really "Constellation" in any sense. Two things that this raises:

a) what, if anything, are they called? Is there actually a named program at the moment? I've seen flight lists on the Constellation page, the Orion page, the SLS page, etc. If there isn't a name, should we have some kind of overview page? "NASA Orion program", or something?
b) Is there any value to having this Constellation list? It effectively shows a single moment in time - the proposals as of a few months before it was finally cancelled. There were many other proposed flight sequences, none of which (in retrospect) were any more real or concrete than the others; this is just the one that was there when the music stopped. It feels like it might be better to give a summary of the types of mission that were planned and merge it back into the main Constellation article.

Thoughts appreciated. I've not been following this very closely... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As you say, Constellation ceased to exist, so while Ares I-X can be left in that list, anything EFT or EM should be chopped out. The "planned missions as of 2009" should probably be clarified to note that those will no longer happen, perhaps? As far as I know, there isn't an overarching program name for the modern Orion and SLS (other than "Senate Launch System", har har). The current mission list can probably just be dumped in the Orion article and be done with, but given how few and far between they are, and how very likely things are to be rescoped or descoped with new administrations, I don't see a need for any kind of overarching program article. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Seems to have been reverted back to the old version with a note that the current flights are 'in effect' Constellation. I'm not particularly up on the background here to argue the details - anyone want to have a look? Andrew Gray (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you spell original research? :-) Burden of proof is on anyone who asserts Constellation "in effect still exists." JustinTime55 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Andrew, I think your edits look fine, and I agree with Justin that those edits restoring the old material were not appropriate. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The program doesn't have a name.--Craigboy (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Mercury Program mission audio

Hi. I've located, and am in the process of uploading to Commons, recordings of the mission audio from the Mercury Program. I have all of the manned flights, but sorting out some of them is going to require listening and comparing to the transcripts to get them in the right order, since they are only marked by the NASA audio archive file number, and not the actual sequence. The suborbital flights (and the first 'chimp' orbital flight) don't have that problem, and it seems like clips of them would be quite appropriate for articles... Alan Shepard lifting off, for instance. The ones that are currently up...

I'll continue uploading the others over time, but it's going to take a bit for me to get them sorted out... there are things like John Glenn discussing his 'fireflies', for instance. Reventtalk 07:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Vladimír Remek for GA

Hi. I've nominated Vladimír Remek, Czechoslovakia's one and only cosmonaut, for GA. I'd appreciate any interested editor taking a look at it. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Launching and Category:Current spaceflights

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Launching#Recent edits and Category:Current spaceflights concerning the categories emitted by {{Launching}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello to my fellow Wikipedians! I am now right here to announce the creation of a new WikiProject, the WikiProject Cosmology, which will be a sister project to WikiProject Spaceflight. I know this WikiProject is concerned on articles about the instruments used for cosmology, that's why this WikiProject and the new one are related.

We have only seven members, so I encourage, if everyone here is interested, to join the new WikiProject. We really need help from you.

That's all. If you wish to join, please sign at our members list. Thank you! SkyFlubbler (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for orbital launches navbox

Infobox rocket template

Hello, i would like to add a new section to the Infobox rocket template, a line so i could add total program cost fost rockets just as in the infobox aircraft.I would prefer avoiding a mistake so if someone feel like he could help, it would be very appreciated.I have put the text exemple i would like to add in the template talk page.Thanks in advance.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The "new Space Law" of France

Does the English Wikipedia have anything on the "new Space Law" in France?

Michel Eymard, CNES’s director of launchers, "said the Ariane 6 design, being managed by Airbus Defence and Space and Safran in a newly created joint venture, is already able to launch 10,900 kilograms of payload to geostationary transfer orbit, with enough leftover performance to deorbit its upper stage — a requirement of France’s new Space Law." Here is the link to the SpaceNews article that says that (in the final paragraph): With Eye on SpaceX, CNES Begins Work on Reusable Rocket Stage.

If there is a new legal regime that requires rapid deorbit of even GTO upper stages from large-elliptical orbits, then that is a chunk of space law worth covering in Wikipedia. I don't read French, and there seems to be nothing obvious at Category:Space law.

