Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Space Shuttle: The Ultimate cleanup?

I have been tracking the changes on this article, and I must say that it's a shame to see such an important article being so unorganized and lack of important imformation (while at the same time containing parts not suitable for an introductory article). This is especially sad when we are only about four months from the space shuttles' finale, yet we have a horric article for the casual wiki readers. That's why I am now starting an effort to improve the article to a much better condition, with a structure based on the International Space Station article (excellent job James!). Unfortunately, my free time is limited (college life, bah!) and my Google-fu is rather weak, so I might not be able to finish up the task by myself, especially given my goal of making the aritcle to at least GA status before STS-135 launches. So, can we group together and improve the article to celebrate the amazing three decades of hard work by the space shuttles and the people who make the STS program possible? As a first step, I've make some notes on how the article can be improved in my sandbox page, with the bolded words being my comments. I've also re-organized the article into the main categories that I recommend for the article. Can anybody help commenting on this? Lastly, if you have any comments to this proposal, feel free to leave comments on my talk page! Thanks for your attention. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have thought that with enough group effort we could get the article up to FA by STS-135, and hopefully have it as TFA on Atlantis's landing day. Come on people, step up! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Von Braun Rocket Team

A bunch of people came to the U.S. from Germany with Operation Paperclip. A subset of that group, collectively referred to by many names, but often as the "Von Braun Rocket Team," moved to Huntsville, Alabama and built the Saturn V. A number of news reports discuss the team as a whole, and there's a passel of information from historical reports and a monument to the group, with individual names, at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center. Shouldn't we have an article for the group - or at the very least a category? -- ke4roh (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a category to start with, depending on how many members of the team we have articles on. Once we've gathered them all up, we can see if we've got enough material for an article? Colds7ream (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022

NASA has made available at http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Vision_and_Voyages-FINAL.pdf the (United States) National Research Council's Space Studies Board report colloquially known as the decadal survey. This is a totally authoritative source, and it should be used as a reference in almost any article that covers the missions it discusses. Lots of work to do there! (sdsds - talk) 05:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

List of ISS spacewalks currently out of date

Hi, while browsing around the various pages on the ISS, I found that this list, of FL(!) status, is currently out of date since at least August last year. Can anybody help updating this page? Thanks! Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What needs updating, GP? There seems to be an entry for each spacewalk up to STS-133 as far as I can tell? Colds7ream (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rocket turbine engine

Rocket turbine engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been prodded for deletion. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree; it's a pathetic stub, and I can't really find anything about it on a quick Google search... Colds7ream (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

International Docking Standard

On 19 October 2010, the five partner agencies of the International Space Station program (JAXA, ESA, CSA, Roscosmos, and NASA) released an International Docking System Standard (IDSS). Should there be an article on the IDSS?

See Also:

---Basketball123456 (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. If you think it notable (and I would think it is) and have a few sources with which you can add citations to your article, you should go ahead and create the article, and let it emerge in the wiki way.
In the meantime, there is finally a comprehensive/comparitive article on Spacecraft Docking and Berthing Mechanisms which has been needed for a long time, to tie together the various Wikipedia articles on specific designs and specific standards for these important devices in spaceflight. That article does briefly mention the IDSS. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Space Recognition Guide

Hello everyone! At a recent book sale I bought Jane's Space Recognition Guide by Peter Bond (for a bargain $2.50!). Jane's are quite famous for their military guides. You can find a preview of the book with the full list of entries here. It's a good 380 pages all about spaceflight. Most entries have one page, with important entries taking 2-4 pages. So probably it won't have much to offer about important missions and spacecraft, but it could be very useful for other entries, like commercial and military satellites. If you find an article you're working on listed in the entries, tell me and I can either add the details I find directly to the article, or I can send you a scan of the page(s) you need. I'd be happy to help anytime. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 03:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've got a copy of this book too, if anyone wants it. I suggested a while back that we could form some sort of project library, with folks listing the relevant books they have and offering a lookup service; anyone else interested in that idea? Colds7ream (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Current spaceflight

Template:Current spaceflight has been nominated for merging with Template:Current. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, a discussion has been opened at Template talk:Current spaceflight#Usage of the template. Colds7ream (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Space template has been nominated for deletion

FYI, I have nominated {{WikiProject Space}} for deletion since the abolishment of WP:SPACE and the removal the template. The discussion is here. JJ98 (Talk) 21:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Further reorganisation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The discussion determined that there was No consensus to merge WikiProjects Spaceflight and Rocketry, but Supported the Abolition of the Human and Unmanned spaceflight task forces. Colds7ream (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been three months since the reorganisation of this project, and I think we are now getting an idea of how the project works with its new structure, and overall things seem to have improved, however I feel there are some areas where further reorganisation can be made. I would therefore like to make two proposals which I think it would be hugely beneficial to the project in the long term. Firstly, I think we should abolish the task forces. They aren't doing anything. I think we've given them enough time to settle down now, and it has become clear that the central project is more able to deal with all issues without the need for subcategorisation by whether the spacecraft is manned or not. My second proposal may be more controversial; I think we should consider a merger between the Spaceflight and Rocketry WikiProjects. This would require an expansion in scope to cover rocket launches that do not constitute spaceflights, however there is already a huge overlap between the two projects, and this one is far more active than rocketry. It does not make sense to duplicate so much work. I would suggest a combined name of WikiProject Rocketry and spaceflight. --GW… 13:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I would say that I thoroughly agree with your point about the task forces, and would be happy to see them disappear. Secondly, I would ask whether or not WP Rocketry has already been consulted, or if there are indeed any active members there to consult? Colds7ream (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it has any active members, but I have just posted there in case there are. I would suggest that if this proposal does gain more support, all members of both projects should be messaged regarding it before a decision is reached. --GW… 21:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, so long as that is the case, or, if not, the members there are up for it, I'd Support the merger - I'm a great believer in fewer, better WikiProjects, as I've stated before. Colds7ream (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I have just started a user activity check on WikiProject Rocketry. --GW… 18:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Good shout, sir! Colds7ream (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the abolition of the taskforces. I think it was right to give it some time to see what would develop but it's clear they are not used and are unlikely to be used. If at some point we want to break down the project I'm sure we can find a more sensible solution anyway.
As for the merger with WP:Rocketry, I'm not so sure. There is still an awful lot of Rocketry which has nothing to do with Spaceflight whatsoever and I don't really see much benefit to this project to have to incorporate support for such articles that many members are unlikely to be interested in. We can kill the project by stretching too far. I think we really need to discuss the pros and cons of this before proceeding. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree there are issues to be discussed before a merger can take place, and I realise that this project will have to expand somewhat, but I think rocketry and spaceflight are very closely related concepts, and would be better handled by a single group of editors. --GW… 21:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it worth notifying all members of the task forces discussion or not? Given their inactivity it seems a fairly minor change, and we haven't mass-messaged for every administrative change. Obviously once parameters are better defined a message will be needed for the Rocketry issue, but I don't think we need to bother everybody with the task forces - presumably the active members still keep an eye on discussions here even if they don't always participate, and would be aware of this discussion if they want to participate. --GW… 21:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Support on the idea of the dissolution of the (largely inactive) task forces. For now, will withhold judgment on the project combine with Rocketry. Not sure how I'll come out on that but at first glance, it would seem to dilute the Spaceflight project focus. N2e (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
All the taskforce members should be members of the main project as well anyway. As long as we get broad support for the abolition here I don't think it's necessary to inform all members specifically. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the task forces; I don't have a problem with getting rid of them (i.e. redirecting them here, so their histories are preserved). As for Rocketry, I suppose the concern is that not all rockets are directly related to spaceflight, and hence don't strictly fall under our scope? Since WikiProjects are groups of editors, rather than groups of articles, it's not clear to me the benefit of changing the title of this WikiProject; but maybe we could tweak the scope to include rockets that aren't necessarily designed for spaceflight. How many more articles would this include, anyway? It doesn't seem like many.. assuming we're not talking about things like Rocket (weapon)? Mlm42 (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point; I suggest, then, that the rocketry WikiProject be split - we can take everything that actually breaches the atmosphere, i.e. launch vehicles, ICBMs, the motors that power them, etc., whereas all atmospheric weapons like Rocket (weapon) etc. could be absorbed by WP:MILHIST's Weaponry task force? That would keep our focus on space, and save a rename. Colds7ream (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't like that. There are still a lot of similarities between endoatmospheric and exoatmospheric flights, and it seems like a silly way to split them. There are also many rockets which can be used for either, such as Orion. Also, not all endoatmospheric rockets are used for military applications. I don't think a rename is a huge inconvenience, and it would better reflect the proposed new scope. --GW… 08:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Most rockets are not spaceflight rockets, they exist in the atmosphere. Most rockets are weapons or weapons systems. Therefore if rocketry were merged somewhere, it should be to WP:AVIATION or WP:MILHIST, and not here. Rockets only achieved spaceflight in the second half of the 20th century, before that, they were vehicles of the air. A lot of the time they were military tools, from their invention as gunpowder rockets back in China, powering arrows or poison-gas canisters. It makes very little sense to merge Rocketry here. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point; that is why the combined project would be called "rocketry and spaceflight", and the scope would be expanded. For missiles, I would suggest that the combined rocketry/spaceflight project covers aspects such as propulsion, whilst MILHIST is left to deal with the military aspects, such as warheads, deployment, operations, etc. --GW… 08:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It would do better as a task force of WP:AVIATION in my opinion, since missiles with rocket engines are launched all the time, including in the Libyan Civil War, and when Hezbollah or Palestinians pop-off katuysha rockets against Israel. Though it could be merged to WP:TRANSPORT like how the Maritime task force there was set up. Rockets are mostly not a spaceflight topic. Excluding non-spaceflight rockets excludes almost all rockets. Covering rocket propulsion and only spaceflight rockets would cover a minority of rocketry topics. Jet propulsion and modern rocketry have some commonality, and jet propulsion is covered by WP:AVIATION. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Rockets do not necessarily have to fall under spaceflight to be covered by this project if it is renamed, per my proposal. How does frequency of launch affect which project it should be under? The principles of launching a short-range missile, an ICBM or an orbital flight are essentially the same, so it does not make sense to split them. I would advocate that we either merge here, or we leave things in their current state. My preference would be to merge, as I feel that although it would result in an increase of scope, the existing overlap does justify this, and a combined spaceflight and rocketry project would be able to deal with all rockets without the cutoff of whether or not it reaches space. --GW… 09:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should use the Category tree to clarify the discussion.. GW, are you basically proposing to add articles in Category:Rocketry and its subcategories to the project? That seems like a pretty big change; on the other hand, adding only a few subcategories, like Category:Sounding rockets, and Category:Ballistic missiles, which are more related to spaceflight, then that would seem more reasonable. And again, I think we could tweak the scope to allow for some non-spaceflight rockets like this, without renaming the project. After all, the 100km cut off is relatively arbitrary anyway. Mlm42 (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) In my earlier comment I supported dissolution of the task forces and withheld judgement on the merging of the two Wikiprojects into one. I will come back now and say that I oppose the merger of all of the rocketry project stuff into WikiProject Spaceflight, under the new name of WikiProject Rocketry and Spaceflight. Rationale is based on three things: the large size of the sets of articles in both projects, the relatively small number of active editors working on the two projects, and the logic (expressed above by 184.144.160.156) that for many rockets, and for much of their military and largely atmospheric history, it would make just as much sense to merge them with WPMIL or WPAVIATION. In short, there is definitely overlap between the four WikiProjects; so I think some articles will just be under the purview of multiple projects: sometimes WPMIL and WPROCKETRY, sometimes WPROCKETRY and WPSPACEFLIGHT, etc. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, if the proposal is for any and all rockets, I'll retract my support and make it an Oppose, per N2e's comments; we already have launch vehicles as part of our scope, and weaponry is not what spaceflight is about. Colds7ream (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, as "rockets" extends far beyond "spaceflight", yet the part of "rockets" relevant to launch vehicles and space exploration is a small subset of space exploration. Kind of messy (typical!); reminds me of the relation of internal combustion engines to automobiles and transportation. It seems that a part of the "rockets" project is subordinate to the "spaceflight" project, while part of the spaceflight project is subordinate to the rockets project. Is there a single well-defined chunk we can define that is neatly subordinate to both projects, and needs to be coordinated between them? If so, then editors working on that chunk should ideally have some awareness of the needs and structure of each project. This kind of situation must have come up before, I guess I need to study some WP tutorial about it. Wwheaton (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus to merge the projects, so that proposal will not be taken any further at this time. There does, however, seem to be consensus to abolish the task forces, so I am going to go ahead and implement that part of the proposal. --GW… 12:26, 20 March 2011 (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.

