![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Several spaceflight images are up for immediate deletion. See WT:AST, where WPAstronomy was notified of those spaceflight images related to astronomy. Several more are not related to astronomy however. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 04:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Apollo program for GA review. JustinTime55 ( talk) 18:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
So I've been working a little bit on the Mars 3 article, and I was wondering if anybody would like to help me improve it. I've worked a little bit in my sandbox ( User:3er40/sandbox) and I'm planning on improving it significantly.
Thanks,
3er40 (
talk) 14:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Sorry for deleting this message earlier. I thought it'd be better to ask later, but I've since changed my mind.
Terrible news, the world has lost a true giant and hero. I think we can expect a lot of traffic over the next few days at Neil Armstrong... SalopianJames ( talk) 20:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Space suit#To space, or not to space, "space suit". Mangoe ( talk) 14:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
File:ARES 15.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 02:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Several Ares and Challenger explosion images have been sent for deletion, see Category:All Wikipedia files with unknown source -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 03:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
As the ESA logo is problematic due to copyright issues and should not be used in lists were other nations are represented by their flags, there are now not only one, but two "Not the esa flags":
24px wide, File:Not the esa logo.png
Inspired be the original one, I created the next one to be 22px wide (as all the flag icons are) – unfortunately it is not as beautiful as the first one:
Plus I created a round logo surrogate, for when the blue NASA cookie or the white Roscosmos logo would be used:
It can be used like that:
Agency | Flights | Individuals | ISS Crew | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
NASA | 232 | 133 | 36 | 26 women, 55 double, 19 triple and two quadruple flight |
![]() |
Roskosmos | 57 | 38 | 31 | eight double, four triple and one quadruple flight |
![]() |
ESA | 18 | 12 | 5 | one woman, four double flights and one triple flight |
In case you should create better versions of these surrogate flags&logos, simply overwrite mine. Tony Mach ( talk) 12:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Sts-94 crew.jpg is at PUF for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 07:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Apollo11tv.jpg has been nominated for deletion at PUF. Apparently the nominator thinks that an image of Buzz Aldrin in space doesn't look like it's from NASA. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 03:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 30 where several NASA space probe collages have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 06:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
This is about Korolev's former design bureau, what is toady known here on wikipedia as S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia (it is complicated, bear with me).
It's historic names included:
It's current name seems to be:
Or short:
Most of these contain several more or less helpful redirects (with and without various spelling "differences"). The problematic redirect (as it is used several times) seem to me to be " RKK Energia", which seems to be a mash-up between the anglicized Energia and the Russian/Cyrillic abbreviation Ркк, transposed to the Russian/Latin RKK (if I am not mistaken).
I would recommend using either RSC Energia or RKK Energiya, but not RKK Energia, but would ask someone to check if this is right.
Any thoughts on this?
(*) If anybody can contribute to the article what TsKBEM and NPO Energia stand for, it would be fabulous.
-- Tony Mach ( talk) 12:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
image:New Ares V Exploded View.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 06:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
As I have been reworking some articles about Almaz, I noticed something was missing. Initially Almaz stations were being designed so the station and crew would be launched together – for this a VA spacecraft would have been mated to a Almaz-OPS space station hull. Unfortunatly there does not seem to be an free image to illustrate this. An example of an non-free image would be e.g.the first image here or the second image in this PDF. Illustrations of an VA/FGB combination, that formed an TKS spacecraft are available on Commons, but unfortunately not for the VA/OPS combination. While the VA/OPS never flew, I think it would contribute to both the Almaz and the VA spacecraft article.
Can anybody contribute such an illustration with an Wikipedia compatible license? A photo of a model, a drawing, a computer rendering, a modification of an exiting drawing, or some such would do fine, if executed adequately.
One could use the VA part of this TKS cutaway and "mate" it with a Almaz-OPS cutaway, if someone has something like that readily available:
If someone could make a modified image of this cutaway, and replace the FGB with a (very simplified) OPS, then that would do fine as well. I searched the "Mir Hardware Heritage" document, but could unfortunately not find a OPS module with the right perspective… -- Tony Mach ( talk) 14:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I would like to point out my proposal at Exploration of the moon, seeing as I doubt it will receive much attention otherwise. Thanks. JamesDouch ( talk) 23:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
image:Apollo12tv.jpg has been tagged for immediate deletion as being unsourced -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 09:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
There's a note at WT:PHYSICS that some recent edits need reviewing at Interstellar travel -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 04:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Timed logo.jpg has been nominated for immediate deletion as being unsourced -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 14:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The Pan-African Space Agency might be due for an article when it gets fleshed out... [2] -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 09:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Currently, there are two navbox for Exploration of Mars : Template:Cancelled Mars missions and Template:Mars spacecraft. I propose to merge theses into a single navbox. What do you think ? New navbox :
Cordially. Artvill ( talk) 09:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Cordially. Artvill ( talk) 15:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. Merger between
Template:Cancelled Mars missions and
Template:Mars spacecraft into
Template:Mars spacecraft performed. Cordially.
Artvill (
talk) 16:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here for regarding the use of No-importance or not. Thank for your time. JJ98 ( Talk / Contribs) 19:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
File:AZUSA-transponder.png and File:AZUSA-MarkII.png have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 06:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
file:De spacecraftb.jpg has been nominated for deletion because it is improperly licensed. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 07:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Cropped Earth with Sunburst.PNG has been nominated for deletion. It appears to be from an 1996 Endeavour flight, with the Canadarm cropped out... -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 08:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Discovery launches.jpg has been nominated for immediate deletion as unsourced -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 20:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
As has just been pointed out at Talk:Neil Armstrong, the article was using the term 'EVA' without explanation. I've Wikilinked the first occurrence to Extra-vehicular activity, but this appears to be a more widespread problem. Perhaps someone with some spare time could check other relevant articles, and at least provide the Wikilink - though ideally, if the term is being used multiple times in an article, an explanation might be useful too. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
In Neil Armstrong, there is an "International Committee on Space Research". What is this ? It is the COSPAR or an other Committee ? Artvill ( talk) 12:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Mangalyaan mars orbitter.jpg has been nominated for deletion as unsourced -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 20:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. These photo show lunar hardware: the Modular Equipment Transporter, the Lunar Roving Vehicle and the Apollo 7 RCA Television camera. This lunar hardware are displayed at Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex.