Anyone know where to get more info on this? Cheers, N2e (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the French passed what I believe is the world's first mandatory orbital debris mitigation law, Loi relative aux operations spatiales (The French Space Operations Act), which requires either direct disposal of upper stages or, if it can be shown that direct disposal would be impractical, that the debris will reenter within 25 years or so. It covers two zones: all inclinations under 7000km (edit 2k), and GEO +- some inclination. Direct disposal of GTO upper stages shouldn't be a problem, it only takes a tiny dV to decrease periapse to within the atmosphere. I'll see what I can dig up. A(Ch) 03:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's an overview [14] and a translation of the law [15] and some further elaboration [16]. From what I gather, the Space Liability Convention makes it the responsibility of the launching country to be liable for damage caused by debris from their launches, regardless of operator or launcher. Since Arianespace launches from French territory, the FSOA spells out a legal framework to ensure responsible direct deorbiting of upper stages for new launchers as well as insurance on the part of sat operators should damage occur. Although I'm a scientist not a lawyer so maybe totally off. A(Ch) 03:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, A, those are super helpful references. I'll make two quick observations: 1) it appears that non-US space law needs to be a bit better covered in the English Wikipedia (see, for example, Category:Space law); and 2) reading those sources would seem to indicate that the French space law is not so black and white as the short sentence at the end of that Space News article might have indicated; definitely more nuanced when one gets to the details. N2e (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

?

Could anyone help with secondary sources and links at the article on Alexander Bolonkin? Hafspajen (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

How connected is the MV Delta Mariner ship that carries ULA rockets to the spaceflight WikiProject?

MV Delta Mariner is an ocean-going ship that was purpose-built to carry Atlas V and Delta IV rocket components from point of manufacture in Decatur, Alabama to either Cape Canaveral, Florida or to Vandenberg AFB, California, for United Launch Alliance. It is currently neither categorized nor tagged on Talk page as of interest to this WikiProject.

Should it be?

I'm personally agnostic, so am merely asking. If anyone thinks it should be, just add a cat or tag the Talk page for this project. N2e (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. Personally I don't think it should be included, but other articles like MV Retriever, MV Liberty Star and MV Freedom Star have been tagged. So it should either be tagged, or the tags removed from those other articles. I'm not sure what would be best. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, since no one else has gotten interested in the question, I just went with the simplest solution: a single edit to make MV Delta Mariner match the other three. If someone feels differently, please revert and let's talk.
In the future, it is possible that there will need to be a category for spaceflight-related maritime vessels, and one not exclusive to NASA as seems to be the case in those four articles. Things like the private Autonomous spaceport drone ship (also US), as well as the spaceflight-related vessels of non-US entities (e.g., Soviet space communications and surveillance ships, etc.) may suggest it. N2e (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I finally went ahead and created a new category for spaceflight-related maritime vessels, and have added the ten or so that I could most easily find to that category, including the private SpaceX landing platform as well as a few government ships from the US, USSR, Russia and France. If anyone knows of others, please add those as well; or clean up old (and perhaps now unnecessary) category classifications as you wish. N2e (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Italicization of spacecraft

You might be interested in the discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 48#Should this be italicized?, which is discussing whether "named, specific vessels", including spacecraft, should be italicized (e.g. Ranger 7, Ranger 9, Apollo 11). GoingBatty (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no such vessel as "Apollo 11". That's a mission name only.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Retirement of project member WD Graham

The other day, I happened over to WikiProject Spaceflight long-time contributor WD Graham's page to ask him a question and, inadvertantly, learned that WD has recently retired from Wikipedia, effective 14 February 2015. I left a message of appreciation for his many years of work on the English Wikipedia on his Talk page. You may wish to do the same.

