![]() | Manned Orbiting Laboratory is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2021. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I corrected this article's incorrect use of the term 'Russian' when 'Soviet [Union]' was clearly meant. It amazes me that people who obsess about minute technical details continue to get this wrong over and over and over and over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.223.44 ( talk) 07:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if the Air Force guys were nuts? Isn't helium/oxygen gas mixtures used in deep-sea diving? I wonder if it was chosen delibertaly so that the MOL astronaut sound like " Alvin and the Chipmunks" (watch the diving crews for the U.S.S. Monitor programs on the Discovery Channel). At least the Soviet Almaz military space station and the Skylab space station used oxygen/nitrogen, with the former at sea-level pressure and Skylab at a 3:1 ratio (3 parts oxygen to 1 part nitrogen). Rwboa22 01:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This article doesn't even mention that aspects of this program were closely guarded secrets at the time. All I know about this subject is what I saw on Nova, so I'm reluctant to write much about this myself. ike9898 ( talk) 14:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You have the names of the astronauts listed but were wrong on one of them. The bottom row left, first person is Col. Lachlan Macleay, USAF and not Lt Commander John Finley. If nothing else you can tell the difference in the uniform. Col. Macleay is in the USAF. Also Finley left in 1968, and could not be in this picture if the replacement 1968 class in this picture (other than Robert Lawrence who had already died in a plane crash.) Check PBS program Astrospies for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieAF ( talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The article claims that the intended orbit was to be polar (which makes sense for a reconnaissance mission), however it also claims that the intended launch site was to be Cape Canaveral. Is there a reference that supports this? Cape Canaveral is normally not used for launches with polar inclinations. That is normally done at Vandenburg due to the increased risk of overflight over populated areas of the east coast at Canaveral. Was the editor here making the assumption that since the one and only test launch of MOL was done at Cape Canaveral that missions would be launched from there as well? -- RadioFan ( talk) 13:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Manned Orbital Laboratory's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "astrospies":
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The "NASA Archives on MOL" PDF document that was used in two places as the first citation reference, says nothing at all about the X-20 DynaSoar, the Air Force, reconnaissance, or any other military use of the stations described. Therefore, I don't see how it can be used to verify the two statements to which it was linked. The phrase "manned orbital laboratory" does not seem to be used in context of an official program name, so the statement of that being the original name is suspect as well. All this document proves, is that NASA studied some space station concepts in 1963, mentioning the use of Gemini as a shuttle vehicle. I kept it as an external link, because it's of related interest, of course.
We really need some authoritative, Air Force documentation for verification (though this is understandably hard to come by, given its military nature.) JustinTime55 ( talk) 15:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Manned Orbiting Laboratory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manned Orbiting Laboratory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Scope creep ( talk · contribs) 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
I have read the article 8 times now, the spelling is good, layout is good and coverage of content, having read up on it, seems fairly comprehensive at the moment. scope_creep Talk 20:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
never-flown part. Can that re-clarified with a better description, as you have
launched on 3 November 1966at the bottom. Apart from that, it is really decent. Possibly re-craft it. It could best it is at the moment. I don't know. It sound a wee bit odd, but it might be me. "It was a never flown part"??
The launch of Sputnik 1, the first satellite, by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957, came as a profound shock to the American public, which had complacently assumed American technical superiority, and sparked a search for initiatives to counter its psychological impactIts a long sentence. Is it possible to take out one American and reorder. Give an ownership, e.g in their technical superiority, and sparked a...
most forms of human space flightI'm left wondering what was left out?
transferred $53.8 million (equivalent to $367 million in 2018)Somebody mentioned inflation template, might be worth using. I don't know what nick its in. Surprising to say the least.
including Man in Space Soonest to NASAIs there a link or a clarification?
The same 22 February memorandum tacit approval for the development of a space stationgave tacit approval
Program 287As its a name
McNamaraDoesn't seem to be linked.
"white" experimentsWhat are these? Can it be linked somehow, or clarified?
