Talk:Spacecraft attitude determination and control

Momentum / Reaction Wheels

I'm not sure about the description of Momentum Wheels, the description sound more like Reaction Wheels i.e. the spacecraft rotates in the opposite direction of the motor rotation - an equal an opposite reaction. Momentum wheels spin constantly and give much finer control with minimal backlash. In fact they spin faster-and-faster over time and have to be regularly "unloaded" using thrusters. The 3-axis gyroscopic effect gives the spacecraft more inertial mass - it appears stiffer and heavier to turn, making steering more accurate. ( 29 September 2005‎ by 83.245.31.36‎ )

Yes. reaction wheel clarifies the distinction, ('momentum wheel' seems ambiguous) and I've editted to mention reactions wheels but maybe we need to deemphasise momentum wheel. - Rod57 (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Solar sails

Shouldn't it be Mariner 10 instead of Pioneer 10? - ( 29 March 2007‎ by 83.58.226.216 )

Relative/Absolute sensors

The given definition of relative and absolute sensors is quite unclear for me. For example gyroscope, from the relative sensors cathegory, does not essentialy rely on any other external objects or phenomena. Yet sun sensors, from the absolute sensors cathegory, depend clearly on observed object and output relative information about measured attitude. Therefore I am quite confused. --Robert Valner (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirect/merge

this page has been merged with the page, Attitude dynamics and control - Admiralsith 18:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge spin-stabilized satellite here

I suggest merging all of spin-stabilized satellite into the more general article attitude control. (I am mystified as to why this was first suggested at Talk: flight dynamics (spacecraft)#Merge from spin-stabilized satellite and 3-axis stabilized spacecraft ). --DavidCary (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It has been merged - but before the merge some unsourced text was deleted. See [1] - It seems plausible and possibly worth finding sources for, so it can be reinstated. - Rod57 (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Could we have a section on spacecraft with notable attitude control requirements

Could we have a section on spacecraft with notable attitude control requirements, eg those that have required very accurate pointing - eg Kepler, Hubble?, and those whose mission requires numerous (possibly rapid) changes of orientation, eg Kepler K2 mission, gamma ray observatories (some need high slew rates), Hubble, Parker Solar Probe, ... ? Any objections if I start one ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's been a long time since this comment was left, but I hope you do choose to do that, Rod57.

From my read of the article this morning, it appears that the article has become disjointed, perhaps from various merges and/or splits that happened over the years since 2014, that never got fully cleaned up, or integrated. For example, it is very difficult to figure out about many paragraphs of prose or article sections if they apply to aircraft flight control/attitude control, or spacecraft attitude control, or for some possibly both. N2e (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks N2e, I've bookmarked this to come back to. - Rod57 (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed move to Attitude control (spacecraft)

Almost all content seems to be about spacecraft not aircraft - So I'd like to change "aerospace" to "space" in the intro, and delete the short "Aircraft attitude control" section. Perhaps then we should rename/move article to attitude control (spacecraft) ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I would support the thrust of what you are proposing, Rod57/ Spacecraft attitude control is definitely sufficiently different from aircraft pitch/roll/yaw, that this makes sense. Moreover, the common terminology is "attitude control" with respect to spacecraft, while that is not the common name for aircraft, even though attitude is used there. So diff articles makes sense.

Funny thing is, I think at one time the two were explicated differently in Wikipedia. I've not checked the History just now, but do believe that at some time a poorly done merge or something might have been done. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, N2e, I tried the move but couldn't do it due to the target being an existing redirect, so I've requested the move at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Administrator_needed - page mover rights might not be enough. If it gets moved I'll do the other bits. - Rod57 (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Came here from RM/TR. I don't think the article should be renamed, or that another non-dab title would be better, such as "spacecraft attitude control". The aircraft section could be removed, or be more of a "comparison with" type section. That all said, here's a list of items I think would be good for cleaning up this article:

• Update the lead to be about spacecraft specifically.
• Remove the aircraft section, or make it a "compared to" section"
• Change the spacecraft section to Stabilization and Articulation (or some terminology that encapsulates those two concepts better)
• Remove the Y/P/R gifs of airplanes and replace with ones of a more space-specific vehicle, or a more generic body.

UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done the first two of those bullets, and now happier to leave the name as is. - Rod57 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Came here from RM/TR as well. Do we really need spacecraft in the title? I don't think that "attitude control" is a thing in aircraft terminology, or at least not a commonly used term (source: having watched all the episodes of Mayday), so it does not really need disambiguation. If you still feel it should, something like Spacecraft attitude control is a more WP:NATURAL title. I agree with other points made here. No such user (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that attitude control is definitely a term used in and with respect to aircraft; just less common than with spacecraft. Principle terms are pitch, yaw, and roll, but those are just the terms for the three axes of attitude control. (and I once held a commercial pilot's license, although my license is not active any longer).