I'm writing this so that other interested WikiProject Spaceflight editors might 1) know about it closer to the event, and 2) hop on over there, or do it here, and wish WD well as he moves on to other fruitful pursuits for his intellect and diligent efforts that have, in the past, benefited all of us so much. N2e (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This makes me very concerned for the future of User:AstRoBot, which automatically updates orbital parameters in spacecraft articles. Do we know if this will continue to operate? Is anyone capable of taking over operations if WDGraham decides to shut it down? — Huntster (t @ c) 04:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've opened a new section below to discuss the technical miscellania of AstRoBot. It seems to me that this section is better left as a single-topic section honoring WD Graham's contributions to this project over many years. ... and I truly hope that some others who are well aware of that contribution will weigh in and say something about it. N2e (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
... Retired.
Had a good time working with him on few assignments. Thanks! WD Graham for all the contributions. -Ninney (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm ... WD's knowledge and contributions are appreciated. But I have to be honest; he is opinionated, and at times seemed stubborn, but ... I guess, ultimately reasonable. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Planetary habitability

I have nominated Planetary habitability for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Some comments on coverage and PoV issues on everything about SpaceX

Well, I have been quiet on any article issues on this portal (mainly because I deal with data tables and not articles), but there's something about the coverage on SpaceX here that I would like to, ahem, slightly rant about. While I do not believe this is intentional, I think that there's quite a bit of SpaceX related materials that are written in a SpaceX-centric way and unintentionally lead to PoV issues for them.

Here are some examples that I feel there are issues:

  • 1. The Launching template used for announcement of satellite launches. Recently people have been adding info about 1st stage recovery attempts to the remarks section for F9 launches and.....I feel this is both verbose and unnecessary. This template is mostly used as an imminent launch announcement with the launch time listed for people to look up, and adding such long sentences really affects the readability of it (it took me a few more seconds to look for the launch time), plus it also have PoV issues because I feel such long descriptions detracts the attention from the one and only reason for a launch to take place - to deliver a satellite. Any 1st stage recovery experiments are subject to last minute changes (as seen from the last launch) and should not be taken for granted as the main attention focus of that launch. To me, such content should be mentioned in brief in the payload page and in details on a new page on the chronology of the development of 1st stage recovery techniques by SpaceX, but not in a template; such addition of info to it is IMHO SpaceX-centric and takes away attention to the payload. No-one talks about Space Shuttle DDOs in missions, for example.
Basically, I feel that such info should not be added to these templates or at most should be short and brief, not written like the example I listed.
  • 2. I feel that the list of launches of the F1/F9/FH rockets should be sprinkled with less info than it is right now - and most of them are related to the LSP, not the customer or anything else. I can see 1st stage recovery efforts info listed there (although I also feel some of them are a little bit too verbose to be listed in this list, e.g. the tidbit about the CRS-5 launch in January), but.... "The launch is Boeing's first-ever conjoined launch of a lighter-weight dual-commsat stack that was specifically designed to take advantage of the lower-cost SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle." (next launch for F9)? Really, I feel that this info is bordering trivia to be listed in the list of launches table (and instead should be added into the page for the 2 satellites). You see, these list of tables usually involves just a list of info on the number of launches of a certain rocket, the launch time, the launch pad used, outcomes etc. These info that are related to the LSP should not be covered in such details in launch lists and should instead be added to directly related pages like the ones about SpaceX 1st stage recovery techniques. IMHO, the current configuration have readability issues and puts too much info from the LSP PoV.

I think there are even more issues but these 2 are what I can write down concretely. Discuss if you all have different opinions about these issues and/or other issues you can think of about SpaceX articles and sections in other articles that mentions SpaceX. ;)

Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

On the first item, I started a discussion on the Template talk:Launching/Falcon (Canaveral) Talk page two weeks ago during the last Falcon 9 launch campaign for the DSCOVR mission, but nobody else weighed in on it. That issue, which was mission specific, is now past. But we could certainly discuss the topic more generally if a group of editors are interested. N2e (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding #2: I agree with that, a lot of the descriptions have details that, while interesting, end up making the article more cluttered. I think reusability attempts should have a brief summary (as many readers seem to be interested in that) but the focus in mission descriptions should be the primary payload. Having a link to the SpaceX Reusability Test Program article might be well-advised in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appable (talk • contribs) 01:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Re #2. While I have no particular problem with such summary prose being reduced to a brief summary in order to make the article less cluttered, I believe that, from a process point of view, this ought to be discussed (and any consensus achieved) on the article Talk page. In my experience, arbs and reviewers will generally support such consensus (consensi?) achieved in that way, but will generally not do the same for discussions that occurred in one of the related WikiProjects. So if you're looking for something lasting here, you might want to kick this off on the appropriate article Talk page, and then use this discussion page to invite interested editors to join the discussion. N2e (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What new lists can be added to the Timeline of spaceflight articles