Image:Laika first living being in space Sputnik 2.gif

File:Laika first living being in space Sputnik 2.gif has been nominated for deletion. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo

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.
Consensus was reached to Merge the articles. Colds7ream (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks, I'd like to suggest that we merge the Leonardo MPLM and Permanent Multipurpose Module into a new article, possibly called Leonardo (ISS module), and have the two existing pages redirect to it. What we have currently is an unsatisfactory situation where two articles discuss the same spacecraft, simply in different guises, and I feel that having 'MPLM' and 'PMM' sections in one overarching article would be a better solution. Any thoughts? Colds7ream (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I wasn't aware the Leonardo MPLM page had been changed from a redirect. There is no need for the two separate articles. As to the name of the final page, suggest we follow convention for other ISS modules. Rillian (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree, Seems a little redundant to have two pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navy blue84 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 26 February 2011
I have nothing in principle against merging the articles, however I did intend, at some point (by now most people have probably realised that I have a very long backlog of edits that I want to make), to expand the MPLM article with information about its flights and cargo. I am not sure how well this would fit into the PMM article, and it could result in size issues there. --GW… 20:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The main MPLM article is not very long. Why not add your "Leonardo as MPLM" content to that article? Rillian (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree The merge would give the reader one article for the full history of the module. LanceBarber (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been inactive for a while now and as it has no real opposes, I'm going to close it as a Merge. Colds7ream (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2011 (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.

Flag removal

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Asian American astronauts. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

I've now started an AfD discussion here, regarding the fate of the List of Asian American astronauts. Mlm42 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Further additions to WP:SPACENAME

I would like to propose a few further additions to the project naming guidelines:

  • Space station modules should be disambiguated using "({station} module)" where {station} is the name of the space station, for example Destiny (ISS module). In cases where modules have both a descriptive name and a common name the common name should be used (eg. Kibo (ISS module) not Japanese Experiment Module, Unity (ISS module) not Node 1). As with other spacecraft, in cases where the common name is ambiguous, the descriptive name should not be used as a disambiguator.
  • A disambiguator should not be used if the common name of the spacecraft is not ambiguous.
  • Where possible, a spacecraft's official name should be used (e.g. Kosmos 2471 not Glonass-K1 No.11).
  • Names of Russian and Chinese spacecraft should be transliterated using WP:RUS, not translated.
  • If a spacecraft is still in service, then titles of its article should reflect its current name. If a spacecraft has been renamed whilst in service, then after its retirement its article should be moved to the name by which it was most well known, or to its original name if it was launched as part of a series of similarly-named spacecraft.

--GW… 13:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Support this update to the guideline (with reservations). Could I ask what this will mean for the article names of Mir Core Module and Mir Docking Module? Colds7ream (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest moving the docking module article to Stykovochnyy Otsek, which is its correct name. I'm not sure about the core module, DOS-7 doesn't really sound right. --GW… 14:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The unhelpful thing is that the core module's name is actually Mir, however Mir (Mir module) just looks weird... Colds7ream (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Surely the common name here is "Mir docking module"? I'm not sure a transliterated Russian name should take priority over the generally-used English one - it's sensible when there's no such general name, but not so much so in this case. Shimgray | talk | 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
May I suggest an addendum to item 4 something along the lines of "...except where the translated name is much more well-known than the transliterated version (such as the Mir docking module, which transliterated is Stykovochnyy Otsek, an unlikely search term), in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME"? Colds7ream (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps just merge #4 into #1 - add "Where the official name is in Russian..." etc. Kibo is mentioned there and is an excellent example, in fact - we use Kibo, not きぼう or "Hope". Shimgray | talk | 16:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
In response to Colds7ream, if the full name is too unlikely a search term, then redirects can and should be used, but I feel that a name which is perhaps slightly more obscure is still vastly better than a mere description. --GW… 16:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree with that, GW, which is why I've put Stykovochnyy Otsek as the first version of the name in the article lead. On the other hand, I feel that renaming the article itself to that would most definitely be in breach of WP:COMMONNAME, and thus our own WP:SPACENAME policy, which states in its lead that "All article titles should follow official Wikipedia policies, which can be found at Wikipedia:Article titles". Colds7ream (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
In addition, arguably, given the fact that Stykovochnyy Otsek simply translates as docking compartment, it can be argued that it is in itself a description rather than a name (like Stykovochnyy Otsek 1 on the ISS, which we all know better as Pirs), and thus neatly sidesteps this issue anyway. Colds7ream (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a descriptive name, but a name nonetheless. "Mir Docking Module" is not a name. In the absence of an alternative name, it would be logical to use the descriptive name. --GW… 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, generally I support there points, except for the third one: Where possible, a spacecraft's official name should be used. There should be a preference for the common English name, instead of the official one, as per Wikipedia's article naming rules. There probably aren't too many cases where the modules don't have common English names. Mlm42 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
And how would that be defined? --GW… 17:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you asking about WP:COMMONNAME? For example, the Canadarm article should not be called its official name (Shuttle Remote Manipulator System), because it's widely known as the "Canadarm". For many modules the common and official names coincide; but when they differ, the preference should be for the common one (since it would be more recognizable, per WP:TITLE). For the Mir Docking Module, it seems NASA often calls it just the "Docking Module", so maybe Docking Module (Mir module); also Core Module (Mir module)? Mlm42 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
In the case of Canadarm, that is still a real name, so it would be covered by the second half of point 1. --GW… 18:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, I don't see many English-language reliable sources calling it "Kosmos 2471".. it's either "Cosmos 2471", or "GLONASS-K1 no. 11". Even though "Cosmos" may not the default transliteration per WP:RUS, we should be using what English-language reliable sources use. Mlm42 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It isn't vastly more common, though, and for the Kosmos series overall, the K spelling is more common, and logic would dictate that it is better to be consistent. I haven't seen many sources calling it "GLONASS-K1 no. 11", most just say "the first Glonass-K1 satellite" or similar. --GW… 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Getting away from the intricacies of naming translated spacecraft names in general, and ISS components in particular, and shifting back to the original proposal, I Support this update to the guideline with one suggested addition. I suggest that it may be useful to explicitly state in the naming guideline that where the formal name of the object is not the common English name, or where the formal name is unlikely to be the first search term in many searches, disambig redirect pages can and should be created per standard WP policy on disambig redirect pages. N2e (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
(meta question): Should the detailed discussion on this topic be occurring on the guideline Talk page, with only a pointer/invitation to interested participants here on this project page?) N2e (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I was taking it as read that redirects should be created, but if you think it should be put into writing, then I don't have a problem with that. (I'm assuming you meant redirects not disambiguation pages.) As for the venue of discussion, the talk page for the guideline redirects here. --GW… 09:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote carelessly. I meant redirects, not disambigs. I have fixed it in my comment of 05:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC) above. N2e (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think this is the appropriate venue for discussion, since more people watch this page. Mlm42 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I am fine with the discussion staying here. Thanks to both of you for offering an opinion. N2e (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What category for Space law?

Hi all. I went looking for a Space law category today and had a bit of trouble finding it. Surprisingly (to me anyway), it is not under Category:Space. I did eventually find it under Category:Spaceflight. I can see arguments as to why both ways might make sense. What do others of you think? Does it belong under Space, or Spaceflight? Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Spaceflight, at least how it is being interpreted on Wikipedia, is effectively outer space as a human activity. Law governs human activity, and all "Space laws" I can conceive are entirely about governing spaceflight activities. "Space" on the other hand is pretty much a catch-all category for everything related to outer space, and indeed Spaceflight is a daughter category of that one. So personally I think it is logically correct for Category:Space law to be a sub-category of Spaceflight which is the main category to which its articles apply. Just because it has "Space" in the name doesn't mean that's the most appropriate parent.
That being said the whole Spaceflight/Space category tree needs sorting out eventually, it's frankly a complete mess and difficult to navigate because of strange sub-categorisations. I did intend on proposing large changes but I wanted to wait a while. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It does need sorting out; the above discussion was relatively successful, resulting in a CfD.. what other big changes did you have in mind? Mlm42 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah the CfD was a great start. Nothing specific in mind just yet but general rearranging as well as proposing mergers/creations/deletions etc to rationalise what we've got. It's clear for example that many sub-categories are on the wrong "level" and should instead be a "sub-category of a sub-category" instead if you get what I mean. Would be good to get the ball rolling on this. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I like the logic of the "human activity" idea mentioned by ChiZeroOne. Having said that, it is the "flight" part of it that catches in my craw a bit. "flight" is only one possibility, and a specific-technology possibility at that, of how humans will utilize space. If we were to have a "transporter" for humans, or a "tractor beam" for automagically extracting the minerals we want from the celestial body at a distance, no flight would be involved. Yet it would still involve human activity, and thus be covered by space law somehow. So I'm still a bit agnostic. Will enjoy seeing what others say. N2e (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Since Category:Space law includes things like Extraterrestrial real estate, it seems more natural to include it in Category:Space rather than spaceflight. The guy who's selling land on the moon has little to do with spaceflight. Mlm42 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
ChiZero, would you be okay with moving Space law into Category:Space? N2e (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I still feel Category:Spaceflight is more appropriate, but yeah I won't object to it moving into Category:Space if that's what others want. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinese space station update

The Chinese space station program, and evolving technologies and components, is only very lightly covered by Wikipedia as of early March 2011. With a first launch of a space station module scheduled for this year, and a second module planned for orbit in 2015, this should arguably be an important area for our project to consider improving. I have raised the WikiProject Spaceflight importance parameter to High as this will be only the third nation demonstrating national ability to launch and maintain a space station (without international cross-border construction involvement), and will be the next space station on-orbit (beating the Bigelow commercial station by a few years), per current plans.

Note that Leonard David of space.com just wrote an overview article on the Chinese space station program. I have made a first-pass update of the Project 921-2 article based on the information in the space.com article. More eyes, on the Project 921-2 article, and on the Chinese program in general, would be very welcome. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Where can we find this article, N2e? Colds7ream (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that was not clear. The Wikipedia article on the Chinese space station is actually named Project 921-2, but it is redir-linked by a variety of other terms like Chinese space station; many of which I added to WikiprojectSpaceflight yesterday as NA-importance REDIR articles. (I am not sure if Project 921-2 is the best name for it, but that will resolve over time if more eyes and editors get on the subject.) The Leonard David article can be found as a Reference in the Project 921-2 article. N2e (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking at this whilst assembling my draft list of space stations, and I'm not sure we've got the article title quite right. Feel free to correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but as I understand it, 921 is the space programme in general, 921-1 is Shenzhou, 921-2 is Tiangong 1 & 2, and 921-3 is Tiangong 3? Colds7ream (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Two things:
  • I'm pretty sure that the title for that particular article is not quite right. I don't know the answer to your questions... But we probably ought to discuss the article title and the meaning of 921-1, -2, -3 etc. on that article's Talk page to allow all interested editors into the conversation.
  • I continue to be really interested in improving the English Wikipedia coverage of the Chinese space program in general. I would very much appreciate it if even one other editor would like to help with this effort. Is that you, Colds7ream? Someone else? N2e (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Rex J. Walheim#NASA career

Can someone more knowledgeable on the subject than me check this section for accuracy? Specifically his involvement and the date of the final shuttle launch, I believe, is incorrect. Thanks! Quinn ❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY]] 19:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn1 (talk • contribs)

The launch date and his involvement is correct. I have not seen anything that says the date (28 June) is being targeted. There is some concern that some payloads may not be ready, but its still way to early to say for sure. As with any launch, there is still a possibility of a delay. But as of right now, there is not one and the info is correct. If there is anything more specific you think is wrong, please do post it here or on the article talk page. Someone will take a look.--NavyBlue84 22:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A plea for more illustrations in or near the ledes/leads of most "spacecraft" articles.

This message will argue for 2 or perhaps 3 illustrative images near the beginning of every space mission which includes a camera. I will make a case that "spacecraft" articles are actually about missions, not machines, and that LEDE/summaries should be summaries, not teasers.

This discussion is on TALK:MESSENGER, but it involves the tyranny of infoboxes and a heated discussion which also applies to articles about every space mission. Thus, I've recopied some here.

I'm pleased with the way the MESSENGER article looks now, with one MESSENGER photo of Mercury up front (a painting is good-- a photo, as a science result, is much better). We don't (and can't have) one photo that shows the probe and planet together, unless it was an artificial montage. It was never an issue of screwing things up by requiring a photo over the top of the infobox (I tried that and was reverted for formatting reasons) but anywhere you can get it up front, is fine. However, a photo of Mercury inside the infobox, as the only infobox photo is not good, as of course we also need something that shows the craft (two images in the infobox would actually barely do the job).

Basically, we face two issues, here, generic to most of these articles. The first is that our articles on spaceprobe MISSIONS have been NAMED as "spacecraft" articles (with that word in parenthesis anytime there a danger of mistake, such as Viking (spacecraft)). This tends to focus the article on the machine itself, which is wrong, since the article is really about the whole mission (including results), not the machine. Nor can the results be easily separated from the machine and folded into planetary articles, since data-sets are very source-specific. Finally, although we do have a few articles on programs of probes (like Ranger program), we can't count on such things for holding mission histories and results outside of data on the machines; often programs are very disjointed (i.e. the Pioneer program series of very different craft) or contain only two missions or even just one (like MESSENGER or Far Horizons).