Having said all that, this article is about the attitude control of spacecraft, and not aircraft. So either the proposal, Attitude control (spacecraft), or the suggestion by 'No such user', Spacecraft attitude control, is fine by me. The second one is more [WP:NATURAL]] title; but if the Flight dynamics (fixed-wing aircraft) article title were to ever be moved to Attitude control (aircraft), then at that time, the former might be better for this article.

(BTW, with respect to aircraft, "Flight dynamics" is more the language of the engineers and designers of aircraft, whereas talk about aircraft "attitude" is the more common lingo of pilots who operate aircraft; have been both, but now retired.) N2e (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be to leave article name as Attitude control, so have added a hatnote. - Rod57 (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Since there's general consensus that bare Attitude control fails WP:PRECISION, I moved this article to Spacecraft attitude control. The question is, what to do with attitude control? Based on the previous input, it should become a dab page listing this article, Attitude change and Flight dynamics (fixed-wing aircraft) (boy, what a convoluted title, but let's leave that for later). No such user (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a bad solution. In my opinion this should be moved back to attitude control. The first sentence of the lead can explain the context, and a hatnote is more than enough to disambiguate spacecraft attitude control from aircraft attitude control.

If this article is going to stay here at the title spacecraft attitude control, then the page attitude control should either be a summary article (also describing fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, multi-rotor drones, etc., and maybe also camera stabilization platforms, robot arms, ...), or else should redirect here.

While the two words "attitude" and "control" show up in psychology, the combination "attitude control" is not a common psychological term, and nobody is going to wiki-link to attitude control intending to be linking to a psychology topic. (To the point that even a hatnote for attitude change is unnecessary.) –jacobolus (t) 19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm basically neutral, and have challenged the request somewhat (but after moving the page, I updated whopping ~200 incoming links, only half dozen intended for the aircraft). On retrospect, it might have been wasted effort. No such user (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Where did the inbound links intend to point? –jacobolus (t) 15:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

To this article. However, note the contrast with e.g. asphalt, which was recently turned into a dab page, and its previous contents moved to bitumen – there, around a half of ~4000 incoming links were actually were intended for asphalt concrete, demonstrating ambiguity of "asphalt". For "attitude control", this article was the intended target.
However, I'm inclined to leave things as they are: spacecraft attitude control is WP:PRECISE, WP:RECOGNIZABLE title to a layperson (clearly marking the subject as rocket science :) ), and attitude control is a primary redirect. No such user (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems fine then. Someone looking for a more general topic can click the hatnote link. –jacobolus (t) 15:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding spelling mistake

Altitude 157.48.184.16 (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not a spelling mistake, attitude means orientation in space, altitude means height above the surface. This article is about the former. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

ADCS redirects here - can we define please

ADCS redirects to this article - Could we mention it, and confirm if it is Attitude Determination and Control System or Attitude dynamics and control system (from the old merge with Attitude dynamics and control) ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Attitude control during propulsive maneuvers

The article might be improved by adding explicit coverage of the means of attitude control used during propulsive maneuvers, either in-space or during launch. Thrust vector control; vernier engines, etc. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 07:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Split Attitude determination

Spacecraft attitude determination is a notable concept and can be explained well separately from attitude control, as it's a prerequisite. fgnievinski (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is already short and incomplete, and you just cut out half of it. Everything in the current attitude determination section is clearly relevant and necessary to this page, and does not need to be summarized (indeed, is already quite a compressed summary). Redirecting readers to a different page to read the same very short summary is not helpful to those readers. If you want to expand a new article about attitude determination to full length, while leaving approximately the current summary here, that would be fine, but just splitting these and then moving on is harmful to the project. If you want to retitle this article Spacecraft attitude determination and control you won't get an objection from me, though I think it's unnecessary. If a reader is looking to learn about attitude determination specifically and they end up in a section of a page titled "attitude control" they are not going to be confused. –jacobolus (t) 15:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm not convinced your reorganization of sections of this article are particularly helpful (but mentioning attitude determination in the lead seems fine). Perhaps some of the other users who have been involved in naming/content discussions here within the past few years want to take a look. Ping @N2e, @Rod57, @No such user, @Sdsds. –jacobolus (t) 16:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

In the previous organization, we had Spacecraft attitude control#Sensors which is confusing as sensors are used for attitude determination or measurement, instead; only actuators can control or change the attitude. fgnievinski (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Merge content back to where it came from — while attitude determination is no doubt a different physics phenomenon than is attitude control, neither one when simply applied to spacecraft is large enough to be two separate encyclopedia articles, at least not with the content and sources we have. It seems a bit of an over-categorization move, important to a very narrow group of spacecraft attitude & control nerds, but not of huge use to general readers of the Wikipedia. I'd reverse the article split and WP:MERGE them back together. If someone makes that a formal proposal, I'd weigh in there as well. N2e (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)