Well if you missed the news, there was some discussion about whether one orbital debris creation event should be added to the 2015 in spaceflight article. After some pushing back and forth (involving yours truly ;)), it was decided that a new section for orbital debris creation events will be added to all the articles as a baseline for similar events that could be tracked.

Which begs another question. These articles certainly can be further expanded in scope to include more events, so I would like to discuss what can be added to them in the future - unfortunately currently I can't think of one that would follow the rules below and haven't been covered in other articles, so I have nothing to offer right now.

I think we can agree that whatever that is added should be:

1. in list format (after all, they are list articles)
2. should have clear definitions such that they could be listed (i.e. "other major spaceflight events" probably would not work since the definition would be arbitrary)
3. have clear date (and time if known) of happening such that they could be listed in the correct year

So, discuss away. ;)

Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A minor point on no. 1. These annual yyyy in spaceflight articles are actually Timelines, not List articles, so I think the relevant standard might be Wikipedia:Timeline standards.
But the broader point remains: material in timelines should be formatted (or reformatted) into sections and items generally consistent with that standard. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Are Spaceflight articles scientific/preferred units

Should the preferred units for mass, thrust, pressure, etc across spaceflight articles respect customary units or are spaceflight articles scientific articles? WP:UNITS mandates US customary units in non-scientific articles relating to the United States, so should the articles for Falcon 9 v1.1, Atlas V, etc be changed to primarily display lbf (kN)? A(Ch) 20:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A quick survey shows the unit style is all over the place, with most vehicles older than Shuttle using customary units, and most vehicles newer than Shuttle (except Delta IV and SLS, both recently flipped to customary) using SI units A(Ch) 21:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, all spaceflight articles should adopt a metric-first/Imp-parenthetical display policy. There are of course some exceptions, such as where astronomical units are the logical units (so then it would be AU-first, metric/imp in parentheses). Regardless, I think a standard of appearance should be strived for. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The majority are history of technology, thus first ought to use digiti, fathoms, talents, barrels or whatever is authentic, followed by measures that modern people are expected to understand. As for when the modern measure era began for USA rocketeering, I figure the Space Shuttle is a pretty good transition point. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I want to take this opportunity to go on record: The blithe assertion (made by someone) "Spaceflight articles should use (only) metric because they are scientific" reflects a gross misunderstanding of the difference between science and technology. WP:TIES applies (historic as well as national). Both metric and English engineering units must always be included, and the primary should be as appropriate: metric for all non-US and modern US programs, and English engineering for the historical US programs. I agree with Jim.henderson; the Shuttle is probably a good transition. NASA has long had a "metric-only" policy, but they never came up with a practical way to implement it. They started by converting the Apollo program to metric on the last Moon landings (I can't remember exactly when; somewhere around Apollo 15 or 16) when the astronauts started talking meters and kilograms on the surface. A lot of the NASA history writings use metric, but that is not authentic and was retroactively converted.
And also a note on spelling: although the SI has authority to dictate an international standard of units, they do not have the right to impose French spelling on us. Many British (as well as American) texts use "meter" rather than "metre"; I believe we should follow suit. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
MOS:UNITS is pretty clear on selecting primary units with regard to articles relating to the US (though scientific and science are different concepts, I had assumed US articles were getting away with SI by taking a broader definition of scientific). It seems that the primary position of SI units for modern US spaceflight reflects a logical unwritten consensus; now that some articles are being converted away from SI, is there an actual consensus that US articles before the Shuttle should display English engineering units in the primary position, while US articles from the Shuttle-era on should display SI units in the primary position? A(Ch) 17:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
No relevence, but I knew I'd seen something at Spaceflight about scientific being invoked for metric: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spaceflight/template_list#Space Missions Even though this can be construed as a historical project, it is also very much a scientific project, so please use only metric units in the articles. A(Ch) 04:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that; that must be what I had in mind when I referred above ("... represents a gross misunderstanding of the difference between science and technology"). I also knew I saw it somewhere, but couldn't find it. Notice that isn't even linked (anymore) to our main project page, so no one can find it. There is also zero evidence of any discussion of "consensus" on that statement. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It's also something like 8 years old, so as I said, no relevance. A(Ch) 18:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, but I'm just afraid it might be stuck in some people's minds. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes and I'm sure everyone agrees that regardless of primary unit, the convert template should always be used. A(Ch) 19:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I've certainly been working under the understanding that there was a working consensus on spaceflight-related articles—especially for current/newish space launch systems, spacecraft, etc.—that they would use the internationally-recognized SI units first, to be followed by parenthetical inclusion of the various preferred non-SI units. That also happens to be the convention that I believe is most helpful to our broad international readership of folks reading these articles in this encyclopedia, many of whom have a first-language that is not English, and who are vastly more familiar with SI than the more offbeat units. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Two points:
I believe N2e was suggesting support for leaving older LV pages with US units, while using SI units for modern ones, just as you indicated support for doing. A(Ch) 18:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, N2e, I must have been conflating entries in my head; I thought I saw the word "only". I certainly don't have a problem with SI where/when appropriate, as long as the English conversion is included. I'm glad to see we seem to agree. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Delta IV regarding units should anyone want to weigh in. A(Ch) 19:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Being that NASA' spacecraft and launches have implications in both technology and science, I always quote first the metric system (SI) followed by the conversion to Imperial system. I don't see any problem with doing the same with "old" American spacecraft and lunches, as long as the measurements are correct and referenced. My 2 cents. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, pre-Shuttle spacecraft and launches, as history of technology, should retain US units in primary, with parenthetical SI, since this reflects their context and respects TIES. For modern vehicles of course SI primary with parenthetical English engineering units is the logical choice since it reflects their context and is the most widely understandable system. A(Ch) 21:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
And the unit dispute over Space Launch System has reached boiling point. A(Ch) 19:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