I see two different Lunar Roving Vehicle, displayed at Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex ! Someone has any other info on these rovers ? The KSC has truly two rovers ? And the lunar tool cart, the MET, it is a mockup/replica or a flight-ready cart ? Thank you in advance. Cordially. Artvill ( talk) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Where is the link to the place we keep the article conventions we've agreed on as a project? I can't seem to locate it at present, and I want to confirm the convention for launch time reporting in Wikipedia articles (I think we agreed on UTC, but maybe I'm remembering badly. Thanks. N2e ( talk) 12:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
One thing I should raise is launches with more than one craft when the satellites are not that interesting independently. I've started grouping things together which I'm sure some will object to as it becomes more about the launch. An example would be three GLONASS satellites which are launched together. I'm just not sure they are really separable. Another example would be Kosmos 2467 and Kosmos 2468 where we don't actually know which is which. Secretlondon ( talk) 17:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It has become a source of conflict on the Cygnus 1 page. I changed it to match the the citation format used on the Dragon 2+ page. It was reverted and the explanation given was "Please don't change citations formats like this some editors hate that format. Use the first". I don't want to start an edit war so I could use some help dealing with this.-- Craigboy ( talk) 02:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm posting this here because it affects a number of articles and most likely will not be seen on the Template:LaunchAttempt talk page. The "Weather go (%)" either needs to be removed or changed to simply "no or go" because at launch time no percentage is given. Those percentages are only given prior to launch to predict whether or not the weather will be go or no go.-- Craigboy ( talk) 00:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that a few article for space programs have rudimentary infoboxes, and then saw on the talk page for Project Apollo that one had been removed from that article with the suggestion that someone create an infobox specific to space programs. I have created a template, Template:Infobox space program, and now submit it to this talk page to get the opinion of the members of the Spaceflight WikiProject. I would like to note that I have not transcluded this template into any articles at this time, I wanted to seek the opinion of those who would be most likely to use the template. The template page includes an example using the Apollo Program for the information. I tried to include information that would give at least a decent overview of the program without providing so much information that the body of the article might be ignored. I look forward to seeing what you all think of the template as it stands. MasterSearcy ( talk) 01:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I am writing here to solicit other opinions on whether it is appropriate to refer to a spacecraft as "she". My impression is that most Wikipedia articles do not, and certainly most of the books and good-quality websites I read on this subject do not either. For ships (old-fashioned ships that sail on the sea) I think we use this pronoun; for aircraft and spacecraft, we would use "it" (even though there exist enthusiasts who would call probably any vehicle "she"). Am I right? -- MarchOrDie ( talk) 19:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
OK this is the problem of how to name the communication satellites in which the primary operator lease out a certain portion of the comsat's transponders to another operator, which then receives another name for the secondary operator. The problem is that - what name should I write in an article?
For example:
What should I call them in each of these cases? There are apparently even more complicated cases, but I want to deal with them one by one, so there you go for discussion!
Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 07:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
A flickr user took some excellent pictures of a recent Long March 2D launch and uploaded them under a wikicommon-friendly license. The reason I posted this here is because we very rarely get quality pictures of Chinese hardware on wikicommons so I just wanted to share these great pics with you guys.
-- Craigboy ( talk) 06:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Commercial travel is becoming increasingly important to the industry, but I feel like our coverage is lacking. There are some issues I would like to bring to everyone's attention if I may.
I have done some minor cleaning at
Spaceport America, but it (along with the others) is still in need of much more attention.
—
Sowlos (
talk) 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm hoping that some of those who participate with this wikiproject will help me out with this article. At the moment it is still just a stub, but I am anticipating that on Thursday, November 6th 2012 it will be crushed by a huge number of editors and people typically from outside of Wikipedia. If you could help out with maintaining some sanity on the article, watching over it for some blatant vandalism, and possibly requesting some assistance from administrators to semi-protect the article from vandalism, it would be appreciated.
On a personal note, I'm pretty excited about this company and the upcoming news conference about it. It is very possible that it could be something like Galactic Suite Design and be a bunch of vaporware, but I have my reasons to think it will be something much more substantial. If it falls flat on its face and the guys that I've been talking to "on the inside" are just feeding me a bunch of BS, then my concerns are perhaps alarmist. I'm just asking for folks who are regular editors to Wikipedia and have a clue about spaceflight issues to bookmark this article and keep it on your watchlist for a few days... at least until the edit wars calm down and it can fade into the background of an ordinary Wikipedia article. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 03:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick heads up that Novosti Kosmonavtiki have re-done their website which has broken every link/reference we have to them. Sadly it looks like they've taken most of their early material down, but I suppose they could re-add it. NK is available through Eastview (although without the pictures) but having part articles and picture galleries free online was rather nice. Secretlondon ( talk) 21:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I have concerns about edits being made by User:Magneticlifeform. He appears to be adding large chunks of information from a self-written, self-published ebook that, judging by his comments here, may also involve POV issues as well as COI/RS. Somebody might want to take a look at what he's been adding to articles... - The Bushranger One ping only 08:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
gives a history of the rocket industry which would not meet the approval of the PR guys at the NASA history office.
I'm trying to catch up on Applications Technology Satellite, which I have a draft of improvements for that I'm finally getting around to finalizing and publishing. There are a bunch of novelty claims being made for various satellites in the series, and in particular the claim for ATS-3 that it took "the first color pictures of earth taken from synchronous altitude". Meanwhile we have DODGE, which is generally credited with taking color pictures of the whole earth first, albeit from a slightly lower orbit. Naturally some sources take off all the qualifiers. Are there other claims I need to reconcile with these, and which of these is prominent enough to gain notice in the article(s)? Mangoe ( talk) 14:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Is Space Launch Report considered a reliable source for verfiability of claims by most other editors of the WikiProject Spaceflight?
I'm not personally familiar with it, but ran into it today via a 2007 reference to it attempting to support a large number of claims in a table in the article Falcon (rocket family). It seems like a reasonable amount of the stuff in that website does not show where it came from, and that some amount of it is merely (apparently, quite intelligent) estimates and calculations based on information that has not necessarily been released by the launch vehicle manufacturers or the purchasers of launches. N2e ( talk) 20:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
A couple of years ago I began, and then abandoned due to the size of the task, an attempt to audit articles about individual orbital spaceflights, in the interests of improving consistency, developing a common format, and clarifying where work was needed. I was wondering whether this is something which could be done by the project, possibly developing a checklist template for talk pages incorporating the B and C class criteria, and other things such as whether an article has an infobox, or needs a rewrite, etc. What do you think? -- W. D. Graham 20:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Would anyone here be able to help answer a couple of questions about 1960s spaceflight articles?
Any help or replies on the above, either here or elsewhere, would be great. Many thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that many of the articles covering the TIROS satellite program have not been written and of those that were, many seem to have been written by a no longer active member User:Sir Jazer 13 whose research/written English skills may no longer meet the current article standards.
I've just partially re-written the article on the NOAA-B launch failure (For a comparison see: User:Sir Jazer 13/NOAA-B, for the original version.), but from the looks of things the whole section needs a going over to identify problem areas. Graham1973 ( talk) 13:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
See WT:WikiProject England where a discussion on Category:English astronauts is occurring -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 07:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
A very well-referenced submission is currently stuck at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Psychological_and_sociological_issues_affecting_expeditionary_space_missions ... any assistance would be appreciated. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Greater Green River Intergalactic Spaceport has been listed on the Template:Spaceport. According to its article, Greater Green River Intergalactic Spaceport is intended "for inhabitants of Jupiter who might wish to take sanctuary in Green River in the event their planet is threatened by collisions from comets or meteors". I don't wanna be a spoilsport, but is that what this template is for? Greater Green River is just another local airport, it's not used for space travel, it shouldn't be listed along the likes of the Kennedy Space Center and Baykonur. 83.80.170.157 ( talk) 12:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
According to this report [4] Tiangong-2 has been cancelled, and will instead be repurposed as the cargo transport it's descendents were supposed to become, and instead Tiangong-3 has become Tiangong-2, the station whose descendents were supposed to become modules of the large multimodule station.
So do we update the articles? (such as move Tiangong-2 to Tiangong-2 (cancelled) and move Tiangong-3 to Tiangong-2?)
-- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 12:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
So hold your horses just now....... ;)
Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 15:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Help would be appreciated with a certain table on this page which is badly out of date. See the talk page discussion, especially if you know how the table was auto-updating. Rmhermen ( talk) 19:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings fellow spaceflight enthusiasts! Could y'all please review the articles I have created?