Now, the fact that these articles are about programs, means that they need information on history of mission, the design and construction of the probe, the instruments, the flight-path, the dataset returned, and so on. It's easiest and most natural to put this in chronological order, which is the way it's done in this article. I'm fine with all of that. However, a WP article LEDE should be a summary, which means that mission RESULTS and OUTCOMES near the ends of article, should still have some place (as a part of the summary) up front, if they exist (like the photo from Mercury orbit, to be modified later-- and BTW this is "linked" to the article by its thumb-box caption!)

Wikipedia is not a crime novel, where results are a spoiler. It's more like a newspaper article, where some nutshell summary items go up front. An image for a probe that has a primary imaging purpose, should go representationally up front, along with an image of the craft. In fact, in complicated missions like surface rovers or a craft at the Earth-Sun L2 point, perhaps a third image of where the thing actually WENT, should to near the front, also.

All of this is for the uninformed reader, who does indeed like to see what has been deprecated as "pretty pictures" (but what most people find valuable visual illustration).

Who else are we writing for, if not the educated layperson who is completely uninformed about this particular mission? The idea that a navbox "points to" later photos assumes greater familiarity with wiki-architecture than most readers possess. We're not writing for wiki-wonks, either. Nor for other editors. We're writing for our intended primary audience. Ask yourself "who is that?" and you'll solve many format problems. SBHarris 18:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Uranus orbiter and probe

I would like to reccommend we combine the "Uranus orbiter and probe" stub with the "Exploration of Uranus" article, as both are very closely related and neither one is very long. - Nate Montes 13:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flybywire e2c (talk • contribs)

There is enough existing information on the potential mission, to greatly expand the article. I think it would be best to do that rather than a merge. --Xession (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Assessment requests

Just to let everyone know, I've archived the completed requests from Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment/Requests, leaving two still extant, both B-class requests: STS-88 and Mir Docking Module. Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If people could also take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mir spacewalks/archive1 in addition to the above, that'd be great. Colds7ream (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

High traffic warning

As many of you will have guessed, there will likely be a spike in traffic tomorrow (April 12) on the Yuri Gagarin article, partially because Google will have a doodle with the search term "Yuri Gagarin" ([1]). It'll be the 50th anniversary of his spaceflight. Mlm42 (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

SI-200

SI-200 has been prodded for deletion. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Project Morpheus

Can someone please look at Project Morpheus? I think that the author(s) are new to Wikipedia and it has some problems.--Daggerstab (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Soviet spaceflight images

A bunch of Soviet spaceflight images have come up at WP:PUF indicating that the files are improperly licensed. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

satellite article titles

At Talk:Cluster (spacecraft)#Article title again, reference is made to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Article titles which reads in part Use "(satellite)" as a disambiguator for unmanned spacecraft operating independently in geocentric orbit; Use "(spacecraft)" as a disambiguator for other spacecraft (my punctuation).

I interpretted this as supporting the current name for the article at Cluster (spacecraft}, as these satellites are neither in geosynchronous orbits nor operating independently. But then I wondered, is the disambiguator satellite really best used so narrowly?

So I thought I'd seek clarification here. Am I misinterpretting the page (which is labelled essay but is obviously intended to function as a guideline), and if not, should the term satellite as a disambiguator really be restricted to so narrow a scope? Andrewa (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  • You have confused the terms "geocentric" and "geosynchronous", which is why you are having difficulty understanding the guideline. --GW… 09:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi there Andrewa - worry not, its not quite so specific as you fear. A geocentric orbit is simply one which has the Earth as the body being orbited; it's not the same as a geosynchronous one, which is an Earth equatorial orbit with a period of 24 hours. In other words, we list spacecraft going around the Earth as xxx (satellite), and any that are somewhere else as xxx (spacecraft). Hope that clarifies things! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
So ISTM that the suggestion to rename Cluster (spacecraft) to Cluster (satellite) was a good one. Would anyone from this wikiproject like to comment on this specifically, either here or at Talk:Cluster (spacecraft)#Article title again?
Specifically, we still have the perhaps ambiguous clause operating independently. Does that disqualify these as satellites for the purpose of disambiguation, and if not why not? Andrewa (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think moving the article to Cluster (satellite) is in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Article titles, and nobody has objected, so I would think this is uncontrovertial.
Good suggestion, and one that I've now quoted back at the article talk page.
Actually, I'm not sure what the "operating independently" phrase refers to; maybe it's there to rule out things like Progress (spacecraft)? Perhaps the wording could be tweaked, because the Cluster appears to have four separate spacecraft which work in unison - so arguable not "independently" of each other. Mlm42 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
OK... Yes, I think it does need some tweaking, perhaps even simple removal. The Progress (spacecraft) article is about a vehicle that does enter (earth) orbit during part of its flight, but so do many spacecraft... the Space Shuttle, for example. The lunar excursion module temporarily entered lunar orbit several times in a typical mission but wasn't regarded as a lunar satellite because of that.
On the other hand, a GPS satellite doesn't operate independently either, one on its own would be as useful as a foam rubber screwdriver. Yet surely there's no question that they are satellites. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying to this. I wrote the "operating independently" part of the guideline, and I can confirm that it was intended to exclude unmanned station logistics spacecraft. That said, with multiple-satellite constellations there might be an argument for using spacecraft instead of satellite, since spacecraft is both a singular and plural term. --GW… 21:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper

I currently have email contact with former astronaut Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper and may be able to ask her specific questions to expand her article, and bring it up to B Class. Any suggestions? Gamweb (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, that's awesome, secondly, I don't think we could use this much due to WP:OR... :-/ Colds7ream (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I found a bunch of links to use as citations and dropped them on the article's Talk Page. I discovered she and I met at a Summer Camp back in 1979 (We are both Americans of Ukrainian heritage, our connection). I might be "too close" to the subject to be objective now. Can someone take a look? Gamweb (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

VTVL

The naming of VTVL is under discussion, see Talk:VTVL. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was closed again. Colds7ream (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags

Do we want to retain this category for maintainence purposes just in case people mistakenly use old banners, as it's just been speedied? ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Good question - it depends if anyone's watching it I guess; if so it's worth keeping for this reason, if not we can probably lose it. Colds7ream (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm neutral, although I have posted on the category's talk page asking that it not be deleted prior to the end of this discussion. --GW… 15:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
If people aren't too fussed with keeping it then I don't mind letting it be speedied, was just checking no one else wanted it. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Anniversaries

Hi all. The anniversary of Mercury-Redstone 3 is today; I've heavily reworked the article to make sure it's in a fit state to be linked from the main page. I'm going to have to stop for now (and get some sleep!), but more eyes on it would be great - I suspect it'll have a bit of a traffic spike in the next day or so! Shimgray | talk | 01:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

NASA TWINS Mission and TWINS

Hi all. These two articles (NASA TWINS Mission and TWINS) are about the same thing. Should they be merged? Artvill (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely! Colds7ream (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Chinese moon rocket

There is a mention of a 500 ton to lunar transfer orbit-capacity chinese launch vehicle in the wikipedia article about the chinese space program. This sounds too unbelievable (at least to be a serious chinese undertaking). Can anyone find another reference for this? (I have already found a reference stating that the chinese are at least conceptually concidering a 50-ton to lunar transfer orbit-rocket, but 500 ton sounds too much). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.79.190 (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Face in Space

Is there a chance that you would be able to create an article on the nasa face in space program.
Thanks, -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to mention it in the respective shuttle missions? Seems relatively minor for a deicated article.ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I think it would be better in one place rather than spread across articles. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 12:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think this is such a small thing it doesn't even warrant being included in any article. To me its trivial and insignificant to the shuttle missions. If it does get included, I think it should be a mention in the individual articles.--NavyBlue84 13:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles about space debris

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Archive 3#The (outer) Space Environment.
–Wavelength (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Colonization of stars

Colonization of stars has been nominated for deletion. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Museum Image Requests

There are certain copyright-free images that only be attained at museums. We have many editors from many different locations, some who need an image from museum that may be inaccessible to them. Another editor may live near or be visiting that museum and able to fulfil an image request.

Include the location, the object and if possible a sample image of the object.

For example if you needed a picture of Wiley Post's first pressure helmet, you would post something like.

Wiley Post's first pressure helmet--Craigboy (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From Commons

Hi there, I addressed a few Commons users about common mistakes in attributing pictures to NASA. See here. Unfortunately I don't think I have the time to fix this, and would greatly appreciate your intervention. Also, I've been reported of pics taken by astronauts labelled as satellite view and tools reported as satellites, and I think we might want to avoid these errors. --Elitre (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In that example it looks like just the wrong center was sourced.--Craigboy (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Greeting. I have been tagging a few FSs as Featured Media within the scope of your project. If you would like them to show up as something other then NA class please drop me a message on my talk page --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 02:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

I'd love to know if I'm barking up the wrong tree here, or which wrong trees I'm barking up and which are ok, actually, probably just reading it is a better idea, I'm too tired to think straight. Please have a read and comment if you have time or interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Space_Station#Where_should_space_environment.2C_microgravity.2C_education.2C_cultural_outreach_and_sightings_go_.3F Penyulap talk 11:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Orion/MPCV merger proposal

Those interested should take a look at Talk:Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle#Merger proposal, a proposal from Craigboy (talk · contribs) to merge the Orion (spacecraft) and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle articles. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Heliosynchronous orbit

Heliosynchronous orbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been prodded for deletion. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Museum Image Requests

There are certain copyright-free images that only be attained at museums. We have many editors from many different locations, some who need an image from museum that may be inaccessible to them. Another editor may live near or be visiting that museum and able to fulfil an image request.

Include the location, the object and if possible a sample image of the object.

For example if you needed a picture of Wiley Post's first pressure helmet, you would post something like.

Wiley Post's first pressure helmet--Craigboy (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

space solar power

anyone interested making comparaison tables as a subproject ? (technics, economics ect...)--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Newcomb's formula

Newcomb's formula has been nominated for deletion. An editor has noted it is used in spacecraft calculations. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was merged into Newcomb's Tables of the Sun. Colds7ream (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster FAR

I have nominated Space Shuttle Challenger disaster 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. Parrot of Doom 16:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wreck it

I should have done this before.... I propose moving the Columbia & Challenger pages from "disaster" to "accident". Comment here. Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Google both titles in quotes and then decide. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Space debris

I would argue that the space debris article is suitable for an FA push. However, it appears that cite format is a major issue, and it was quick-failed in FA. I opened a PR, but something happened and it quick-closed too (I think). I'm trying to get more eyes on it, and some help with the details. Is this the right place? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The PR appears to have been closed too, for some reason - I'd suggest asking someone to do a B-class assessment of the article in the first instance. You can put a request here and/or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment/Requests. Colds7ream (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

RIA Novosti photos

RIA Novosti has started releasing photos from their archive under CC-BY-SA license: [2]. See commons:Commons:RIA_Novosti and commons:Category:Images_from_RIA_Novosti. Requests for uploading of other images from the RIAN archive can be made here. There are lots of great spaceflight related photos (e.g.[3]) in the archive that could be requested. Nanobear (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to find more later, but these are the ones that I feel should be prioritised, either due to the importance or rarity of images of their subject, or the quality compared to other images of the same subject. The images in bold are the most important of those I have selected. --GW… 02:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Two more --GW… 10:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hot damn! Maybe we should grab someone from the Ru wiki.--Craigboy (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

--Craigboy (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  • According to the request form, one need to specify an article or articles where requested images are supposed to be used. Can someone find the relevant articles for the images listed above and fill the table below? I've filled one line to make an example. When the table is ready, you just need to open request page, start a new section preferably called "Космос" (Space), and copypaste the table there. GreyHood Talk 16:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
After looking over the project I realized none of the pictures released so far are the high resolution versions (Gallery of released images). One of the users on the Russian talk page states "As I understand it, it is assumed that RIA Novosti will give a total of about 1,000 photos a year. Candidates must be like a sort of importance, perhaps, on the subject."
I'm not sure where they got that 1,000 pictures per year number from but if it true than we're going have to be very choosy with the pictures we request.--Craigboy (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
More Info from the Russian talk page:
User:Ctac is a RIAN direct contact and he was the one who gave the 1,000 pictures per year limit number. RIAN will decide which images they choose to upload, we can only tell them what images we would prefer. They will not be releasing the high resolution version of any image, so keep that in mind when making your requests. --Craigboy (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Link to Wikipedia article Link to Visualrian
w:en:Yuri Gagarin,w:en:List of spaceflight records Yuri Gagarin portrait or any color image that clearly shows his face and was taken around 1961
w:en:Vostok 1 Vostok 1 launch or Vostok 1 launch
w:en:Salyut 7,w:en:Space station Salyut-7
w:en:Alexei Leonov,w:en:List of spaceflight records,w:en:Voskhod 2 Aleksei Leonov during first spacewalk, color
w:en:Voskhod 2,w:en:List of spaceflight records Aleksei Leonov during first spacewalk, color
w:en:Spaceplane, w:en:Buran (spacecraft) Buran on launch pad
w:en:Voskhod 1,w:en:List of spaceflight records Portrait of the crew of the first three-person space flight, Voskhod 1
w:en:Valeri Polyakov,w:en:List of spaceflight records Valeri Polyakov, man who holds the record for the longest spaceflight
w:en:Strizh,w:en:Space suit Strizh spacesuit
w:en:Astronaut_Propulsion_Unit Soviet SPK
w:en:Mir De-orbit of Mir
w:en:Buran (spacecraft) Buran on the way to the launch pad
w:en:Salyut 7 Salyut 7 spacewalk, 1984