SpaceX photos available on Wikimedia Commons

Hi All

SpaceX have just made 100 images available under a Wikipedia compatible licence, they're available on Wikimedia Commons here, lots of great stuff.

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting everyone on the spaceflight project be aware of this new development. As of right now, at least three editors have looked over the first one hundred photos released, and have used about a dozen of them to improve various Wikipedia articles. N2e (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
They might need additional categorizing (on Commons, attach all the applicable categories, not attached as parents to an existing category; so dates, features on images, items on images, locations, etc) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
When I initially uploaded all of the images, I specifically included three categories: "Photographs by SpaceX" as a primary holder category, date of photography which is present in almost every case, and model of camera which took it (a few didn't have this data). Afterward, I went back and added in mission data (for example, "Falcon 9 Flight 15" for launch photos, "SpaceX CRS-4" for photos specifically of a Dragon capsule), plus some descriptive categories such as "parabolic trajectories". Additional descriptive categories are certainly welcome. For the most part, though, location categories should be added cautiously. All the mission categories ("Falcon 9 Flight 15") are subcats of their respective launch pad categories, so there's no need for duplication there. I've already added general location cats for any specific hangar shots or photographs taken at Hawthorne HQ. In any case, I have them all watchlisted, so I'll catch any changes that are completely out in left field. Hopefully we'll see more and more of these images released going forward, and we won't have to entirely rely on NASA photography (though that's always welcome too!). — Huntster (t @ c) 10:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Rosetta: Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko is rich in deuterium

Report: Rosetta's 67P comet is rich in deuterium: [17]. I am somewhat rusted in all physics subjects, but I believe this has a certain appeal for potential mining of deuterium for nuclear-powered spacecraft or for return to Earth. Someone here may be interested in "mining" this info. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Use Template:Infobox rocket engine

This template seems to be used in quite strange ways on different rocket engine pages, I'm planning to look at these and try to correct the obvious problems.