Fatigue and Sleep Loss During Spaceflight
Effects of Sleep Deprivation In Space
Treating An Ill or Injured Crew Member In Space
Illness and Injuries During Spaceflight
Spaceflight Radiation Carcinogenesis
Radiobiology evidence for protons and HZE nuclei
Epidemiology data for low-linear energy transfer radiation
Radiation carcinogenesis in past space missions
Visual Impairment and Intracranial Pressure
Risk of Renal Stone Formation
Team Composition and Cohesion In Spaceflight Missions
Intervertebral Disc Damage and Spaceflight
Jssteil ( talk) 03:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
All the images used at Inspiration Mars Foundation except the logo, appear to be copyright violations. The source permission where listed doesn't appear to give permission. The logo itself doesn't appear at the official website, so appears to be an invention of the uploader. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Project Daedalus is the name chosen for the British Interplanetary Society's Starship study. - apparently this article from British Interplanetary Society, but I can not find the original. please help. Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 10:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed this - NASA's publishing department are clearing out a large number of print histories for free (well, free plus $3 for shipping). One copy each and US only, but still pretty interesting! Andrew Gray ( talk) 22:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Pretty amazing deal, there. Will have to check them out, but will see if digital copies are available first. — Huntster ( t @ c) 01:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Should {{ Inspace}} cover only articles "... in space" or should it also cover articles "space-based ..." ? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello my dear co-editors!
Gaurav Pruthi and I have been thinking over starting a WikiProject for the Indian Space Programme. If you are interested in taking part in the discussion regarding the WikiProject, please do leave a message
here.
Regards.
Jayadevp13 (
talk) 14:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I was recently brought to the issue that there are FOUR pages dedicated to the list of lunar probes and missions:
To ensure that there is a clear list of missions on Wiki, I suggest to at least merge the first two and last two articles, with the first one dedicated to unmanned exploration of the Moon, and the second one to all kinds of lunar explorations. Perhaps even these two can be combined into one article.
Thoughts?
Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 03:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Where on Wikipedia might one find an explication of "Spacelaunch orbital inclinations and tradeoffs from various launch locations"? I've looked around a plethora of articles, in Category:Astrodynamics and space launch (e.g., Orbital spaceflight and have not been able to find anything. I would assume that there are tradeoffs in extra propellant required to achieve LEO orbits of various inclinations from various launch latitudes. So not sure if Wikipedia does not describe this at present or if I'm just looking in all the wrong places. N2e ( talk) 16:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Could someone try to fix the article on spacefaring? It is presently tagged as OR. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 04:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It had to happen sooner or later (typical government SNAFU!) NASA apparently has been neglecting to make sure what it posts isn't in violation of US export control law (ironic). We're dependent on this for much citation. Probably a dumb question, but is there anything we can do (besides wait)? JustinTime55 ( talk) 20:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a case for the Internet Archive.
I spotted this announcement today -
- and thought it might be of interest to some contributors here! The restriction is students only, but it otherwise appears to be international. Andrew Gray ( talk) 13:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion at CFD may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Mars spacecraft has been proposed to be merged to Category:Missions to Mars, see WP:CFDALL -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Mars Exploration Rover and Category:Mars expedition have shown up at WP:CFDALL for renaming and deletion, respectively. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 01:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
file:Skylab 2 crew walkout.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 01:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I am involved in a discussion with User:C1010 on how to put the outcome of a certain launch in here (specifically the Proton/Briz-M failure last December, in which the satellite was able to reach the correct orbit by itself). We currently disagree on whether it should be called a "partial failure" or a "launch anomaly" (see User talk:C1010 and User talk:Galactic Penguin SST). This is surely an interesting case that deserves more comments, as there are even more borderline cases that are difficult to classify (e.g. the Falcon 9 last October), so I think some kind of input from others are needed.
Thoughts? Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 03:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we also need to discuss how to handle secondary payloads in Wikipedia articles,' and how to do so in a manner that is comparable across launch-related articles. Since primary payload purchaser contracts for the mission, and gets the launch window choice, inclination, limitation-rules-on-secondary-payloads, etc., it seems we create a non-comparable situation if we treat failures on the secondary payloads with the same weight as the primary.
Thought experiment: If many Atlas V and Delta IV launches accept only primary payloads, while SpaceX chooses to support the secondary launch market on a greater percentage of their Falcon 9 and/or Falcon Heavy launches, it seems to me that the secondary launch purchaser is signing a contract, and paying much less price per unit of payload than the primary launch purchaser, in order to buy a service with some accepted probability of not being successful based on restrictions put on the mission by the primary slot purchasers, precisely because that price is so low.
(thought experiment continued:) If then, on the actual mission, the secondary payload doesn't get the "best-case"/"optimal"/"nominal" placement they hoped for, but they do get what was contracted for, and paid for, because they accepted that lower probability of success in the contractual terms they signed up for, then who are we, as Wikipedia editors, to call it a failure?
I realize of course that we on Wikipedia should be subject to verifiability (not truth) and use the info we have in secondary sources; but when those sources offer both explanations, as I saw on the case of SpaceX CRS-1 last fall, I don't think Wikipedia should go "black and white" on the way we show the launch success in our tables, etc. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 20:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
We seem have a backlog of assessments dating back to 2011.
I don't feel I have enough information on hand to do these myself (In fact I posted three of them so I'm barred from doing so)
Anyone willing to clear this list? Graham1973 ( talk) 10:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone pointed out a problem with Free-usage rationale for several logos of various space institutions (e.g. Roscosmos, ISRO etc.) in the pages Exploration of the Moon and Exploration of Mars. Since I am not well versed with copyright on Wiki, can someone take a look and see what should be done? Thanks!
Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 01:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Setting aside the legal issues, I think there is something else that needs to be addressed, which is why these images are in these articles in the first place. Originally we had flags, but then somebody decided that because the flag of Europe is also used by the EU, which is not Europe, it could not be used in case it made people think that ESA was an EU institution, and hence it was changed - first to the ESA logo and then later to a free-use image resembling it. From there it seems, without any discussion that I can find, somebody applied the logic that since ESA used a logo, everything else should too, and changed all the others. The flags were present in the articles as distinctive and recognisable images to identify the nationality of the agencies in question. Changing these to logos completely defeats the purpose of including them in the first place - they are not recognisable (with the possible exception of the NASA logo, the average user would not be able to identify or differentiate icon-sized images of the logos of various space agencies), and they have absolutely no relation to the nationalities of the organisations. I propose that we change them back to flags. -- W. D. Graham 15:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Only indirectly related, but probably worth a few other editors starting to think about this with me. Many, many spaceflight articles and lists use the flag icons of nation states, and the icons (or flags) of national space agencies. However, after the first six decades in space we are beginning to see private, non-governmental space initiatives (e.g., Mars One, Google Lunar X-Prize, Golden Spike Company, etc.) and even, broadly considered, space "programs" (e.g., the SpaceX private and self-funded initiatives to go to Mars or develop reusable rocket technology). It seems to me to be POVish to use national flags for these private efforts, even though private companies typically have HQs in one country or another. If you have thoughts, let me know. Or feel free to move this to a new Talk page section if you think that would be more appropriate. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 22:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello old Spaceflight friends!
I recently read this article regarding USCV-1, the first commercial crew mission for NASA. It has some good information that could be used across the WP articles covering CCDev, and most importantly, has an actual mission name :) I leave it here for you folks to work with (there may even be enough information to start the USCV-1 article), as I am no longer very active as an editor.