I've copied the table here. Suggest requesting more items, since the more images we will request the more images we will recieve, even if not all requested images are released. GreyHood Talk 18:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"the more images we will request the more images we will recieve"

No, read my comment above.--Craigboy (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does the caption "Mir spacewalk, 1984" come from? Mir wasn't launched until 1986. --GW… 11:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The file indicates that the spacewalk was during Soyuz T-12, which was to Salyut 7; so I've changed the table to say Salyut 7 instead of Mir. Mlm42 (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I've set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Image requests in an effort to sort requests by priority and work out which ones we should request first. Can anyone else who has made requests please add them with the priority level they think is appropriate, and if others feel that images are more or less important than the requester believes, we can use the talk page to discuss it. --GW… 17:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Can't understand Russian, but some survey images of all the Salyut stations would be wonderful, particularly 3-5, of which we have no photos at all. Colds7ream (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
There's actually an English version of RIAN. There is only a survey image of Salyut-7.--Craigboy (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Mir peer review

Hi folks, just to let you know I've made a peer review request for Mir, would really appreciate some comments from people. Cheers, Colds7ream (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

I've nominated the ISS article for FAR to help the ongoing improvement please help out if you have time Penyulap talk 14:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The ISS article has serious problems with 'currency' issues, some that have been on wiki longer than I have been, some have been fixed, but there are plenty more of them, the article is terrible. (above FA terrible, but still terrible compared to what such an important article should be.) Penyulap talk 09:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Human spaceflight lists: year ranges

Hi, does anyone know why the suite of articles previously titled List of human spaceflights, 1960s, List of human spaceflights, 1970s, etc. has been reorganised as List of human spaceflights, 1961–1970, List of human spaceflights, 1971–1980, etc.? I don't understand the logic, and unless I'm missing something I suggest that they're put back how they were. I asked the editor who did it [4], but no response. 86.179.7.49 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine that this was done in compliance with the naming conventions for long lists, which specifies the style for indication of numerical ranges (i.e. years). In my own opinion (not that it's terribly important), I think the numerical ranges (i.e. 1961-1970) are better than the alternative (i.e. 1960s). At any rate, I don't think that a revert of the moves is imperative. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the logic in having a range 1971-1980, for example. You realise that this means 1st Jan 1971 to 31 Dec 1980, right? That's really the way it seems to have been done. Previously it was 1st Jan 1970 to 31 Dec 1979, for example. If it has to be named "1970-1979" rather than "1970s" then that's one thing (though even that seems unnecessary), but why would anyone want to change the date range to be "one year out" from the decade? 86.179.2.163 (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It does seem odd to change the range by a year and especially odd to try and start an edit war that is basically over nothing where the previous condition of the article (aka precedent if you will) should be the ruling factor if only to keep arbitrary and whimsical changes like this from continuing to happen. If you want to change "1960's" to "1960-1969", that is merely a title change and not a content change. There is the odd factor that year dates really are ordinal numbers rather than cardinal numbers, as this year is the two-thousand and eleventh year, in the two-hundred and second decade, in the twenty-first century, and in the third millennium. This is all because the current international calendar started in the first year instead of year zero thanks to some medieval monk who set the pattern many centuries ago. The odd thing is that popular culture in working with decades generally doesn't use terms like the "two hundredth decade" but rather the "1990's" when referring to the same period of time and then switches to a cardinal number presuming a year zero, or a decade that starts in the zeroth year of that decade (like 1990). That is the source of the dispute and perhaps the logic used if any is being used. I don't know an easy way to solve it other than reverting the changes back with a mere title change. At the very least, if an editor is going to make this radical of a change, at least explain the motive and gain consensus before content changes happen. --Robert Horning (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
There has been no "edit war", and nobody is trying to start one. A change has been made; I am querying this change and suggesting that the articles should be put back to how they were. 86.176.214.211 (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Space Shuttle program

...is the US collaboration of the Month for August 2011. It'd be nice if anyone from here helped out to get this to GA status. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes of the Soviet Union

User:Areguni has created Template:Hero of the Soviet Union, and has started adding it to the insignia field of several cosmonaut articles' Astronaut infobox. He also recommends doing so in the HOTSU template doc. The intent of the astronaut insignia field is to link images of mission patches on which astronauts or cosmonauts have flown. Do we want to change this?

I don't believe so; the intent of the box is to show the 'naut's flight experience, not to highlight medals issued, which are otherwise noted in the article text. I think to use it in this manner places undue emphasis on the USSR, especially since it doesn't exist anymore. It's also unbalanced, since no other governments have an equivalent medal which they issue to space travelers. Template:HOTSU is otherwise applicable to Soviet military (or other) personnel's infoboxes, and I don't object to its use there, just in the 'naut infobox.

Comments, please. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi JustinTime55! Thank you for remarking on! These cosmonauts were militaries of the Soviet Air Forces, they were pilots and when they have been chosen as cosmonauts, they have awarded to title of Pilot-cosmonaut USSR( Pilot-cosmanaut in German language ) and they also are the pilots of the Soviet Air Forces. If it isn`t correct to add the Template:Hero of the Soviet Union to the insignia field, we can add it to the awards field. I have not any motive to put emphasis on the USSR. The title Hero of the Soviet Union was the highest distinction in the Soviet Union, and these cosmonauts were heroes militares of the Soviet army. I think we must put the Template:Hero of the Soviet Union in the Template:Infobox astronaut because these are their awards and it is very important. Look at this article Valeri Polyakov, he have title Hero of USSR and Hero of Russia and other more of the foreign governments and look at the russian article Valeri Polyakov(rus.), we can create other templates of medals and templates of orders and add to the articles, why not?--Areguni (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, I didn't realize infobox astronaut had an awards field; that's definitely the appropriate place for it. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, you've "opened up a can of worms" and generated a lot of work for the Project Spaceflight team. :-) The United States equivalents would be the Congressional Space Medal of Honor (28 recipients) and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal (over 100 recipients). At least the former have to be put on the astronauts' pages to achieve balance. This is where the consensus is needed. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing against this, if you want I can help you and create a template for Congressional Space Medal of Honor:-)and there are no balance or disbalance, the Soviet cosmanauts are heroes of their country and the american cosmanauts are heroes of USA ----Areguni (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
JustinTime55 look at this Template:CS Medal of Honor and Laurel Clark--Areguni (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help with the CSMOH template, my friend. I see you have tested it by adding it to the pages for the four female astronauts who tragically lost their lives in the two Space Shuttle accidents. I will start at the other end of the list with the classical Mercury/Gemini/Apollo recipients, working forward chronologically to the Shuttle. Thanks again for the help. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of the term "booster" in infoboxes

We have a problem with the Space mission infobox which I would like everyone to consider: the field used to identify the launch vehicle is labeled "Booster" (with a wikilink to Booster (rocketry)); this is incorrect, and inconsistent with the correct use of "booster" in Template:infobox rocket.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary (and even Wiktionary, if one considers that authoritative, which I do not) defines booster in the context of rocketry as the first stage of a multistage rocket providing thrust for the launching and the initial part of the flight. It can either refer to an unassisted first stage, or else as a strap-on used to augment the first stage (an auxiliary device for increasing force, power, pressure, or effectiveness, such as on the Space Shuttle, Titan III, Vostok (rocket family), etc. and in the sense correctly used in the Rocket infobox.) The United States Department of Defense aerospace vehicle designation also defines booster in this second sense.

Although people (mostly laymen) sometimes refer to a complete launch vehicle as a "booster", this is technically inaccurate and colloquial (defined in one sense by Merriam-Webster as unacceptably informal). While one could argue that we can document this real-world usage (with citations!), I don't think it's appropriate for the Wikipedia to choose this as primary usage.

At the very least, the label should be changed from "Booster" to "Launch vehicle", with a change to the corresponding wikilink. I believe this can be done by changing only label12 and leaving data12 (the actual field name) alone, so that all existing applications continue to work. The only problem is, that this might introduce some confusion because the field name to be typed remains "booster". That could be pointed out and explained in the documentation, though none of the fields seem to be currently documented.

I could do the label change myself, but is there any way the change of the data field, and all applications, could be automated? (There are apparently between 250 and 500 of them, though of course not all of them necessarily use booster. It certainly makes no sense for the Space Shuttle missions to do so.)

Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some more careful consideration is needed before such blanket changes are applied. I saw that in this edit to Mercury-Redstone 1, JustinTime55 changed "booster" to "launch vehicle" throughout the article, and that he has similarly changed several other articles. Quoting from his comment on the talk page for Booster (rocketry), his rationale seems to be that "use of the term 'booster' as a synonym for a complete launch vehicle is an inaccurate colloquialism used only by laymen, not people actually involved in rocketry. The term refers to only the first stage of a multistage rocket (Merriam-Webster), or else a strap-on operating in parallel to the first stage."
But this doesn't actually seem to be the case, at least not historically. The Mercury-Redstone Project, a 1964 NASA technical report describing the program, its technical issues, and the lessons learned, consistently uses both "booster" and "launch vehicle" as synonyms throughout the report. By its very nature, this is a document produced by technical people deeply involved in rocketry. So it would seem that this idea of the technical meaning of "booster" doesn't always reflect the actual technical usage of the word. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, Collin. I stand corrected on whether the word was used that way technically. However, I don't think that settles the issue here of whether it should be used on the Space mission infobox. Please consider:
  • That document was written very early in the space program, about the very first launch vehicle used to put a US capsule in space. And as you point out, launch vehicle was used as well. It seems as if the terminology was still evolving at that point, and I believe launch vehicle won out in the technical world. Is there a significant number of instances of its use in later programs?
  • The Mercury-Redstone rocket only had one stage; therefore use of booster happens to be consistent with the first-stage definition.
  • I think a parallel can be drawn between the use of booster/launch vehicle, and the use of "capsule" versus "spacecraft." I came across your discussion of this issue with User SpaceHistory101, and I agree with a couple of things he said: just because the term (capsule) was used in the past (and I don't think it can be said that "booster" was as widely used as "capsule" was), that doesn't mean we should necessarily use it today, because the Wikipedia should, as SpaceHistory101 said, "give an encyclopedic overview for readers today, not to unhesitatingly reflect terminology of the time."
By the same token, should we really use an old, semi-formal term for something meant to cover all space vehicles, past, present and future? Should we describe going-forward launch vehicles as "boosters"? I know it can't be construed as "offensive" as capsule was, but it still just doesn't sound right, especially in light of its definition, which stems from the verb boost, to assist. A launch vehicle doesn't just "assist" a spacecraft in reaching orbit or beyond; it's absolutely incapable of doing so without the launch vehicle.
I think we should mention the historical use of "booster" in the Mercury-Redstone 1 and Project Mercury articles, but I can't support the wholesale use of "booster" (meaning "launch vehicle") in other contexts, or in the Space Mission infobox.
Would anyone else like to weigh in? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Astronautica

It appears that astronautix.com, which is used in tons of spaceflight articles, is gone.. hopefully the content will appear somewhere else, but in any case we'll have to change all of the references; possibly using the Wayback machine (see astronautix.com via the Wayback machine). Mlm42 (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

According to NSF, its due to repeated DoS attacks... [5] Colds7ream (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been using the Wayback machine to replace the refs in several articles. I think it should suffice. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a note on this issue, the website is back up as of July 29th. Maybe someone here can help to edit the links? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

International wikiproject

any idea on how to link all the talk pages of all the languages on wiki space flight ?--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I know "how" to do it. Not so sure it is a good idea to do it. Sooooooooooooo, before you do it, please start another discussion and attempt to gain consensus. (For an example of how this might be done, go to the Talk pages on List of aircraft and all of the many articles that those articles are broken down into (generally, alphabetically). About a year ago or so, I made all the talk pages redirect to a single Talk page. So look at the source there.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Astronautica

Just a note, for those who haven't noticed yet, that the website Encyclopedia Astronautica (Astronautix) appears to be back on-line. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ex post facto: It appears that this has been mentioned above already (as of July 29th); I'm just a bit slow, as I was away during that period of time. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster

Just a heads-up that this article has been demoted from Featured Article status. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

ISS article, one step closer to being demoted

The International Space Station article is now listed as a Featured Article Review Candidate (see listing here). Colds7ream has stated that he doesn't have time to fix the problems that have been listed (and there have been several, both on the talk page, and at the review); I also don't have time at the moment. Hopefully some brave editors here will save it from being delisted, by making the requested changes? Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Pioneer 10 PR

The Pioneer 10 article has been submitted for peer review. Please take a look if you have an interest. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moon landing

This redirect is up for discussion. Please see WP:RFD#Wikipedia:Moon landing. Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 19:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Space architecture

There are some issues with sourcing, OR, and relevance mentioned over at Talk:Space architecture. This article is in need of serious attention. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

How do I make it so a topic won't get buried by the archive bot?