The problems are like Associated L/V being ESA on Vulcain and small things like that.

Is this a good idea? Anything I should think about?

I crossposted this to the Rocketry project.

--Larlin289 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

LIM-49 Nike Zeus

The article LIM-49 Nike Zeus is undergoing a FA candidacy and it looks like it could use some more feedback. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Recruiting new editors for expansion of Timeline of spaceflight articles

Hi all,

Sadly, one of the most important series of lists inside the scope of this portal has ceased to be maintained since the original editor for them left Wikipedia a few months ago. I and a few other editors are trying to keep the current articles updated, but there are still large gaps in content for many of these lists and there has been controversies in whether to add new types of content to them.

I hate to see them ending up neglected, so I am asking more members here to take a look on each and every single of the 50+ lists there and see if there are gaps in the list of launches, EVAs, planetary exploration events etc. for every single year there.

Also, if you are interested, get more references for every single individual event listed (even though some of the reference pages already listed have coverage for all events listed here from 1957 to 2015+). The more you find, the better!

One more thing, please try to make out lists of major orbital debris production events for each single year ASAP - after heated arguments one such list have been added to the 2015 article, but despite invitations for others to add more none were added for the past 2 months, leaving this section as an awkward orphan. I ask any editor who can make out such lists for individual years (should be easy using NORAD data) to do so over the next few months, or else I would have no choice but to delete it, because I believe that for such list series consistency MUST come before content additions. If you want to add new lists of data to them, do it for all, or don't do it at all.

Thanks for all who would like to join! Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Bumping since it doesn't look like anyone have interest in that since the post above 2 weeks ago. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Spaceflight non-fatal training accidents

The article Spaceflight non-fatal training accidents is actually a Listing of non-fatal training accidents & hence need to be rename (move) as List of spaceflight-related non-fatal training accidents. Refer List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents - Ninney (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Spacecraft style guide?

Greetings all,

After browsing many different spacecraft articles, I've noticed that, among spacecraft of similar missions, there is no standardized "style guide" for what the layout of an article should look like. Specifically, unmanned, one-or-two-of-a-kind spacecraft with scientific missions/objectives. For example, the New Horizons mission has 6 unique sections (Background/Goal/Design and construction/Past mission timeline/Current status/Future mission time). The Stardust mission has 6 differently labeled but roughly similar sections (Mission background/Mission profile/New exploration of Temple 1/End of extended mission/Sample return/Results). WISE, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, SMAP, and Cluster II (and the list goes on...) are much the same- all have between 5 to 8 sections, all with different titles/layouts but covering similar categories of information.

At WP:Aviation, there is a standardized style guide for article layout for aircraft: WP:Aircontent. Within reason, why can't we do the same for scientific spacecraft? A suggested layout could be something like:

  • Background
  • Scientific Objectives
  • Design/Instrumentation
  • Operational History
  • Significant Results
  • References/external links/etc.

Mission-unique subsections could be inserted under these common headings as applicable.

A standard layout would assists readers by clearly delineating what content is where, with no surprises between similar articles. Clearly identifying what information goes where across spacecraft articles would also help editors understand what kind of information should ideally be in an article, and weak/underdeveloped sections can be readily identified and improved.

My apologies if there has been previous discussion on this somewhere, and I've missed it. I'm also sure there's drawbacks to this idea- large amounts of re-work to existing articles being one of them. But I believe the benefits of having a standardized layout would be worth it. Thanks for reading- I'd welcome your feedback, positive, negative, or otherwise. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

After a few weeks with no feedback, I'm assuming there's no interest in this idea. If anyone changes their mind, let me know- I'd stilling be willing to work on something like this. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
IMO it is not the lack of interest, but the vast differences between spacecraft and aircraft. Each spacecraft is a unique MISSION, with different systems and payload. I think it would be very limiting to this WP project to encase each mission/spacecraft in a specific format. My opinion anyway. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, BatteryIncluded. I'll withdraw my comparison to WP:aircraft, as we're discussing missions versus craft types. That being said, I still see a lot of commonalities between existing many mission articles at a high level. In the Stardust vs New Horizons example above- what's the difference between "Background" and "Mission Background" as section titles? All unmanned scientific missions have some sort of background...and some sort of design...and some sort of flight history (if launched)...and some sort of key results (either expected or actually obtained). The mission unique details could be categorized under sub-sections, which would not be standardized.
I do think it is import to keep a narrow scope to the application of a standardized format- in my example above, I wouldn't suggest applying it Space Shuttle missions, or commercial/military satellites, or anything other than unmanned scientific missions. But within that scope, and at a high level, are the missions really that unique? Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