Cheers! -- WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 14:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The logo we're using now, and the variants of it available on Commons, do not appear on the IMFoundation flickerstream or its website. Do we have any evidence this is actually the logo? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 09:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
{{ Cubesats2012}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 23:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
MAVEN (spacecraft) has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:MAVEN (spacecraft) -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 12:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Although not all documents are there.-- Craigboy ( talk) 23:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion about WikiData finally gave me enough motivation to put forward a loosely-related proposal that I've been meaning to bring up for a while, but haven't got around to. We currently have about five infobox templates doing essentially the same thing: our main infobox is {{ Infobox spacecraft}}, but there's also {{ Infobox space mission}} which is a mess of redundant parameters and mostly used for manned missions, {{ Infobox space telescope}} which has an over-detailed instruments section optimised for astronomical missions, {{ Infobox cargo spacecraft}} which is a derivative of infobox spacecraft optimised for cargo missions to space stations, and finally {{ Infobox space expedition}} for resident crews aboard space stations. Each of these have slight formatting differences, and varying syntax. I believe that we would be better off with a single, standardised and simplified template. I also think we should remove the cargo and instruments sections from the infoboxes in favour of covering them in the article body. I've drawn up a prototype at User:WDGraham/Infobox spaceflight - this is a work in progress, and I'm still testing it to find and fix bugs, but I would welcome some feedback on a) whether you would support standardisation and b) how the prototype looks/works, and c) what should be changed. -- W. D. Graham 20:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Since the response seems to have been positive, I've moved it to Template:Infobox spaceflight ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to begin rolling it out. I've added back the instrument and transponder sections, and I'll restore the cargo section for applicable articles. Kosmos 1484 is the first article with the new infobox. -- W. D. Graham 15:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
File:All PZT Mach effect thruster test unit.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 07:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to scope out how we might use wikidata in project infoboxes. It would seem a good thing to use for satellite articles. I'm not finding wikidata guidelines massively helpful. There's Wikidata infoboxes task force. I think we would have terms for satellites (similar to planets), and events for missions - could we have the same in one infobox? I've asked on the wikidata wiki for advice. Secretlondon ( talk) 09:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
—There has been quite a lot of activity over on Wikidata with respect to these proposals, and few English Wikipedians are weighing in. I fear we may get some badly thought-out and poorly-designed Wikidata data elements if more Spaceflight-interested editors don't get over there and begin to offer input. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 02:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
commons:File:Jiuquan Satellite Lauch Center assembly tower, China.JPG has been deleted, so, articles using File:Jiuquan Satellite Lauch Center assembly tower, China.JPG will need to be fixed either by replacement image or removal of the image link. -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 06:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I'm the Wikimedian in Residence for the Natural History Museum and Science Museum in London. The Science Museum have agreed to release 50 of it's images (at a medium resolution) under a Wikimedia compatible license. The 2 websites that the images would be available from are:
I'm hoping this is the start of something larger but could just be a one off so am trying to come up with a most wanted list.
I've started a list of images to release on my talk page, please feel free to add to it, I'd like to get over 50 so if there are any problems we still have a good list.
-- Mrjohncummings ( talk) 10:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
file:William pogue.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 04:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
image:RedSea.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 06:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I've requested approval for a new bot to replace PALZ9000 in updating orbital elements - PALZ was operated by Penyulap and has become defunct since he has been blocked. I would welcome the project's input on the proposal - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AstRoBot. -- W. D. Graham 16:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Just want to draw your attention to this. He won an AfD against me for my article on concerns for an early Mars sample return, and declared that it was his intention to remove all my contributions from the Mars project, which he has now done (removed nearly all).
For details of what he has deleted so far (along with one other editor), see User talk:Robertinventor#Other sections deleted by the opposing editor
I believe this amounts to censorship of wikipedia as there is now, as far as I know, no mention in the Mars Project of concerns about forward contamination issues for Mars, hardly any mention of backward contamination concerns (and that biased), and no mention of recent research since Phoenix in 2008 on the possibility for present day habitability of the surface of Mars for micro-organisms. Robert Walker ( talk) 10:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interplanetary_contamination#Merger_proposal_III
File:STS068-258-80 Sydney.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
the copyright status of image:SpaceX Dragon COTS Demo 1 logo.png , image:CRS SpX-1 emblem.png , image:SpaceX COTS 2 emblem.png are under discussion, see WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone add more views to that section? Smacks of WP:FRINGE. It's currently mostly based on Levin's publications. A search in Google Books finds plenty of material... Someone not using his real name ( talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Interkosmos patch for GDR Cosmonauts.svg is being discussed at NFCR, see WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The copyright status of some Apollo 16 images is up for discussion at WP:NFCR. The images are:
-- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I just gave W.D. some feedback on his phase 1 rollout on Template talk:Infobox spaceflight. I hope I'm not the only one here who cares about the early manned missions. Could y'all check it out and maybe weigh in? Thanks. JustinTime55 ( talk) 21:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
AstRoBot has now entered trial, for now editing the four pages worked by Penyulap's bot up until it was blocked. Are there any other pages (some of the major observatories, perhaps), which could benefit from being included in the trial? Adding a small number of pages to the trial would be useful as it would give a clearer picture of how the bot is working. -- W. D. Graham 18:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Further to my last post, I would like to propose adding the following articles to the AstRoBot trial:
image:PlanetEarth.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The mod 4 sequencer used in LC 16 is operational at the Space Walk of Fame Museum in Titusville FL. The consoles from LC 36A are also at the SWOF. Also an Air Force report detailing costs and other items about the various LCs. 97.68.139.157 ( talk) 15:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC) G McLain 17 Aug 013
I have updated Missing topics about astronomy and other space-related topics - Skysmith ( talk) 08:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 30#Template:Infobox space expedition. Frietjes ( talk) 17:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It's looking like a lot of the NTRS links taken down after the security scare have been restored. Graham1973 ( talk) 03:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Template:Launching/Falcon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. The issue brought up has applicability to all Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Launching templates -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 07:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
image:SpaceHub Southeast Logo.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 09:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I converted SpaceHub Southeast ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from Indian English to American English, because this is an American company based out of Atlanta, Georgia. If you think that MOS:RETAIN is more important than MOS:TIES, feel free to revert me. -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 09:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Could someone possibly provide a third opinion on a discussion ongoing on Talk:Intelsat 5 regarding date formats in the article. -- W. D. Graham 16:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Somebody has just gone through and removed all of the pre-embedded {{ launching}} tags from articles. It's not the first time this has happened, and there have been a few other problems with the preembedded tags as well - sometimes pages get missed in an update, and the tag shows on the wrong rocket or launch pad, or an old payload which was launched years ago and never detagged. I'd like to propose automating the process. I'm thinking put a parameter on the template page to set how far in advance of a launch it is shown - defaulting to around a week - and have the AstRoBot place the templates on the articles linked to from the template - possibly with additional whitelist and blacklist sections in template so if a less-relevant page is linked it won't get tagged, or a relevant page isn't linked then it will still get tagged. Then, a day after the specified launch time, the bot can remove the templates - with some way to override this in the event of a delay, and perhaps a longer wait if the launch fails. It's just a vague idea at the moment; I'd be happy to code it and open a BRFA if people thing it's a good idea; does anyone have any input? -- W. D. Graham 15:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please give a third opinion on a content dispute I am engaged in on Talk:Atlas (rocket family) with User:Ajh1492. -- W. D. Graham 11:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that Huntster enabled automatic updates to elements on NEE-01 Pegaso, and it made me wonder whether or not we should stop updating orbital elements once a spacecraft ceases operations. Is it better to have up-to-date orbit data in the infobox, or data which was representative of the spacecraft during its mission? I think there could be good arguments for both, and a discussion could be beneficial to the project. -- W. D. Graham 11:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
A discussion has gotten started, in two different sections, of the CASSIOPE Talk page about naming the launch article, and about whether secondary payloads should even be mentioned in the primary payload/launch article.