I would like a small info box/topic on RIA Novosti Image requests so future users will know about the page, but unless someone posts there once a month, than it'll just be archived. So is there anyone to turn it off for a specific topic/section?--Craigboy (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Craigboy, your looking for the template Template:Do not archive until it can be set for certain periods, or forever (use with caution!). {{subst:DNAU|200}} will keep the section for 200 days for example. Penyulap talk 11:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you.--Craigboy (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheap access to space (new article proposition)

hello everyone, what about a new article, Cheap access to space or leo, that compile the different theories of reducing the cost of access to space,like for example the different schools of thought about rockets ( big vs small, ect..) and the different ways to grow the market for launches (space tourism ect..) ? --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you do make such an article, you will want to know about Satellites launched from cannons, a University had such a launcher, it worked. About $600 per kilogram to orbit. Also space fountains and beanstalks? some of these may well be on wiki already, but maybe not as a comparison. Penyulap talk 12:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I think it would be hard to present such an article without turning it into an essay. Maybe it should just be covered in existing articles for now. --GW… 12:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
sorry i should have precised that it was about rocket, it was to illustrate cats or crats concepts (not mixing crew and payload, economy of scales throught frequent launches and simple design, ect...)--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

AFD Discussion

Hi, the article Apollo hoax in popular culture is being considered for Articles for deletion here [6]. As this is a spaceflight related topic, your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Senior Trend (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Tiangong 1

Since Tiangong 1 is scheduled to launch between Sept 27th and the 30th maybe we can quickly get the article cleaned up before then.--Craigboy (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Proximity operations

There are many spacecraft-related articles in Wikipedia that mention the event "proximity operations" — see, for example, here. But the meaning of the term is not described anywhere, so Proximity operations is a redlink. How is proximity operations different from orbital stationkeeping? Or from flight dynamics (spacecraft)? I don't know. But it does seem to me that we ought to describe what it means somewhere in Wikipedia? Would appreciate opinions about whether it deserves it's own article? Or perhaps a redirect to a section that ought to exist elsewhere in Wikipedia? ... or something else entirely, so we can see if a consensus exists on how to address it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I would think that WP:OVERLINK covers it. Proximity simply means "closeness" (in space), therefore the phrase should be commonly understood. (And it's not at all the same as flight dynamics (spacecraft), which is the science of determining a spacecraft's position.) It probably means in practice the same as orbital stationkeeping, the only difference being that stationkeeping implies actively keeping two vehicles / stations in the same orbit, which in practice is required for "proximity operations" since spacecraft left alone will eventually drift apart. There could also conceivably be proximity operations of two craft in translunar or interplanetary flight, so redirecting Proximity operations to Orbital stationkeeping probably isn't a good idea.
I think a separate article would be overkill per WP:DICTIONARY. I've never encountered the term in my experience; is it perhaps a British idiom? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much Justin for weighing in. While I do think that there is a general sense, using English grammar, that means operating in the vicinity of; I think there is a very specific meaning that is used in much of the space literature when the term "proximity operations" is used. I think in this way, as NASA and ESA use the term, and as seen most frequently in AIAA papers, it means a sort of fine (not coarse) control of the spacecraft with a 6 or 6+ DOF RCS that allows the sort of fine control needed for docking, far beyond the sort of coarse control which is normally assumed for orbital stationkeeping. Others might very well have a different view, and I accept your take on the matter. I just thought I ought to clarify what I was speaking of when I wrote the previous text that kicked off the discussion in this section of the Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't heard the term before (I don't follow today's space programs too closely); thanks for enlightening me. It sounds like a new-fangled way of saying "docking maneuvers" (or more than that, what is required for docking) so maybe it could/should become its own article. (I have a question: how can a spacecraft's RCS have more than six DOF (roll/pitch/yaw/X/Y/Z? Are you including thrust throttling?) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It might interest some here that List of launch vehicle plans is currently at AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

New icon needed?

The item "This article or section documents a current or recent spaceflight. Details may change as the mission progresses." currently has the now obsolete Space Shuttle as its icon. Time to get a new one? Old_Wombat (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The most logical choice would be a Soyuz. (Which is, ironically perhaps, an older craft than the Shuttle...) - The Bushranger One ping only 15:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
How about the ISS? That said the image merely has to show a spacecraft in space; there is no requirement for it to be manned, or to be one which is still in service. --GW… 16:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I like the ISS idea.--Craigboy (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

NASA Astronaut Group 21

NASA has announced a new astronaut class and will begin taking applications in November. Accordingly I have created the article and talk page NASA Astronaut Group 21. I also created Template:NASA Astronaut Group 21 and talk page. I made appropriate modifications to List of astronauts by year of selection, Template:NASA Astronaut Groups and NASA Astronaut Corps. Not much to tell at this point, but I felt the article needed to be immediately created as it is inherently significant. Safiel (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Rocket Families Launch Lists updates

Hi all! Some of you may have noticed that the lists for the major rocket families (R-7 / Proton / Thor-Delta etc.) have seen some major changes during the past few days. That's me helping to complete and improve all of these lists. Right now the Thor/Delta lists have been completed, so I would like to ask for help in checking the data and improve the descriptions and Wikipedia links for the payloads. Meanwhile, I am working hard to complete the R-7 lists (there are still several hundred launches missing in the lists between 1970 and 1989!), reconstructing the Proton lists with a new layout (the 2000 - 2009 list still uses the old layout right now), and is planning to add all Atlas launches between 1960 and 1969 (300+ launches missing) later. If anybody here can help with constructing and improving the launch lists, please help. Thanks! Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Project A119 undergoing A-Class review

An article belonging to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight, Project A119, is currently undergoing an A-Class review as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Any comments or pointers which you may wish to add would be greatly beneficial to the process. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 14:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the 2012 and 2013 in spaceflight topics be edited and have more data added?

Just wondering, because I thought that the 2 next years get edited from the current year, example: 2011 is the year now, so the 2012 and 2013 in spaceflight topics get added data. Mickman1234 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The two year thing is a limit to ensure there aren't a mass of crystal ball articles, "2245 in Spaceflight. January; Starship Enterprise launched.". It is not a compulsion for editors to write the next two years' articles, that's not how Wikipedia works. If you wish to add information to these articles you are welcome to do so. ChiZeroOne (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

CanSat at AfD

It may interest members of the project to know that CanSat is currently nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"bat charts"

I've been doing some reading lately and ran into a spaceflight mission planning concept called a "bat chart." I can't locate anything in Wikipedia on it, but did locate this description—

Mission architecture patterns describe well-proven mission architecture solutions. A mission architecture consists of mission elements which are ordered in a sequence. Mission elements are e.g. spacecraft, launcher and a sequence is the order in which these elements are used. A typical method to describe a mission architecture is a "bat chart".

—from a Google search of " "bat chart" mission ". The same search turns up a number of technical papers that mention the "bat chart."

My question to other editors, since I am totally unfamiliar with this concept chart, is this something that might warrant an article in Wikipedia, or a section in some existing article on spaceflight mission planning? In other words, is this just an oversight, and a ripe opportunity for a new Wikipedia article or article section? Or does this article/section perhaps not exist in Wikipedia for some other reason that others might know of? Input from all is welcome. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Orion (spacecraft) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Orion (spacecraft). Since you had some involvement with the Orion (spacecraft) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 65.94.77.11 (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I know this is wading in real deep here, but should Orion Lite, Orion (Constellation program), Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Crew Exploration Vehicle be combined as one article? They all seem to be referring to the same vehicle, just at different steps in the design process. Is there any special reason why they are separate articles? --Robert Horning (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the chance to look them over, but the sniff test tells me "yes"... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Some of them maybe. But ehe CEV article covers the early stage with the pre-capsule designs. So that one should be OK as separate. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The coverage of the developments on Wikipedia does currently seem a mess. I'd agree with respect to Orion (Constellation program) and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle as I said on the latter's talk page, they are for all intents and purposes the same vehicle and the link isn't denied by NASA. The discussion there on a merger seemed inconclusive but it appears that as it progressed (and more information became available on the Orion-MPCV) more were in favour of the merge, so perhaps it is worth revisiting the issue. I'd agree with Fnlayson however that the CEV could make an OK separate article on the early phases of the programme, especially if it being integrated into a merged Orion article would make that too long. ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Orion Lite was a separate vehicle.--Craigboy (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Taurus second worst launcher on the planet"

Look at the IPs addition into the "Glory launch failure" section: "this makes the taurus I the second worst launcher on the planet with 3/9 failed, second only to the falcon I with 3-5 failed." I'm just wondering, could this indeed be true, or should it be reverted? Does anyone have an up-to-date source with all the reliability rates of different rockets? Nanobear (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's already been undone; if it hadn't been I would have. While the reliabilty rate may or may not be true, the author there clearly has a axe to grind. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
From a statistical viewpoint it is partially correct, Taurus is the joint-second least reliable rocket currently in service, excluding rockets which have only made one or two launches (the latter being statistical outliers). Incidentally the least reliable is the GSLV, Falcon 1 is no longer in service. That said, an unqualified statement is not justified, and I feel that restoring a qualified version would add little to the article, so it is probably best just to leave it out. --GW… 23:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And CfD

Eyes on an article...

Keeping an eye on Dream Chaser might be a good idea - a clearly COI/promotional account tried to turn it into a spammy puff piece. The account has now been blocked but they could always try again. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Launch articles

I think we need to develop a project guideline on whether to create articles about orbital launches. Currently the vast majority of launches are covered in the articles on their payloads, however there are a minority where an article for the launch itself has also been created in addition to the payload articles (and in some cases where payload articles do not yet exist). Having articles on individual launches would allow more detailed coverage of the launch (such as long lists of delays and scrubs, a detailed timeline of the launch, the fate of the upper stage, etc) to be left out of the payload articles - such details are frequently trivial from the payload's perspective, however more relevant to the rocket itself; thereby reducing the amount of useless information in the payload articles whilst allowing the launch to be described in more detail. It would also reduce the duplication of content with regards to multiple-payload launches, with only a summary remaining in each payload's article and the bulk of coverage moving to the central launch article.

On the other hand, there may well not be enough content on some launches to produce articles, and there is the question of whether the first few minutes or hours of a spacecraft's flight are sufficiently notable to warrant articles all of their own. Since the payloads do/will/should have their own articles anyway, they may be a better place to put such content.

This issue has been discussed before, but no conclusions were reached. I would appreciate the input of other editors, with a view to either creating more launch articles to supplement existing payload articles, or merging the existing launch articles into the articles on their payloads (probably with some exceptions, such as particuarly notable launch failures (Challenger, VLS F03, etc) and launches with no payload or an unknown/unnamed payload - the latter being exclusively failures). --GW… 18:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

merge except in special circumstances because the alternative makes for a larger maintenance burden. For example, the article on Miss Baker covers her Jupiter AM-18 launch, but having an article on that launch would be excessive since it was a regular Jupiter flight aside from the payload. Another place to merge the launch data (when it's mostly tabular data) is in the article on the launch vehicle such as PGM-19 Jupiter. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that suborbital launches are not notable enough to have their own articles. What about orbital launches though? --GW… 08:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think orbital launches are common enough to not automatically be considered notable enough for an individual article. How many ordinary comsat launches are discussed widely in media outside the aerospace community? In the cases a launch does receive attention it more often than not is due to the payload it is carrying rather than the launch in of itself. As you say there are exceptions that should remain like notable failures, and if there is enough non-trivial information on a launch/failure for a good-sized article then it probably is notable enough anyway. Aside from the issue Ke4roh mentions about maintenance, which i agree with, it seems in light of this that in most cases a separate article on a launch seems an unnecessary splitting of information making it more difficult for a reader to find the information they may want. In short I think a launch should be considered part of the story of a payload unless for other reasons the launch becomes notable itself. ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I would be in general agreement that, nowadays, orbital launches are sufficiently common that not ALL launches are, in and of themselves, notable. Looking at it historically, there clearly was a time when ALL were (say 1950s, 1960s, etc.) and some time, now or in the future, when they are not, or will not be.
So to me, assuming we get consensus on that big idea (an open question at this time, as clearly more time needs to pass to allow others to weigh in), we might benefit from a SEPARATE discussion to determine (or see if we can find consensus on...) a set of criteria in WikiProject Spaceflight of what makes a launch notable or not. I'll go further, and say that I would very much like to be invited back to that discussion IF we develop consensus on the first idea: that NOT all orbital launches are, in and of themselves, notable. But I do really think we ought to do that discussion separate from this TalkPage section; so I'll reserve my input on that for later. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Existing orbital launch articles

I've tried to compile a list of existing launch articles, to give some indication of how they are currently being used:

There is also at least one suborbital launch article (Nedelin catastrophe), however this seems sufficiently notable and detailed to remain. --GW… 13:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Where are we on this, one month on?