EmDrive

FYI, there is a discussion about EmDrive content, references and quality at WT:PHYSICS -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Landfall"

The usage and primary topic of Landfall is under discussion, see talk:Landfall (meteorology) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Who will operate/support User:AstRoBot in the future?

Per Huntster's comment above, I'm started a new section for that discussion, which seems to me to be a rather totally different conversation and topic than is a Talk section honoring WD Graham's retirement. N2e (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Huntster is:

very concerned for the future of User:AstRoBot, which automatically updates orbital parameters in spacecraft articles. Do we know if this will continue to operate? Is anyone capable of taking over operations if WDGraham decides to shut it down? — Huntster (t @ c) 04:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that no one has come forward with interest in running/taking over the human cybernetic management of the bot, I would guess then that the bot will eventually die a slow death, at some point in the future when the code runs awry, is shut down manually, and whomever watches over bots on Wikipedia finds that the bot no longer has a present/live owner. I don't like this outcome; just seems like what will likely happen to old bots that lose their human. N2e (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeing that it has not been working since 2-3 months ago I think I'm going to ask WDGraham himself on a forum I frequently visit (he's still a major article writer for that site) to see if someone else can take over the operations (like me ;)).... Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Galactic Penguin SST, just following up...were you able to make contact? I was thinking of contacting him myself to see how technical the bot's operation was, and whether I could run it myself. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah I have forgotten about this. I got the reply more than one week ago, and he said that the source of the bot is not stable enough right now to be run by another user, and unfortunately he doesn't have the time to work on it right now. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a request to WP:BOTREQ is in order for a replacement bot? -- 65.94.43.89 06:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Antares failure mess

It's a mess that the incident is getting described at Cygnus CRS Orb-3 and Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport Launch Pad 0 and Antares_(rocket)#October_2014_incident. And all those pages have different information, some saying the launch pad damage is insignificant, some saying it isn't. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up this topic. My suggestion would be to make one of the articles the "primary" article for discussing the incident in detail....probably the Cygnus CRS Orb-3 article. The other two articles should certainly mention the incident, but not in as much detail- and any detail included shouldn't contradict the "primary". Merely a suggestion. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

National Board of Study and Aerospace Research listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for National Board of Study and Aerospace Research to be moved to ONERA. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Draft"-class articles?

Does WPSPACEFLIGHT support tagging Draft-class pages? I have a draft up at Draft:MarsPolar which I might tag with {{WPSpaceflight|class=draft}} if you support that. I'm waiting to see if this topic gains any additional notability. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not convince to give a SOAPBOX to this SPAM wannabe commercial venture. 1) It does not exist yet. 2) Planning to finance their shenanigans with donations: Several of the founding members are candidates of the MarsOne program, another scam cash cow. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Which is why the draft article is sitting in DRAFTspace right now, since I am waiting to see if it gains notability. That's not my question though. I am asking if WPSPACEFLIGHT supports adding banners to draft articles. (My IP address has rotated) -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
"Draft" is not a valid entry on the quality scale; that is what the "class=" parameter is intended to indicate. The relevant class (quality) indicators are "Stub" and "Start", based on the amount and quality of the content. The banner is not meant to indicate the namespace location, and there are other issues here such as notability which affect whether or not it should be admitted to the main space. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
WPBANNERMETA "class" supports List, Disambig, Portal, Project, Category, Template, Redirect, Book and Draft, when various extended attributes are turned on. So I guess WPSPACEFLIGHT doesn't support extended class-types. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"3D printing in aerospace industry"

FYI, 3D-printed spacecraft has been requested to be renamed to "aerospace industry" -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left some thoughts there on that Talk page. Hope others will weigh in as well. N2e (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Moving LightSail-1

I am wondering if we should move (rename) the LightSail-1 article; LightSail is a project that will develop LightSail-A, LightSail-1, LightSail-2 and LightSail-3. They all should fit nice in one page. Any thoughts? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to split it up into a programme article (LightSail, and individual probe articles (LightSail-A, LightSail-1, LightSail-2, etc) ? -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Time to Branch Template:Rocket engines?