Interested WikiProject Spaceflight editors should probably take a look, and weigh in if you have an opinion on the matter. N2e ( talk) 03:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
With an active discussion (see below on this Talk page) going on the refactoring of WP:LAUNCHES, and the emerging consensus seeming to be that specific launches may also be, and even generally be, notable in and of themselves, separate from their spaceflight payload, I'm wondering if the CASSIOPE/ Falcon 9 Flight 6 (mission payload/notable launch) should not just be split right now, and a non-redir Falcon 9 Flight 6 created, just like 66.41.154.0 was suggesting. There truly is no doubt that that particular launch, the first of the Falcon 9 v1.1 is very notable, totally separate from the low-priced (20 percent of list, since it was a demo launch) CASSIOPE payload?
Anyone else have an opinion on this? Should we go ahead and create Falcon 9 Flight 6 now? Or should we wait, per the current (but outdated) WP:LAUNCHES essay and not create an independent launch article until the new essay is complete? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 20:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Does a spacecraft capable of landfall have undercarriage or landing gear or can one use either term? I guess the scope ranges from the legs of the Apollo Lunar Module to spaceplanes like the Space Shuttle to re-usable VTVL boosters. The current Undercarriage article is mostly about aircraft, but a section on spacecraft has recently been added. It has been suggested that the article name be changed to Landing gear. So far only aircaft enthusiasts have contributed to the discussion here - your comments would also be welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Would appreciate some additional eyes on the Lynx (spacecraft). From the sources I've seen, the little spaceplane is clearly "in development" and not mere vaporware "concept" like many space ideas. That said, the Lynx is way behind its original schedule, and the article needs a lot of cleanup work. Another editor has now added the phrase "concept" three times, and I've reverted her/him three times, and I'd like to not run afoul of WP:3RR (fourth revert is a no no). Cheers. N2e ( talk) 13:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I have added an extensive summary of both the article content goofiness now, and the editing disruption that has occurred to the normal process of constructively editing the article, over on the Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) Talk page.
Since I am out of the game due to the three revert rule, and since User:WDGraham has said he has made his last comment on the matter due to perceived trolling by Pete (aka User:Skyring, the editor name used in making many of the recent contested edits to the article), I would very much appreciate some other editors taking a look and considering next course of action to get the Lynx (spacecraft) article improved. N2e ( talk) 13:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The AfD is over (result: Keep). I am attempting to get a consensus on the Lynx (spacecraft) Talk page on a single word in the lede sentence. Some other editors going over there and weighing in would be much appreciated. N2e ( talk) 16:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Things have settled down over at Lynx (spacecraft). Three BRD discussions have been amicably (if arduously) resolved; the AfD discussion is over (result: Keep); the active editing disruption is over; and an essay for how to utilize primary sources in Spaceflight articles has been drafted, and seems to be gaining consensus; others would be welcome to offer their thoughts.
Many thanks to the editors who joined the discussion to help improve that article! N2e ( talk) 09:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Starting a central discussion since more than one page is affected; can we look to move " Soyuz 18a" and " Soyuz T-10-1" to titles which haven't been made up. The Soviet Union never used this type of numbering - it's a Westernised anachronism used to identify missions which were in reality unnamed; There was never a mission called "Soyuz 18a" - there was a mission which would have been called "Soyuz 18" had the USSR announced it, but they didn't so it wasn't. In all other cases of this rather than using made-up designations we have used the hardware designations - so in these cases Soyuz 7K-T No.39 and Soyuz 7K-ST No.16L. -- W. D. Graham 17:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm starting to get a little concerned about the "national space programme" navboxes (such as {{ Indian space programme}}, {{ Japanese space program}}, {{ European Space Agency}}, etc). No inclusion criteria have been set and people just keep adding things to them and in many cases go into far too much detail than seems appropriate for top-level templates. The Japanese one is probably the worst of the bunch, and the Indian one is also in particularly bad shape.
I think a lot of these templates could do with a rewrite, and many of the series of individual satellites should be split into their own navboxes to avoid cluttering the main boxes. I've had a play with the Indian one at User:WDGraham/ISP, but it might be helpful to set out some kind of standard format for every country. Any ideas? -- W. D. Graham 21:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with 66.41.154.0, who commented above that WP:LAUNCHES needs work. I believe WD Graham has also commented to me, on another page, that he, too, thinks we probably need to revisit that page. It was last discussed, and adopted, two years ago, in later 2011.
I can't lead that effort right now, but will definitely participate in the discussion. Anyone else want to get involved? ... and, perhaps, kick it off with some tangible thoughts? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 03:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I've put up a suggestion at User:WDGraham/Spaceflight notability for a new notability essay to replace WP:LAUNCHES. I would welcome input. -- W. D. Graham 18:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
We currently have a number of articles consisting largely or entirely of material taken word-for-word from public domain sources such as NASA and NSSDC. I'd like to propose changing the project's C and B-class criteria to discourage this practise. I suggest adding a fourth C-class criterion: "The majority of the article does not appear to have been copied from another publication, regardless of whether it is appropriately-licensed and referenced"; and appending to B-class criterion 4 "The article contains no passages of text, other than quotations, which have been copied from any other publication." -- W. D. Graham 20:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a potential problem with regards to JPL images and their copyright. This might affect many images of the various spacecraft operated by JPL. I posted a notice on Commons:Commons:Village_pump#JPL_images, as I didn't know where else I should post this. I would be happy if users from here would participate in the necessary process. Tony Mach ( talk) 00:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I've written the data for the convert macro to do the specific impulse/effective exhaust velocity conversion. It's live, but not permanently installed yet, but it does work, although it's still a bit experimental.
Simple use:
{{convert|350|isp}}
→ 350 seconds (3.4 km/s){{convert|3.4|km/s|isp}}
→ 3.4 kilometres per second (350 s)Simple with wiki-linked units:
Support for tsfc conversion:
Support for ft/s, miles/s, km/s
Note that tsfc is a bit buggy at the moment, you can't go to standard units. Isp doesn't have this problem.
{{convert|1.2|tsfc|m/s}}
→ 1.2 lb/(lbf⋅h) (29,000 m/s)But you don't need that much for rocketry stuff anyway. GliderMaven ( talk) 16:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a dispute concerning whether the article Apollo 11 should be tagged with the {{story}} template, or indeed whether it suffers from the issue implied by that template. I would welcome comments from interested editors, particularly those with subject-matter expertise, at Talk:Apollo 11#Story style. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
After a lot of searching, I've managed to locate several documents relating to an incident in early 2001 where the WIND satellite was mistaken for an Apollo asteroid and given the designation 2001 DO47. I've linked the material I found to the talk page of the article, I'm not sure how to integrate it into the article as it stands and any help would be gratefully appreciated. Graham1973 ( talk) 03:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I had asked for a discussion to address the redirect GSAT-6. Anybody having some involvement with the GSAT-6 redirect, might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if not already done so). Ninney ( talk) 00:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Just reminding you that the deprecated template {{ TLS-H}} is still in use on a few pages, namely: 1973 in spaceflight, 1974 in spaceflight, 1981 in spaceflight, 1991 in spaceflight and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/101107. Debresser ( talk) 07:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I've taken care of 1981, I'll take 74 as well to reduce your workload -- W. D. Graham 18:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Year | Status | Notes |
---|---|---|
1973 in spaceflight | ![]() |
|
1974 in spaceflight |
![]() |
Doing offline --
W.