One month into this discussion on whether we ought to "develop a project guideline on whether to create articles about orbital launches", where are we on it? Is anyone willing to summarize what points we've reached consensus on, see if that get's buy in? Once we can do that, we can get on to next steps to implement the guideline. N2e (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I think consensus is against having these articles in most cases, but with some exceptions. I would like to propose that the following guideline be adopted: "Articles on individual orbital launches should be avoided in favour of including information in the articles about their payloads, the rocket used, and the relevant entry into the timeline of spaceflight article series. Articles may be created in cases where articles on the payload(s) do not exist, and cannot be created (regardless of how little content on the payload such articles may include, so this will usually only apply if the payload cannot be identified or distinguished). If a launch article is created under this exemption, and a payload article is subsequently created, then merging the launch article into the payload article should be considered an uncontroversial action. Articles on launch failures which resulted in the loss of life may be considered coverage of the loss of life instead of the launch, and therefore are not covered by this guideline. Launch articles, if existant, should be named using the name of the carrier rocket and either the flight number of the launch, or the serial number of the rocket used. If the serial number is unknown, the format "[Month] [Year] [Rocket] launch failure" may be used instead (all such current instances are failures bar one)."

In practise, this would result in Challenger, the VLS, Nedelin, etc being treated as special cases due to the loss of life, so those articles would be preserved. Vanguard TV3 would also be a special case since its payload was unnamed and hence cannot be distinguished (in cases such as this, the payload should be covered in the launch article). There's no real reason to make exceptions for the maiden/first successful flights of every rocket, that is why we have articles on those rockets, so they can be merged. In some cases we need to create payload articles, so the existing articles could be moved and edited instead of being merged. STP-S26 can be split into articles on the individual payloads, and the GSLVs are fairly uninteresting failures which can be dealt with under payload articles. --GW… 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly support the main idea: generally speaking, individual launches ought not receive their own article, etc. Just a few thoughts on getting this proposed and consensus buy in.
  • I don't see the (limited) exceptions guideline stated quite as clearly as I think will help in future discussions, which will occur. Perhaps minor copyedit?
  • I think the words "(all such current instances are failures bar one)." in the last sentence of the guideline should be cleaned up (deleted, or expanded into a non-parenthetical sentence for better clarity).
  • I think the proposal ought to be pulled out of this section, entitled Where are we on this, one month on?, and taken to a top level section "==Section title==" on just the proposal. Else I fear it won't get adequate attention buried in here.
But very supportive of the overall direction. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Including the parenthesised section was a typo, it should have been after the closing quotes not before, and was more for information than as part of the proposal. And yes, a rewording would probably be a good idea. How about:
"In general, we try to avoid having articles on the launches of individual rockets. Instead, launches should be covered in the articles about their payloads, the type of rocket used, and the timeline of spaceflight. In cases where the payload does not have an article, if possible it is preferable to create one rather than to create an article just to cover its launch. If an article for the payload cannot be created (for example because one was not present, or because the identity of the payload is not known), then an article may be created for the launch, however where possible it should also cover anything that is known about the payload. Should an article be created later about the payload, then merging the launch article into the payload article should be considered an uncontroversial action.
Where possible, articles about individual launches which do exist should be titled using the name of the carrier rocket and either the flight number of the launch, or the serial number of the rocket used. If the these numbers are not known the format "[Month] [Year] [Rocket] launch failure" may be used instead. For example:
Launches that resulted in the loss of life are not covered by this guideline, since the accident itself may be considered notable enough to warrant its own article under wider notability criteria, however such an article should be focussed around the accident, and only be created where there is sufficent information available to expand the article beyond a stub."
If this wording seems acceptable to you, then I'll open a new section to discuss adopting it. The other issue I would like to raise at this point is the naming of the one launch with no named payload or known serial number which did successfully reach orbit. Should we use the COSPAR ID (1985-053), which is cryptic, or something more descriptive such as June 1985 Zenit-2 test flight or June 1985 Zenit-2 launch? --GW… 22:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it does. One item of context to suggest though: when you open the section for the proposal, probably a good idea to set the context clearly. Just where would this guideline go? (maybe link to that article, or ???) Also, to deal with Bushranger's question, probably would be good to make the scope of the guideline very explicit, using some of the words just used in answering Bushranger's question. Thanks for your efforts on this, GW! N2e (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • We're not talking about the flights, we're talking about the launch itself. With STS-51L, there are separate articles for the mission, and the launch (given its failure), which is what is being discussed here. I would say that in this case the loss of life and significant coverage since justify a separate article for the failure. There is no question of changing/setting spacecraft/mission notability criteria in this discussion, and to be honest that is a can of worms best left closed. --GW… 22:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Comet/Asteroid missions

This discussion at CfD may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Spaceflight chronology articles: divide the orbital and suborbital launch attempts?

While I help to maintain the spaceflight chronology articles (for example this year's or next year's), I found one rather annoying feature: the orbital launch attempts are almost indistinguishable from sub-orbital launches, making it quite hard to manage the launch statistics. May I suggest that we divide the two kinds of launches in some way? The most simple way is to color-code the two kinds of launches (e.g. blue for orbital launch attempts and orange for sub-orbital launches), or add a column that states the international designator for orbital launches (e.g. 2011-031 for STS-135, 2011-F03 for Progress M-12M etc.). A more radical suggestion is to separate the two kinds of launches into two separate tables. Comment and suggestions for this is welcome. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • There are enough fields in the table already, adding two more (due to technical restrictions they have to be added in pairs) would adversely affect display, especially on low-resolution non-widescreen monitors. I would strongly oppose splitting the table; as the original author of this series of articles, the original aim was to present an ordered list of all launches that reached space, and splitting in any way other than by date would prevent this. I think that colour-coded lists often end up looking scrappy. Instead, I would suggest that if we do need to add COSPAR IDs, we firstly add only real ones; '2011-F03' is not a real ID, it is part of an extended system used by Jonathan McDowell, which despite being a very good system is not widely used elsewhere. Also, the pre-1963 Harvard designations (IDs were only introduced in 1963) tended to get quite long towards the end. The ID could be included in the remarks field or along with each payload's name, but at the end of the day, the timeline of spaceflight is a list of spaceflights, not a list of orbital launches. One thing I did consider at the time was a separate list of orbital launches, which would allow the inclusion of more specific data. I'll revisit that concept, and see if it might be practical, as creating a separate orbital launch list and leaving the existing ones as-is would probably be the best solution. --GW… 09:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Secondary payloads

I was just a bit surprised to find no Wikipedia article on secondary payloads. While I'm no expert on the topic, it does seem to be a widely-used business concept in spaceflight, where secondary payloads don't get to specify their launch date, orbital inclination, etc. — but often fly at a very favorable discount in the price-per-unit-mass launched to orbit. If other editors also feel this is an oversight, I would be happy to research and dig up sources on the concept, but I would like to see what other spaceflight-interested editors think first. (And of course, feel free to leave links to any good sources -- but I'd like to see if my sense is shared by others, so leave your opinion along with the links.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We do have the article Hosted Payload, which is essentially the same concept, but the article could use quite a bit of work. Reformatting it and adding references as needed for that article would be the place to start. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I think he means secondary payloads on launches, not satellites. CubeSats, for example. --GW… 20:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, GW, I do mean secondary payloads on launches. So what do you think? Is the topic worthy of a Cat:Spaceflight article? It sure seems to be a widely used concept in spaceflight, but one that is not clearly explained in Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It is certainly notable, but I'm not sure how much there is to say about the concept. --GW… 09:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for offering an opinion, GW. I would concur that, at least to my knowledge, there will be limited info at first: I would expect a stub with just a few key claims to be supported. But it will help the typical Wikipedia reader, one not particularly familiar with esoteric spaceflight jargon, be able to link to somewhere to see what a secondary payload is. Since you agree that the concept is notable, I'll put it on my back burner to start collecting sources and info, and then possibly create a stub when I have something. N2e (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, as we all know, a stub article can be the first step to a top-quality one, so why the heck not? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed notability guidelines for launches

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was proposal adopted as a project guideline --GW… 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


Per the discussion above, I would like to propose that we adopt Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Launch articles as a project notability essay. In a nutshell, the proposal would establish a project guideline against the creation of articles for launches, except in special cases such as launch failures which resulted in a loss of life. The guideline applies only to the launches of individual rockets, it does not apply to lists of launches, or to the payloads/missions carried by those rockets. --GW… 19:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support the proposal, per nom. Launches in and of themselves are generally not notable. And the proposed guideline seems to have sufficient opportunity for exceptions in the rare circumstances where it might be warranted. N2e (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I think that in addition to covering a rocket failure in the payload article, it should be covered in each rocket article with a small (one or two paragraph) write up on each failure.--NavyBlue84 15:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - While I wouldn't mind something that covers notability in spaceflight in general, I think this is an excellent start and covers an important aspects of spaceflight in relations to Wikipedia articles. The issue at hand is the rather routine nature of launches. So far, every manned spaceflight mission to orbit has been generally considered notable for several reasons, not the least of which is that many of the early flights really did accomplish significant tasks that in many cases were genuinely historic in nature. As we move into an era of things like Spaceship Two with weekly flights, I really don't see how that kind of comparison can be made or even if you can find any content at all with which to even generate an article much less be able to to call them notable. In regards to this guideline, how would Falcon 9 Flight 1 fit in to the philosophy expressed on this page, not to mention COTS Demo Flight 3? --Robert Horning (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    Firstly whilst I agree that in theory we should clarify notability criteria, in practise it is a very bad idea. It has proven impossible to draw a line to determine what is and what isn't notable, so the current practise, which is to consider notable any orbital spaceflight or spacecraft for which an article can be created with the support of reliable non-primary sources, is probably the only way to deal with the situation. Starting an in-depth discussion on the issue is opening a can of worms, as in the past such discussions have engendered much ill-feeling between editors, whilst achieving very little. With regards to Spaceship Two, whether or not weekly flights will ever happen remains to be seen, similar optimism was felt when the Space Shuttle entered service. In any case SS2 flights would be considered missions not launches for the purpose of creating articles, and since they would only be suborbital flights different criteria would apply. With regards to your two specific examples, Falcon 9 Flight 1 contains nothing that can't be covered in the relevant payload article, whilst COTS Demo Flight 3 is a mission article, and therefore outside the scope of this guideline (although it has to be said that the naming of the Dragon COTS articles is FUBAR, and they should be given clearer and more accurate names). --GW… 22:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - What would we be doing about articles such as Ariane 5 Flight 501 which cover launch failures which did not involve loss of life, as detailed in the guideline? Colds7ream (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    The articles would be rescoped to cover the payloads involved. In that specific case, it would be moved to Cluster (spacecraft), with the current Cluster (spacecraft) article being moved to Cluster-II, which is the mission that it actually covers. --GW… 22:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    Wouldn't Falcon 9 Flight 1 and Ariane 5 Flight 501 be notable under the new guideline since they are the first launches of their rocket families? I might have misread the proposed guideline but did it not say the first launch of a rocket should have its own article? Also Ariane 5 Flight 501 would be notable since the mission was unsuccessful.--NavyBlue84 01:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    No in both cases. At the end of the day, assuming a successful maiden flight, there will very rarely be enough information available to create a sustainable article, and in any case, that is something which could easily be covered in detail not only in the payload's article but also in the article on the rocket itself - after all, it is probably one of the most important parts of that rocket's history, but for spaceflight in general most cases are comparatively insignificant. As for failures, I proposed the requirement of there being fatalities to justify an exception because in most other cases the failure is not significant enough to be notable. In that case, it can easily be covered in an article created to cover the original Cluster spacecraft (the current article only covers Cluster II), with absolutely no loss of content, and looking at it, and in virtually all launch failures, with the exception of Challenger, the failure had a greater direct effect on the mission it was to have deployed than on the family of rockets involved. --GW… 09:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    That makes sense, and thank you for the clarification.--NavyBlue84 13:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
No objections seem to be forthcoming. Does anybody object to this being closed and implemented? --GW… 16:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. Having another user (and particularly an administrator) agree with closure should prevent a recurrence of the problems encountered due to inexperienced editors objections to the COLS merger, so I'll go ahead and implement this. --GW… 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disposal of articles

 Done --GW… 12:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have created this section to detail the implementation of this guideline with regards to existing articles.