Brigadier General Russell A. BergLink this.
Done
Black Financial ProceduresCan you clarify this.
White Financial Procedures AgreementWhat exactly are these? Some clarification is needed.
black fundsLink this.
(GSE/TD)Get rid. Not used.
Douglas selected four major subcontractorsSeems to six??
Aerospace and the MOL.sitting alone, all lonely.
Aerospace and the MOL. Aerospace concurred with all but the last, noting..Got that, took 30 seconds. Can you rewrite it.
thrustersIs it worth linking thrusters. There is an article of sorts, Thrusters (spacecraft).
Hamilton StandardIs that the right company? According to the article it a manufacturer of propellers. Parts supplier. Unlike the other three, there is no mention of material design, or suit design.
mobile services TowerUppercase Tower?
segment receipt inspection building and ready buildingWhat are these? Kind of make sense, but odd sounding?
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
He directed Directorthe?
Secretary of the Air Forcecan this be linked, if not already liked.
Done
I've had a good look through this. I can't see anything that immediately stands out. I spent some time over the weekend comparing the article to the
WP:MOS, on line by line basis and think it is OK. There is nothing glaring. I think is done. Done
This is fine. Done
Hi @ Hawkeye7: This seems to be bloggish, work of one person? [1] The military documents, memo's and so on are fine.
Not a chance. Done
I found a couple of extra papers. One paper interesting, Manned Orbiting Laboratory-for War or Peace? at [3]. Another at [4] Both of seem to be outside the archive.
It is comprehensive and heavily sourced. Done
I have read six MOL type articles and they are all identical. Done
The result was: promoted by
Amkgp (
talk)
14:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 ( talk). Self-nominated at 11:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC).
How about
This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice, albeit without a crew.and I'll approve this. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 10:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The article at KH-10 Dorian should be merged into Manned Orbiting Laboratory. They're clearly referring to the same spacecraft and the presence of the KH-10 Dorian article is confusing.
![]() | Manned Orbiting Laboratory is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2021. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I corrected this article's incorrect use of the term 'Russian' when 'Soviet [Union]' was clearly meant. It amazes me that people who obsess about minute technical details continue to get this wrong over and over and over and over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.223.44 ( talk) 07:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if the Air Force guys were nuts? Isn't helium/oxygen gas mixtures used in deep-sea diving? I wonder if it was chosen delibertaly so that the MOL astronaut sound like " Alvin and the Chipmunks" (watch the diving crews for the U.S.S. Monitor programs on the Discovery Channel). At least the Soviet Almaz military space station and the Skylab space station used oxygen/nitrogen, with the former at sea-level pressure and Skylab at a 3:1 ratio (3 parts oxygen to 1 part nitrogen). Rwboa22 01:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This article doesn't even mention that aspects of this program were closely guarded secrets at the time. All I know about this subject is what I saw on Nova, so I'm reluctant to write much about this myself. ike9898 ( talk) 14:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You have the names of the astronauts listed but were wrong on one of them. The bottom row left, first person is Col. Lachlan Macleay, USAF and not Lt Commander John Finley. If nothing else you can tell the difference in the uniform. Col. Macleay is in the USAF. Also Finley left in 1968, and could not be in this picture if the replacement 1968 class in this picture (other than Robert Lawrence who had already died in a plane crash.) Check PBS program Astrospies for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieAF ( talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The article claims that the intended orbit was to be polar (which makes sense for a reconnaissance mission), however it also claims that the intended launch site was to be Cape Canaveral. Is there a reference that supports this? Cape Canaveral is normally not used for launches with polar inclinations. That is normally done at Vandenburg due to the increased risk of overflight over populated areas of the east coast at Canaveral. Was the editor here making the assumption that since the one and only test launch of MOL was done at Cape Canaveral that missions would be launched from there as well? -- RadioFan ( talk) 13:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Manned Orbital Laboratory's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "astrospies":
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The "NASA Archives on MOL" PDF document that was used in two places as the first citation reference, says nothing at all about the X-20 DynaSoar, the Air Force, reconnaissance, or any other military use of the stations described. Therefore, I don't see how it can be used to verify the two statements to which it was linked. The phrase "manned orbital laboratory" does not seem to be used in context of an official program name, so the statement of that being the original name is suspect as well. All this document proves, is that NASA studied some space station concepts in 1963, mentioning the use of Gemini as a shuttle vehicle. I kept it as an external link, because it's of related interest, of course.