D.
Graham 15:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Do you want me to work on (July - Dec.) ? - Ninney ( talk) 02:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC) |
1981 in spaceflight | ![]() |
|
1991 in spaceflight | ![]() |
Bifurcated into two articles 1991 in spaceflight (January–June) & 1991 in spaceflight (July–December) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/101107 | ![]() |
Do let me know at earliest whether to proceed ahead or not ? |
Please update the table. - Ninney ( talk) 14:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a request for multiple page moves at Talk:Undercarriage#Multiple_pages_move_request. You are invited to participate. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,I am not a big reader of this part of wikipedia (spaceflight) but I was searching for something like size of "human population in space" in numbers and I find few data in wikipedia, I see that we have List of countries by population, List of countries by past and future population (1950–2050), World population, Demographics_of_Antarcticaand McMurdo Station capable of supporting up to 1,258 residents, but in a fast search I dont see the word "population" in Timeline of Solar System exploration or Human spaceflight, or ISS, aniway I find a nice source http://www.space.com/6503-population-space-historic-high-13.html ,maybe the numbers are tiny today but that still is big data that deserve being posted in a enciclopedia, sadly I am not educated about this issue, I cant choose in which corner of wikipedia it deverse get posted. Aniway you all do a great work-- Feroang ( talk) 03:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Several spaceflight images are up for immediate deletion. See WT:AST, where WPAstronomy was notified of those spaceflight images related to astronomy. Several more are not related to astronomy however. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 04:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Apollo program for GA review. JustinTime55 ( talk) 18:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
So I've been working a little bit on the Mars 3 article, and I was wondering if anybody would like to help me improve it. I've worked a little bit in my sandbox ( User:3er40/sandbox) and I'm planning on improving it significantly.
Thanks,
3er40 (
talk) 14:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Sorry for deleting this message earlier. I thought it'd be better to ask later, but I've since changed my mind.
Terrible news, the world has lost a true giant and hero. I think we can expect a lot of traffic over the next few days at Neil Armstrong... SalopianJames ( talk) 20:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Space suit#To space, or not to space, "space suit". Mangoe ( talk) 14:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
File:ARES 15.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 02:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Several Ares and Challenger explosion images have been sent for deletion, see Category:All Wikipedia files with unknown source -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 03:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
As the ESA logo is problematic due to copyright issues and should not be used in lists were other nations are represented by their flags, there are now not only one, but two "Not the esa flags":
24px wide, File:Not the esa logo.png
Inspired be the original one, I created the next one to be 22px wide (as all the flag icons are) – unfortunately it is not as beautiful as the first one:
Plus I created a round logo surrogate, for when the blue NASA cookie or the white Roscosmos logo would be used:
It can be used like that:
Agency | Flights | Individuals | ISS Crew | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
NASA | 232 | 133 | 36 | 26 women, 55 double, 19 triple and two quadruple flight |
![]() |
Roskosmos | 57 | 38 | 31 | eight double, four triple and one quadruple flight |
![]() |
ESA | 18 | 12 | 5 | one woman, four double flights and one triple flight |
In case you should create better versions of these surrogate flags&logos, simply overwrite mine. Tony Mach ( talk) 12:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Sts-94 crew.jpg is at PUF for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 07:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Apollo11tv.jpg has been nominated for deletion at PUF. Apparently the nominator thinks that an image of Buzz Aldrin in space doesn't look like it's from NASA. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 03:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 30 where several NASA space probe collages have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 06:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
This is about Korolev's former design bureau, what is toady known here on wikipedia as S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia (it is complicated, bear with me).
It's historic names included:
It's current name seems to be:
Or short:
Most of these contain several more or less helpful redirects (with and without various spelling "differences"). The problematic redirect (as it is used several times) seem to me to be " RKK Energia", which seems to be a mash-up between the anglicized Energia and the Russian/Cyrillic abbreviation Ркк, transposed to the Russian/Latin RKK (if I am not mistaken).
I would recommend using either RSC Energia or RKK Energiya, but not RKK Energia, but would ask someone to check if this is right.
Any thoughts on this?
(*) If anybody can contribute to the article what TsKBEM and NPO Energia stand for, it would be fabulous.
-- Tony Mach ( talk) 12:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
image:New Ares V Exploded View.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 06:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
As I have been reworking some articles about Almaz, I noticed something was missing. Initially Almaz stations were being designed so the station and crew would be launched together – for this a VA spacecraft would have been mated to a Almaz-OPS space station hull. Unfortunatly there does not seem to be an free image to illustrate this. An example of an non-free image would be e.g.the first image here or the second image in this PDF. Illustrations of an VA/FGB combination, that formed an TKS spacecraft are available on Commons, but unfortunately not for the VA/OPS combination. While the VA/OPS never flew, I think it would contribute to both the Almaz and the VA spacecraft article.
Can anybody contribute such an illustration with an Wikipedia compatible license? A photo of a model, a drawing, a computer rendering, a modification of an exiting drawing, or some such would do fine, if executed adequately.
One could use the VA part of this TKS cutaway and "mate" it with a Almaz-OPS cutaway, if someone has something like that readily available:
If someone could make a modified image of this cutaway, and replace the FGB with a (very simplified) OPS, then that would do fine as well. I searched the "Mir Hardware Heritage" document, but could unfortunately not find a OPS module with the right perspective… -- Tony Mach ( talk) 14:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I would like to point out my proposal at Exploration of the moon, seeing as I doubt it will receive much attention otherwise. Thanks. JamesDouch ( talk) 23:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
image:Apollo12tv.jpg has been tagged for immediate deletion as being unsourced -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 09:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
There's a note at WT:PHYSICS that some recent edits need reviewing at Interstellar travel -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 04:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Timed logo.jpg has been nominated for immediate deletion as being unsourced -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 14:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The Pan-African Space Agency might be due for an article when it gets fleshed out... [2] -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 09:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Currently, there are two navbox for Exploration of Mars : Template:Cancelled Mars missions and Template:Mars spacecraft. I propose to merge theses into a single navbox. What do you think ? New navbox :
Cordially. Artvill ( talk) 09:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Cordially. Artvill ( talk) 15:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. Merger between
Template:Cancelled Mars missions and
Template:Mars spacecraft into
Template:Mars spacecraft performed. Cordially.
Artvill (
talk) 16:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here for regarding the use of No-importance or not. Thank for your time. JJ98 ( Talk / Contribs) 19:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
File:AZUSA-transponder.png and File:AZUSA-MarkII.png have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 06:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
file:De spacecraftb.jpg has been nominated for deletion because it is improperly licensed. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 07:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Cropped Earth with Sunburst.PNG has been nominated for deletion. It appears to be from an 1996 Endeavour flight, with the Canadarm cropped out... -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 08:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Discovery launches.jpg has been nominated for immediate deletion as unsourced -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 20:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
As has just been pointed out at Talk:Neil Armstrong, the article was using the term 'EVA' without explanation. I've Wikilinked the first occurrence to Extra-vehicular activity, but this appears to be a more widespread problem. Perhaps someone with some spare time could check other relevant articles, and at least provide the Wikilink - though ideally, if the term is being used multiple times in an article, an explanation might be useful too. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
In Neil Armstrong, there is an "International Committee on Space Research". What is this ? It is the COSPAR or an other Committee ? Artvill ( talk) 12:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Mangalyaan mars orbitter.jpg has been nominated for deletion as unsourced -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 20:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. These photo show lunar hardware: the Modular Equipment Transporter, the Lunar Roving Vehicle and the Apollo 7 RCA Television camera. This lunar hardware are displayed at Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex.