--GW… 20:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I have attempted to do a bit of clean up on the Talk pages of the articles that have now become redirects (change their banner class to "redir"; maybe leave a comment about the merge, etc.). If you see any that I missed, let me know and I'll try to finish the job. N2e (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
On a couple of them, you'd assessed the destination articles as redirects, so I've fixed those. I'll do STP-S26 and check the rest. All identified moves/mergers are now complete. --GW… 12:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I guess I missed that the Talk Pages of the old redirs had redirs themselves. N2e (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Batch 2

I've been putting these off, half of them fail WP:SPACENAME as well:

Do others concur? --GW… 17:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

These all seem like good moves to me. Mlm42 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that looks objectionable, and say go for it!--NavyBlue84 23:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 Done. The latter five need some rewriting though. --GW… 08:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Next shuttle mission redirect

The redirect Next shuttle mission currently points to STS-133. As there are no longer any shuttle missions planned, I'm not sure where to retarget it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Since there now is no (and by definition, never will be) a next shuttle (STS) mission, why don't we just delete it? The phrase might possibly have a meaning sometime in the future if another "shuttle" replaces STS, but we can and should deal with that then (WP:CRYSTAL...) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleting a redirect is usually useless unless it's actually harmful. Leave it pointing at the last mission, or perhaps in the future to a section detailing the development of an eventual successor. GRAPPLE X 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
What's your definition of harmful? Isn't presenting false information harmful, at least to Wikipedia's credibility? And FYI, it doesn't even point to the last mission, which is STS-135; it wasn't dilligently updated for the last three missions in 2011. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
NPOV sorts of things would come to mind as harmful - for instance, if Korea pointed to either North or South Korea directly. I'd say STS-135 or even Space Shuttle should probably be the current target. GRAPPLE X 18:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Aim it at STS-136 perhaps? ;-) We've also still got Template:Launching/STS kicking around, what do people what to do with that? Colds7ream (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
NO, per the above. If deleting a redirect is a bad thing, it should be changed from a redirect to a simple statement that the program is retired, and there is no next mission. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I was joking, you know... Colds7ream (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleting a redirect like this isn't the best thing to do unless there is no other option. How about pointing it at somewhere like Space Shuttle retirement or even Space Shuttle retirement#Space Shuttle successors and legacy? Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your wink, Cs7. Actually, pointing it to the retirement is a very good idea. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Since the redirect is no longer relevant and has no logical target, it should be deleted - nothing in articlespace links to it, anyway. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Bushranger. The redir should be deleted. N2e (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
As it's consistently been getting 20-30 hits a month (well above background noise), even since the retirement, the redirect clear is still useful. Experience at RfD has taught me that redirects that are in use do not get deleted unless they are harmful. One possible reason for redirects to be harmful is if they are misleading, but pointing to a page explaining that there are no more shuttle missions serves as a target that is not misleading and is educational to those using the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with keeping the redirect, and that it should point at Space Shuttle Retirement, or to the Space Shuttle page.--NavyBlue84 16:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It may be being linked from somewhere external, which won't show up in our lists. For the sake of not breaking URLs in general, I'd agree with pointing it at whatever page most efficiently explains "there are no more missions", be it the retirement article or the general project page. Shimgray | talk | 16:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Since there aren't any further missions, I think pointing it anywere would be misleading. Delete. --GW… 16:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the disagreement here about whether it should be retargetted or deleted, I've nominated it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 3#Next shuttle mission. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

When is a spacecraft not a spacecraft

We currently have several articles about series of spacecraft, and several articles about programmes. It is clear that the two are distinct concepts - for example it is clear that Apollo was a programme, however something like Astra is seen as a series of spacecraft. There appears to be a grey area in the middle, though, which is leading to confusing and inconsistent titling and presentation of articles. I think that we need to define the boundary between an article about a programme and an article about a series of spacecraft (this being a general article covering the spacecraft, articles on the individual missions/spacecraft themselves would not be affected), define if there are circumstances where only one or the other should exist and others where both should exist, and to amend our naming guidelines to cover programme articles. --GW… 19:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, to cite a few examples, we have Apollo (spacecraft) & Apollo program, Space Shuttle & Space Shuttle program and International Space Station & International Space Station program. This seems to work, so I guess the guideline would be to simply append 'programme' to the end of programme articles, and specify that the spacecraft article should concern the model of spacecraft from an engineering point of view, and the programme article concern budgeting, political considerations, etc. Colds7ream (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:International Space Station Alpha Commanders

I've listed Category:International Space Station Alpha Commanders at CfD with a view to renaming it. Input would be welcome. --GW… 13:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Rocket engines

The following discussion 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.

Hi folks, just wondering if there's any thoughts as to what format the articles concerning rocket engines should take? I've been having a go at sorting out Space Shuttle main engine and have reshuffled it into an organisational structure I think should do the job, but there are no high-quality rocket engine articles (that I can see) to compare it to, and I have been unable to find any project-specified guidelines. I posted a similar request at WP:ROCKETRY but they're inactive - any help or suggestions would be appreciated! Cheers, Colds7ream (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone had any thoughts? Colds7ream (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The way you have the article set up now is perfect! All that it needs is to be sourced, I don't know where you would get them or I would help. I think all rocket engine articles should follow the SSME article. I would add just one thing to the article to make it perfect though. I would include a write up (short, long or in between) of major incidents or failures. For the SSME's one would be the damage to the nozzle lines on STS-129 (I think it was STS-129). I hope that helps!--NavyBlue84 15:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the confidence boost! :-) Yep, I've been trying to gather a reasonable set of sources, which is proving to be quite a mission - surprisingly little is available as far as I can tell, although there were a couple that I found when formatting the few references that were already there. Hopefully once I've put this through the usual article appraisal mangle we can see if we can sort out a guideline for engines so we can work on the rest! :-S Colds7ream (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Copied to Talk:Space Shuttle Main Engine. Colds7ream (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2011 (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.

Notability for Astrospace companies

A couple of recent threads have raised the issue how do we determine the notability of an astrospace company. The basic argument being, because its an astrospace company it must be notable [7] This seems a dubious argument. Do we need new criteria or are the existing one (for companies) working regardless of daft arguments?Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I was going to raise that myself after the present AfDs finished. I think that we should have a notability criteria based on achievement rather than claims. AERA/Sprague is just one of a large number of companies which has just unveiled a design, waited a few years, and folded. I feel that at the very least, we should exclude companies which cannot be reliably verified to have developed some kind of hardware (even if only a static test article (but not a PR model)), or secured some kind of major contract/funding. Intent alone, no matter how well publicised, should not be enough to justify notability. --GW… 17:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd tend to agree with the above, we've had far too many articles about companies with pipe-dream aspirations which vanish into puffs of logic as soon as finance becomes involved. Colds7ream (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation for launch vehicle articles (e.g. Antares)

Orbital renamed Taurus II to Antares. A recent article move reflects that, but the new article title doesn't follow the pattern set by the titles of previous launch vehicle articles that need disambiguation, e.g. Pegasus (rocket). This is an opportunity to reassess: would e.g. Pegasus (launch vehicle) or Pegasus (carrier rocket) or Pegasus (orbital launch system) be a better choice? (sdsds - talk) 21:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to inform everyone, at present WP:SPACENAME specifies that such articles be disambiguated as Name (rocket) or Name (rocket family). Colds7ream (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! To conform to this standard I have renamed the Taurus II article to Antares (rocket), pending any further comments here. (sdsds - talk) 00:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
See WT:RND for the discussion that led to the current disambiguation system. The use of the word "rocket" in the disambiguator is a holdover from the failed WP:ICBM proposal which I put up as a very inexperienced editor in 2006. RND was a few years later and cleaned up most of the holes in the original proposal, but it still advocated the same disambiguator (in Proposal 2, which was eventually implemented - Proposal 1 was a compromise based on intermediate discussions). --GW… 16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

StratoLaunch Systems

I wasn't to sure where to go to post this but I though it would be important for this community. StratoLaunch Systems It's a new space flight venture that was announced today and I was hoping for some help gathering things up on it. MathewDill (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

an interesting argument there. I can understand the issue with all the want to be start-up but I do belive this one has a bit of notability being that is is founded by Burt Rutan and Paul Allen, the pair that was involved with the success of Spaceshipone. MathewDill (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say this one is rather more likely to stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

One year on

So people, its about a year since the big reorganisation, and I was wondering what people think of how the project is looking; whether we're achieving our aims, what's working, what's not working, any new ideas that folks think we could do with? FWIW, I think from a general point of view that we're rolling along quite steadily now, but could probably do with some more collaboration in editing, particularly on big articles such as Spaceflight, as discussed above. On a more specific theme, here's a few things I've noticed:

  • Our assessment request system really isn't working; we've got requests on there from 10 months ago, so its obviously broken. Anyone got any better ideas as to how to run it?
  • The Downlink newsletter, which worked really well at first, hasn't had a publication since March - any thoughts as to how to revive it, or if we want it?
  • Is anyone using the open tasks page? If not, can we put its functions elsewhere?
  • Are people happy with the portal? I've just noticed that the news section hasn't been updated by WikiNews since September, so do we want to take a more active role in maintaining it instead of simply leaving it on automatic?

Anyhow, that's just a few thoughts from me, view of others are requested and would be appreciated! Colds7ream (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if GW has the time to do The Downlink right now, but I would also support the notion of restarting it. BTW, I have decided to take over the task of updating the Next Launch template, since no-one has updated it since mid-July. Cheers! :) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Yep, we'd probably need a team to run the newsletter rather than have poor GW try to do it on his own! As for the next launch thing, nicely done, will chip in when I can. Colds7ream (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The Downlink was intended to be a project-wide collaboration, but I ended up having to do it all myself, and it died when I ran out of time for other things. If others are prepared to provide much more support to the project than before, I would be happy to resume duties as the editor.
I think for the portal, we need to take more of a role in updating news stories, since the WikiNews feed contains a lot of irrelevant items, omits many important stories, and most of the relevant stories that do exist are written from a poor technical perspective in order to appeal to the masses. WikiNews long ago sacrificed any relevance in favour of trying to be taken seriously as a news agency rather than a collaborative project.
I, for one am not using the open tasks page. As for the assessment requests page, I think it is too obscure - to be honest I'd forgotten it existed. I think we need to make it more prominent in order to encourage editors to clear the backlog.
The one thing I would like to revisit is the proposal I made to merge with the Rocketry WikiProject. I know there are dangers involved in expanding the scope of this project to include atmospheric sounding and missile launches, however I feel that with Rocketry having been inactive for so long, this project has effectively been acting as a combined Spaceflight and Rocketry project for the last year, and it might not hurt to formalise that. --GW… 14:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I agree with your analysis regarding the portal news, but the danger if we change it to a manually-updated thing is that it'll end up neglected and out-of-date, much like the next launch template Galactic Penguin mentioned. Do we think we've got enough people orbiting the portal to make sure its kept up-to-date? Secondly, any suggestions from folks as to where to put the assessment request page? As for Rocketry, IMHO we should be considering splitting it between ourselves and WP:AVIATION or something similar, and not absorbing it completely (which I personally would oppose) - as was discussed before, a vast number of rockets are purely intra-atmospheric and thus irrelevant to us as a space-based project. Colds7ream (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree it is something we'd meed to give much more consideration, but from my position, I don't see much difference between a rocket that goes to, say, 99 kilometres, and one that goes to 100 kilometres, so I don't see why they should be covered by different projects and groups of editors. --GW… 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
They should be covered by different projects because they're weapons, not launch vehicles - take Brimstone (missile), for instance; that's a rocket, but has nothing to do with spaceflight whatsoever. Colds7ream (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
By missiles, I was referring to ballistic missiles only. WPRocketry does not, at least in practise, do anything with non-ballistic missiles, and I don't consider them to be part of the project's scope. So yes, MILHIST and/or Aviation can take over AAMs, SAMs, AT weapons, etcetera, it is ballistic missiles and sounding rockets that I want to keep within the control of this project, regardless of apogee. --GW… 10:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
OK then, I think that's probably worthy of discussion in a new section, but I'd still like it if, when we start the discussion, we let MILHIST and AVIATION know so they can take part. Colds7ream (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow its been a year? Time flies! Honestly, I think when something gets done, we are right on target. But I think there is a lot more that we can do. I agree with Colds7ream that we could use more collaboration on editing.
As for the assessment request, maybe we could organize some sort of drive to clear the backlog. If I am correct, other projects do it and it seems to work good for them!
I like Downlink and I thank GW for his tireless effort in the start. Maybe if we give him the title "Editor-in-chief" and we had some people volunteer, then he could get it organized and we could get it back.
I haven't been around much in the last several months, so I haven't done much editing. I think we should keep the open tasks page. If we don't keep it, then how about some sort of to-do list?
The portal is good. Right now I wouldn't worry about the news, as to me its a lower priority. I think it could be great if everyone just chipped away at it.
I think we could merge Rocketry in with us, or at least part of it. I agree with getting Milhist and Avation involved in it. If its done right, it can be done. I would support merging parts of Rocketry in with spaceflight.--NavyBlue84 15:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion concerning the future of WP:ROCKETRY at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry#Project abolishment? and informed the other projects. Colds7ream (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In other news, following on from the above comments regarding the assessment request page, any suggestions as to where we could put it to make it more obvious? Colds7ream (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there anyway we could put a box on the portal page and have it link back to the assessment page?--NavyBlue84 14:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure, the request list is on its own subpage, so it can be transcluded no problem. On a not unrelated note, BTW, would someone mind heading over to SSME and seeing if it meets the B-class criteria? Thanks. Colds7ream (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Question about the open tasks, is that all there is? Or is there some other list that I have missed? Also, I took a quick look at the SSME article. I am no assessment pro (like yourself or GW), but I would say it meets the B-class criteria. It might even meet A-class, but that IMO would be stretching it.--NavyBlue84 14:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
There's quite a few things squirreled about in odd places, probably part of the reason why no-one's using them. We've got the ToDo list (Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks), the cleanup list ([8]) and the bot-maintained article alerts on the Open tasks page, then the assessment requests page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment/Requests) on the Assessment page. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Could someone better at code than me put the assessments request page in brackets on the assessments tab on the project page header, please? SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Following on from the 'One year on' discussion above, one of the parts of the project which hasn't been working well lately is our project newsletter, The Downlink. This was intended to be a monthly newsletter on project goings-on similar to WP:MILHIST's Bugle (recently featured in this Signpost article), which had four issues released before drying up, largely because only User:GW_Simulations was working on it, with barely any help from other project members. Consensus seems to be that we'd like to revive it, with an editorial team backing it up rather than just one editor. This discussion is intended to find out who would be interested in helping out with writing the newsletter, and what structure folks would like it to have. For reference, the structure used in March's issue was; Project news, spaceflight news, Article news, an editorial, an update on our most-viewed articles and a featured article. Any and all comments and volunteers welcomed! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I like the current format as it is. It gives a lot of information without being to overwhelming or too much to read. As for help, I could be persuaded into helping in the spaceflight news section. I would also be willing to contributing to putting the newsletter together for publish, ie. copy edit to help make it excellent.--NavyBlue84 02:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll happily have a go at any sections I can, but I can't promise I'll be of much use after August as I start my first Doctor job on the first and have no idea how much time I'll have for wiki-ing... SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Username change