We really need some authoritative, Air Force documentation for verification (though this is understandably hard to come by, given its military nature.) JustinTime55 ( talk) 15:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Manned Orbiting Laboratory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manned Orbiting Laboratory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Scope creep ( talk · contribs) 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
I have read the article 8 times now, the spelling is good, layout is good and coverage of content, having read up on it, seems fairly comprehensive at the moment. scope_creep Talk 20:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
never-flown part. Can that re-clarified with a better description, as you have
launched on 3 November 1966at the bottom. Apart from that, it is really decent. Possibly re-craft it. It could best it is at the moment. I don't know. It sound a wee bit odd, but it might be me. "It was a never flown part"??
The launch of Sputnik 1, the first satellite, by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957, came as a profound shock to the American public, which had complacently assumed American technical superiority, and sparked a search for initiatives to counter its psychological impactIts a long sentence. Is it possible to take out one American and reorder. Give an ownership, e.g in their technical superiority, and sparked a...
most forms of human space flightI'm left wondering what was left out?
transferred $53.8 million (equivalent to $367 million in 2018)Somebody mentioned inflation template, might be worth using. I don't know what nick its in. Surprising to say the least.
including Man in Space Soonest to NASAIs there a link or a clarification?
The same 22 February memorandum tacit approval for the development of a space stationgave tacit approval
Program 287As its a name
McNamaraDoesn't seem to be linked.
"white" experimentsWhat are these? Can it be linked somehow, or clarified?
Brigadier General Russell A. BergLink this.
Done
Black Financial ProceduresCan you clarify this.
White Financial Procedures AgreementWhat exactly are these? Some clarification is needed.
black fundsLink this.
(GSE/TD)Get rid. Not used.
Douglas selected four major subcontractorsSeems to six??
Aerospace and the MOL.sitting alone, all lonely.
Aerospace and the MOL. Aerospace concurred with all but the last, noting..Got that, took 30 seconds. Can you rewrite it.
thrustersIs it worth linking thrusters. There is an article of sorts, Thrusters (spacecraft).
Hamilton StandardIs that the right company? According to the article it a manufacturer of propellers. Parts supplier. Unlike the other three, there is no mention of material design, or suit design.
mobile services TowerUppercase Tower?
segment receipt inspection building and ready buildingWhat are these? Kind of make sense, but odd sounding?
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
He directed Directorthe?
Secretary of the Air Forcecan this be linked, if not already liked.
Done
I've had a good look through this. I can't see anything that immediately stands out. I spent some time over the weekend comparing the article to the
WP:MOS, on line by line basis and think it is OK. There is nothing glaring. I think is done. Done
This is fine. Done
Hi @ Hawkeye7: This seems to be bloggish, work of one person? [1] The military documents, memo's and so on are fine.
Not a chance. Done
I found a couple of extra papers. One paper interesting, Manned Orbiting Laboratory-for War or Peace? at [3]. Another at [4] Both of seem to be outside the archive.
It is comprehensive and heavily sourced. Done
I have read six MOL type articles and they are all identical. Done
The result was: promoted by
Amkgp (
talk)
14:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 ( talk). Self-nominated at 11:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC).
How about
This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice, albeit without a crew.and I'll approve this. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 10:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The article at KH-10 Dorian should be merged into Manned Orbiting Laboratory. They're clearly referring to the same spacecraft and the presence of the KH-10 Dorian article is confusing.