I see two different Lunar Roving Vehicle, displayed at Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex ! Someone has any other info on these rovers ? The KSC has truly two rovers ? And the lunar tool cart, the MET, it is a mockup/replica or a flight-ready cart ? Thank you in advance. Cordially. Artvill ( talk) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Where is the link to the place we keep the article conventions we've agreed on as a project? I can't seem to locate it at present, and I want to confirm the convention for launch time reporting in Wikipedia articles (I think we agreed on UTC, but maybe I'm remembering badly. Thanks. N2e ( talk) 12:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
One thing I should raise is launches with more than one craft when the satellites are not that interesting independently. I've started grouping things together which I'm sure some will object to as it becomes more about the launch. An example would be three GLONASS satellites which are launched together. I'm just not sure they are really separable. Another example would be Kosmos 2467 and Kosmos 2468 where we don't actually know which is which. Secretlondon ( talk) 17:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It has become a source of conflict on the Cygnus 1 page. I changed it to match the the citation format used on the Dragon 2+ page. It was reverted and the explanation given was "Please don't change citations formats like this some editors hate that format. Use the first". I don't want to start an edit war so I could use some help dealing with this.-- Craigboy ( talk) 02:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm posting this here because it affects a number of articles and most likely will not be seen on the Template:LaunchAttempt talk page. The "Weather go (%)" either needs to be removed or changed to simply "no or go" because at launch time no percentage is given. Those percentages are only given prior to launch to predict whether or not the weather will be go or no go.-- Craigboy ( talk) 00:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that a few article for space programs have rudimentary infoboxes, and then saw on the talk page for Project Apollo that one had been removed from that article with the suggestion that someone create an infobox specific to space programs. I have created a template, Template:Infobox space program, and now submit it to this talk page to get the opinion of the members of the Spaceflight WikiProject. I would like to note that I have not transcluded this template into any articles at this time, I wanted to seek the opinion of those who would be most likely to use the template. The template page includes an example using the Apollo Program for the information. I tried to include information that would give at least a decent overview of the program without providing so much information that the body of the article might be ignored. I look forward to seeing what you all think of the template as it stands. MasterSearcy ( talk) 01:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I am writing here to solicit other opinions on whether it is appropriate to refer to a spacecraft as "she". My impression is that most Wikipedia articles do not, and certainly most of the books and good-quality websites I read on this subject do not either. For ships (old-fashioned ships that sail on the sea) I think we use this pronoun; for aircraft and spacecraft, we would use "it" (even though there exist enthusiasts who would call probably any vehicle "she"). Am I right? -- MarchOrDie ( talk) 19:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
OK this is the problem of how to name the communication satellites in which the primary operator lease out a certain portion of the comsat's transponders to another operator, which then receives another name for the secondary operator. The problem is that - what name should I write in an article?
For example:
What should I call them in each of these cases? There are apparently even more complicated cases, but I want to deal with them one by one, so there you go for discussion!
Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 07:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
A flickr user took some excellent pictures of a recent Long March 2D launch and uploaded them under a wikicommon-friendly license. The reason I posted this here is because we very rarely get quality pictures of Chinese hardware on wikicommons so I just wanted to share these great pics with you guys.
-- Craigboy ( talk) 06:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Commercial travel is becoming increasingly important to the industry, but I feel like our coverage is lacking. There are some issues I would like to bring to everyone's attention if I may.
I have done some minor cleaning at
Spaceport America, but it (along with the others) is still in need of much more attention.
—
Sowlos (
talk) 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm hoping that some of those who participate with this wikiproject will help me out with this article. At the moment it is still just a stub, but I am anticipating that on Thursday, November 6th 2012 it will be crushed by a huge number of editors and people typically from outside of Wikipedia. If you could help out with maintaining some sanity on the article, watching over it for some blatant vandalism, and possibly requesting some assistance from administrators to semi-protect the article from vandalism, it would be appreciated.
On a personal note, I'm pretty excited about this company and the upcoming news conference about it. It is very possible that it could be something like Galactic Suite Design and be a bunch of vaporware, but I have my reasons to think it will be something much more substantial. If it falls flat on its face and the guys that I've been talking to "on the inside" are just feeding me a bunch of BS, then my concerns are perhaps alarmist. I'm just asking for folks who are regular editors to Wikipedia and have a clue about spaceflight issues to bookmark this article and keep it on your watchlist for a few days... at least until the edit wars calm down and it can fade into the background of an ordinary Wikipedia article. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 03:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick heads up that Novosti Kosmonavtiki have re-done their website which has broken every link/reference we have to them. Sadly it looks like they've taken most of their early material down, but I suppose they could re-add it. NK is available through Eastview (although without the pictures) but having part articles and picture galleries free online was rather nice. Secretlondon ( talk) 21:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I have concerns about edits being made by User:Magneticlifeform. He appears to be adding large chunks of information from a self-written, self-published ebook that, judging by his comments here, may also involve POV issues as well as COI/RS. Somebody might want to take a look at what he's been adding to articles... - The Bushranger One ping only 08:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
gives a history of the rocket industry which would not meet the approval of the PR guys at the NASA history office.
I'm trying to catch up on Applications Technology Satellite, which I have a draft of improvements for that I'm finally getting around to finalizing and publishing. There are a bunch of novelty claims being made for various satellites in the series, and in particular the claim for ATS-3 that it took "the first color pictures of earth taken from synchronous altitude". Meanwhile we have DODGE, which is generally credited with taking color pictures of the whole earth first, albeit from a slightly lower orbit. Naturally some sources take off all the qualifiers. Are there other claims I need to reconcile with these, and which of these is prominent enough to gain notice in the article(s)? Mangoe ( talk) 14:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Is Space Launch Report considered a reliable source for verfiability of claims by most other editors of the WikiProject Spaceflight?
I'm not personally familiar with it, but ran into it today via a 2007 reference to it attempting to support a large number of claims in a table in the article Falcon (rocket family). It seems like a reasonable amount of the stuff in that website does not show where it came from, and that some amount of it is merely (apparently, quite intelligent) estimates and calculations based on information that has not necessarily been released by the launch vehicle manufacturers or the purchasers of launches. N2e ( talk) 20:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
A couple of years ago I began, and then abandoned due to the size of the task, an attempt to audit articles about individual orbital spaceflights, in the interests of improving consistency, developing a common format, and clarifying where work was needed. I was wondering whether this is something which could be done by the project, possibly developing a checklist template for talk pages incorporating the B and C class criteria, and other things such as whether an article has an infobox, or needs a rewrite, etc. What do you think? -- W. D. Graham 20:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Would anyone here be able to help answer a couple of questions about 1960s spaceflight articles?
Any help or replies on the above, either here or elsewhere, would be great. Many thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that many of the articles covering the TIROS satellite program have not been written and of those that were, many seem to have been written by a no longer active member User:Sir Jazer 13 whose research/written English skills may no longer meet the current article standards.