Just to let everyone know, I've put in a request to change my username, so if you suddenly see lots of edits from User:SalopianJames, you'll know it's me! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be fine - you have to change names locally on wikis you've edited before (I've got a request going at Commons, for instance), then you just create a new unified account. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Been putting it off for a while but I've changed as well now. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 20:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, in that case, welcome to the WikiProject Spaceflight team SalopianJames and WDGraham!!!
Glad to have you both (still) aboard! N2e (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much! :-D SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Spaceflight - A Vital Article

Evening folks - I've just been reading through a very interesting document by User:TCO concerning the quality of vital articles, which you can read, if you wish, at File:Wikipedia’s poor treatment of its most important articles.pdf. Its interesting because it notes the disconnect between the articles which get the most views and those that are up to GA or FA standard, citing our own category article, Spaceflight, as an example, which receives upwards of 13,000 views per month but is only B-class. I agree with his analysis that this isn't an ideal arrangement, given its proportion of views compared with the articles which we have at great quality which receive, for the most part, considerably fewer views. Looking at it this evening, its improved a lot since when I last looked at it (when it was a start-class article), but still is far from sufficient given the size of the topic it covers and its importance to us as a project. As a result, I'd like to propose a push to get it up to at least GA quality (I'm well versed in the horrors of FAC so I won't set that as an aim), which, I think, should begin with a discussion as to what structure and content we want to see in it and then get lots of members involved in giving it a good workover. I thought that this would be the best place to get the ball rolling given that so many more members watch this page than watch that one. Any comments, folks? Colds7ream (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • A lot of why the Spaceflight article is only a B-class and some others are GA and FA, is that everyone tends to focus on them more then this one. For example the ISS article is more prominent then this one. Its a little to do with name/article recognition if you ask me. I would like to see it at least get a link in the current events, so I agree and think we should push for GA. Once we get it to GA, we can aim for FA, but lets focus on GA right now!
I think overall the article is a good start. Maybe with an expansion of some things, and merging of others it will be great. For example, how about combining the Launch and Reaching space sections into one. You can't have one without the other! Or combining the Re-entry, Landing and Recovery into one. They are just different parts of the same thing (hope that makes sense). As for expansion, some of the sections that link to another article can include a little more then one sentence in it. Lastly, the Applications Of Spaceflight could be expanded. There are five bullets but no real telling what each one is. Sure they link to an article explaining them, but other sections do that to and still have something on the Spaceflight page explaining what they are.--NavyBlue84 01:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Those sound like good ideas to me, cut down on the number of short sections. What would people think about expanding the history section, d'you reckon? Could it be multi-sectional or just a few paragraphs on the Space Race, current ops and future? Colds7ream (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think multiple sections on each of the topics you listed, plus human space flight (unless you include that in current ops/future) would be good. Maybe a rename of the section could be done, not sure what it would be named though. I don't think that would be objectionable.--NavyBlue84 02:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've had a good read of TCO's pdf, it's quite an indepth analysis of one symptom of a problem, another symptom is expert retention(loss). The underlying cause is a systemic problem, the structure of wikipedia as a whole. People can work alone for months on out of the way articles and gradually improve that article, and work out for themselves how to push it over FA. When there are lots of collaborators, there are lots of problems, and the editors spend all day in wiki politics and 'co-operating'(sarcasm) rather than writing and improving.
Can't do a thing about restructuring wiki, but it's easy enough to improve co-operation on a smaller scale.
The article begins history with realistic proposals, I was hoping for a mention of say, the space station made out of bricks proposed a long time ago.. that sort of beginning.. Penyulap talk 21:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
After a quick look, it's called The Brick Moon on wikipedia, I added a pic for it. Maybe there are similar beginnings for rocket ships ? Penyulap talk 21:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean the early days pre-spaceflight in general? If so, that could include such things as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's equations and Robert Goddard's rockets, to name but two. Colds7ream (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes James, that would be the go, name them ALL. Rather than focus from just A to B, like first launch until present day, telling the whole story is the master-class article. Everything, summarize the whole story, not just the 'big' picture but the whole huge picture. Then people follow and focus as they please. I saw Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's picture on the ISS in a video not an hour ago, and wondered who it was. I find my own ignorance offensive. I want to know all of it. Right from the first person who looked up and dreamed, right to the furthest dreams of the future. It was cool when I found one time, some american gov report saying how the Russians took seriously the idea that large numbers of their citizens would be living in space one day. So the story on my telling begins and ends within the dreams we all have, however, let's go for what we can find on paper first. Those that you mention are brilliant, and need to be linked into the web-of-knowledge for people to explore. Sorry I took ages to respond, I get so distracted and take ages to come back, always please hassle me on my tp. Penyulap talk 09:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Range Safety Officer merger

I have renominated Range Safety Officer to be merged with Range safety. The page was originally nominated by WDGraham (G.W. Simulations) to be merged, however no discussion ever ensued. The discussion can be found here.--NavyBlue84 20:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on this has been closed, seeing as their was no further discussion, and the articles merged.--NavyBlue84 20:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Day one is devoted to spaceflights, so this will directly affect y'all! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Apollo12 - Strollingonthemoononeday.ogg

File:Apollo12 - Strollingonthemoononeday.ogg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion as being unsourced. Since claimed to be a NASA recording, it might be good to source it, so it can be moved to Commons. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Orion merge proposal

Evening everyone, just to let y'all know that I've proposed a merger of all the Orion articles over at Talk:Orion (spacecraft)#Merge proposal, and I'd appreciate any input anyone can offer. Happy New Year! Cheers, SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Cassini orbiter downlink of huygens probe timeline.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletoin as being unable to verify. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

SSME peer review

Evening everyone, just to let you all know I've requested a Peer Review of Space Shuttle Main Engine, would really appreciate folks' opinions! Cheers, SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Italicisation

I'm sure I remember seeing this discussion before somewhere, but I can't immediately find it. Three linked style questions prompted by this comment:

  1. should the names of individual spacecraft (eg/ Challenger, Eagle, etc.) be italicised?
  2. should the names of programs be italicised (eg/ Apollo)
  3. should the names of specific missions (eg/ STS-8, Apollo 11, etc) be italicised?

We don't seem to have explicit guidelines. The manual of style is vague, saying that italics should be used for "named vehicles: trains and locomotives ; ships ; ship classes" without saying if this is restricted to those sets or not; meanwhile, it seems various external sources don't routinely italicise.

As far as I can tell from browsing through articles, our general practice is to italicise named craft, and not to italicise the names of missions, while programs are a bit hit and miss - some do, some don't. Any thoughts? If we want to standardise on #1, it may be worth mentioning it in the MOS - I'll leave a note on the talkpage pointing to this discussion. Shimgray | talk | 21:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I would not rely on an "our general practice" line of reasoning, IIRC a while ago a single editor (can't remember who, not a regular) went around replacing many non-italicised names with italicised ones so the present situation doesn't represent much of a consensus or a recognised practise.
Two things about the comment you link to...The idea that because the MOS doesn't specify spacecraft by name does not at all imply they shouldn't be italicised; that's a misunderstanding of what guidelines are for, they are not prescriptive legal texts. On the other hand I'd agree with the editor that italicising spacecraft names seems an uncommon practice outside of Wikipedia. It did seem a bit odd to me, I think I'd probably prefer no italicisation. ChiZeroOne (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I'd say that The Bushranger's got it right - IMHO spacecraft names should be italicised, but the others don't need to be. This is similar to the formatting of ships' names, I believe. Colds7ream (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Where have we got to on this? --GW… 19:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Nowhere by the looks of it - need to draw attention to it! Whatever happened to our newsletter? It had a section for drawing people's attention to things like this as I recall. Colds7ream (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Bushranger and Colds7ream.--NavyBlue84 01:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to hear what other reliable sources do before making a binding decision. What does NASA do? What do scholarly journals do, like The Astrophysical Journal? Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't get into The Astrophysical Journal, however a quick peek at The Astronomical Journal shows an article about the Kepler spacecraft, and the "Kepler" is italicized. I read on Rico402's talk page that NASA does not italicize spacecraft names. The ticklish part is the fact that there is the Kepler mission, and then there is the Kepler spacecraft. However, this link appears to confirm that NASA italicizes neither the mission nor the spacecraft name. There seem to be other standards that are at odds with Wikipedia's "unspoken" standard of italicization of spacecraft names, and still other standards that do also italicize. So Wikipedia is "lost" if we try to adhere to other standards on this issue. In this particular case, the solution appears to be to continue to set the standard, and italicize spacecraft names. Yes, I know. In most cases I would not suggest to set a standard, yet in this case I see no other way to go. After all, we do also call them spaceships. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me suggest the following...

  • Named vehicles

We already italicize named aircraft, Enola Gay and named satellites, Sputnik 1, and probably many spaceships as well. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  17:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I would say that your Kepler example is the exception rather than the rule, and it should be noted that NASA's website for Kepler doesn't use italics. I would suggest that we only italicise call signs, Space Shuttle orbiters, and space station modules (but not the stations themselves). That seems to be the current practise. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 17:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

SES Astra

Following the merger of SES Astra into its parent company, Satbuff (talk · contribs) has been doing a fairly thorough job of purging all references to the former company. I'm sure he's acting in good faith, and I've sent him a friendly reminder that notability is not temporary, however his edits are introducing historical inaccuracies since the satellites were operated by SES Astra for a time, and their articles are now implying that they have only been operated by the parent company directly. At a quick count, there appear to be at least 100 articles affected, I would appreciate some help cleaning this mess up. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 14:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Would it help if you had WP:ROLLBACK tools? SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I do, but it's not a simple case of reverting them. It still needs to be included in many of them, just not at the expense of contemporary names. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 12:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Smallvenusprobe.gif up for deletion

File:Smallvenusprobe.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion as lacking some technical Wikipedia details. It is used on three articles. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have provided FUR. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Largevenusprobe.gif has a disputation banner on it

See commons:File:Largevenusprobe.gif. It seems to be inadequate sourcing? 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded a local copy and provided FUR for it. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Enzmann starship

Hello. I'm concerned about the notability of this article, which is tagged by your WikiProject. The first few sources either don't refer to the "Enzmann starship" or are self-published. The first source that does, does so only in a photo caption and is in a "newsletter" that appears to be more of a blog (ie one writer). Views welcomed. --Dweller (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved
It's a notable concept, even if the article is woefully inadequate. Thanks for the heads-up. Penyulap talk 09:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

LARES_(satellite)

FYI, there is a notice at WT:AST about questionable editing of this satellite relativity experiment. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Assistance with two line elements

Hi everyone, there is an effort going on to improve a diagram that shows the altitude of the ISS over time, someone with a good head for math and/or familiarity with two line elements could assist. Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#International space station altitude chart Penyulap talk 05:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_3&oldid=1088883513"