I've been working on this template a lot. I've written no less than 20 new articles, added quite a bunch of engines, motors and categories. But the template lacks a clear scoping. One underlying problem is that I've been seeing a clash between Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation! In fact, the template is claimed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight. To be frank, I will open discussions on the three boards because I want to propose to separate the template in three different templates, one for each project. Please discuss it in the Template TalkPage

Baldusi (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Mars habitability

FYI, there is a notice at WT:WikiProject Mars about the page Draft:Present_day_habitability_of_Mars -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Life on Mars

As the name of this Wikiproject may provide confusion with the article located at Life on Mars (to which is it unrelated to), I thought you'd like to know about a change to the naming of that project, see WT:WikiProject Life on Mars -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Space-based solar power

{{Space-based solar power}} has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

IP editor very active on Astronaut BLPs

I have noticed an IP hopping editor from the 24.135.7#.## ... range making lots of edits to astronaut BLPs up to at least July 8, 2015. Geolocates to Serbia. For example

Not as many different IPs as I thought! AGF but they give no edit summaries and an eye may need to be kept on their edits. This edit for example [18] seems problematic, arbitrarily changing "Joe" to "Joseph" (so possibly wrong since August 2014, per this [19] recent 'revert' of same), and [20] adding names of children to the page. Just bringing it to this projects attention. Though, it seems a bit quiet, and it appears 67.70.32.20 (talk · contribs) is the only active editor here. 220 of Borg 17:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Since many astronauts are also aviators or military, you can also give notice at WP:AVIATION and WP:MILHIST, and the various country projects for whatever country the astronaut represents -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks IP 67! Good suggestions. 220 of Borg 06:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"LauncherOne"

Isn't it about time that LauncherOne (Virgin Galactic LauncherOne) became a separate article? There are sure enough separate reliable sources about it from various different development points in its history -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Suborbital rocket engines

Since we are changing the scope of Template:Rocket engines to only include "orbital launch vehicle rocket engines that have flown", I've took the liberty of writing this template for suborbital engines in my sandbox Template:Suborbital rocket engines. Since it might be of interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation, I would kindly request, that any comment be discussed in its TalkPage. Many thanks for your collaboration and time. Baldusi (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

AFAIR, "Rocket Engines" was not to be the orbital rocket engines template either, since the orbital template was to have a different name. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, we did discussed that on the Talk Page. The short story is that without scoping, it will balloon exponentially, losing its effectiveness. I'm writing a series of more tightly scoped templates, when that work is finished, we can discuss renaming it. Meanwhile, please give us your opinion on the template's Talk Page. Baldusi (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to rename the template, it can be converted to a template-navtemplate (a navtemplate to navigate between your new templates) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Due to lack of comments I assumed nobody had any problems and I've moved it as a template to Template:Suborbital rocket engines. I will add it to the named engines.Baldusi (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Spacecraft rocket engines

Since we are changing the scope of Template:Rocket engines to only include "orbital launch vehicle rocket engines that have flown", I've took the liberty of writing this template for spacecraft engines in my sandbox Template:Spacecraft rocket engines, just as I did for the Template:Suborbital rocket engines proposal. Since it might be of interest to both Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry, I would kindly request, that any comment be discussed in its TalkPage. Many thanks for your collaboration and time. Baldusi (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a good name, considering "spacecraft" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Since there was no further comments than naming, I assumed a tacit acceptance. I took the recommendation to specify orbital spacecraft in the name, and thus it is now available as Template:Orbital spacecraft rocket engines.Baldusi (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_6&oldid=1136411110"