I've just partially re-written the article on the NOAA-B launch failure (For a comparison see: User:Sir Jazer 13/NOAA-B, for the original version.), but from the looks of things the whole section needs a going over to identify problem areas. Graham1973 ( talk) 13:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
See WT:WikiProject England where a discussion on Category:English astronauts is occurring -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 07:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
A very well-referenced submission is currently stuck at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Psychological_and_sociological_issues_affecting_expeditionary_space_missions ... any assistance would be appreciated. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Greater Green River Intergalactic Spaceport has been listed on the Template:Spaceport. According to its article, Greater Green River Intergalactic Spaceport is intended "for inhabitants of Jupiter who might wish to take sanctuary in Green River in the event their planet is threatened by collisions from comets or meteors". I don't wanna be a spoilsport, but is that what this template is for? Greater Green River is just another local airport, it's not used for space travel, it shouldn't be listed along the likes of the Kennedy Space Center and Baykonur. 83.80.170.157 ( talk) 12:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
According to this report [4] Tiangong-2 has been cancelled, and will instead be repurposed as the cargo transport it's descendents were supposed to become, and instead Tiangong-3 has become Tiangong-2, the station whose descendents were supposed to become modules of the large multimodule station.
So do we update the articles? (such as move Tiangong-2 to Tiangong-2 (cancelled) and move Tiangong-3 to Tiangong-2?)
-- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 12:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
So hold your horses just now....... ;)
Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 15:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Help would be appreciated with a certain table on this page which is badly out of date. See the talk page discussion, especially if you know how the table was auto-updating. Rmhermen ( talk) 19:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings fellow spaceflight enthusiasts! Could y'all please review the articles I have created?
Fatigue and Sleep Loss During Spaceflight
Effects of Sleep Deprivation In Space
Treating An Ill or Injured Crew Member In Space
Illness and Injuries During Spaceflight
Spaceflight Radiation Carcinogenesis
Radiobiology evidence for protons and HZE nuclei
Epidemiology data for low-linear energy transfer radiation
Radiation carcinogenesis in past space missions
Visual Impairment and Intracranial Pressure
Risk of Renal Stone Formation
Team Composition and Cohesion In Spaceflight Missions
Intervertebral Disc Damage and Spaceflight
Jssteil ( talk) 03:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
All the images used at Inspiration Mars Foundation except the logo, appear to be copyright violations. The source permission where listed doesn't appear to give permission. The logo itself doesn't appear at the official website, so appears to be an invention of the uploader. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Project Daedalus is the name chosen for the British Interplanetary Society's Starship study. - apparently this article from British Interplanetary Society, but I can not find the original. please help. Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 10:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed this - NASA's publishing department are clearing out a large number of print histories for free (well, free plus $3 for shipping). One copy each and US only, but still pretty interesting! Andrew Gray ( talk) 22:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Pretty amazing deal, there. Will have to check them out, but will see if digital copies are available first. — Huntster ( t @ c) 01:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Should {{ Inspace}} cover only articles "... in space" or should it also cover articles "space-based ..." ? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello my dear co-editors!
Gaurav Pruthi and I have been thinking over starting a WikiProject for the Indian Space Programme. If you are interested in taking part in the discussion regarding the WikiProject, please do leave a message
here.
Regards.
Jayadevp13 (
talk) 14:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I was recently brought to the issue that there are FOUR pages dedicated to the list of lunar probes and missions:
To ensure that there is a clear list of missions on Wiki, I suggest to at least merge the first two and last two articles, with the first one dedicated to unmanned exploration of the Moon, and the second one to all kinds of lunar explorations. Perhaps even these two can be combined into one article.
Thoughts?
Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 03:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Where on Wikipedia might one find an explication of "Spacelaunch orbital inclinations and tradeoffs from various launch locations"? I've looked around a plethora of articles, in Category:Astrodynamics and space launch (e.g., Orbital spaceflight and have not been able to find anything. I would assume that there are tradeoffs in extra propellant required to achieve LEO orbits of various inclinations from various launch latitudes. So not sure if Wikipedia does not describe this at present or if I'm just looking in all the wrong places. N2e ( talk) 16:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Could someone try to fix the article on spacefaring? It is presently tagged as OR. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 04:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It had to happen sooner or later (typical government SNAFU!) NASA apparently has been neglecting to make sure what it posts isn't in violation of US export control law (ironic). We're dependent on this for much citation. Probably a dumb question, but is there anything we can do (besides wait)? JustinTime55 ( talk) 20:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a case for the Internet Archive.
I spotted this announcement today -
- and thought it might be of interest to some contributors here! The restriction is students only, but it otherwise appears to be international. Andrew Gray ( talk) 13:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion at CFD may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Mars spacecraft has been proposed to be merged to Category:Missions to Mars, see WP:CFDALL -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Mars Exploration Rover and Category:Mars expedition have shown up at WP:CFDALL for renaming and deletion, respectively. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 01:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
file:Skylab 2 crew walkout.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 01:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I am involved in a discussion with User:C1010 on how to put the outcome of a certain launch in here (specifically the Proton/Briz-M failure last December, in which the satellite was able to reach the correct orbit by itself). We currently disagree on whether it should be called a "partial failure" or a "launch anomaly" (see User talk:C1010 and User talk:Galactic Penguin SST). This is surely an interesting case that deserves more comments, as there are even more borderline cases that are difficult to classify (e.g. the Falcon 9 last October), so I think some kind of input from others are needed.
Thoughts? Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 03:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we also need to discuss how to handle secondary payloads in Wikipedia articles,' and how to do so in a manner that is comparable across launch-related articles. Since primary payload purchaser contracts for the mission, and gets the launch window choice, inclination, limitation-rules-on-secondary-payloads, etc., it seems we create a non-comparable situation if we treat failures on the secondary payloads with the same weight as the primary.
Thought experiment: If many Atlas V and Delta IV launches accept only primary payloads, while SpaceX chooses to support the secondary launch market on a greater percentage of their Falcon 9 and/or Falcon Heavy launches, it seems to me that the secondary launch purchaser is signing a contract, and paying much less price per unit of payload than the primary launch purchaser, in order to buy a service with some accepted probability of not being successful based on restrictions put on the mission by the primary slot purchasers, precisely because that price is so low.
(thought experiment continued:) If then, on the actual mission, the secondary payload doesn't get the "best-case"/"optimal"/"nominal" placement they hoped for, but they do get what was contracted for, and paid for, because they accepted that lower probability of success in the contractual terms they signed up for, then who are we, as Wikipedia editors, to call it a failure?
I realize of course that we on Wikipedia should be subject to verifiability (not truth) and use the info we have in secondary sources; but when those sources offer both explanations, as I saw on the case of SpaceX CRS-1 last fall, I don't think Wikipedia should go "black and white" on the way we show the launch success in our tables, etc. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 20:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
We seem have a backlog of assessments dating back to 2011.
I don't feel I have enough information on hand to do these myself (In fact I posted three of them so I'm barred from doing so)
Anyone willing to clear this list? Graham1973 ( talk) 10:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone pointed out a problem with Free-usage rationale for several logos of various space institutions (e.g. Roscosmos, ISRO etc.) in the pages Exploration of the Moon and Exploration of Mars. Since I am not well versed with copyright on Wiki, can someone take a look and see what should be done? Thanks!
Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 01:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Setting aside the legal issues, I think there is something else that needs to be addressed, which is why these images are in these articles in the first place. Originally we had flags, but then somebody decided that because the flag of Europe is also used by the EU, which is not Europe, it could not be used in case it made people think that ESA was an EU institution, and hence it was changed - first to the ESA logo and then later to a free-use image resembling it. From there it seems, without any discussion that I can find, somebody applied the logic that since ESA used a logo, everything else should too, and changed all the others. The flags were present in the articles as distinctive and recognisable images to identify the nationality of the agencies in question. Changing these to logos completely defeats the purpose of including them in the first place - they are not recognisable (with the possible exception of the NASA logo, the average user would not be able to identify or differentiate icon-sized images of the logos of various space agencies), and they have absolutely no relation to the nationalities of the organisations. I propose that we change them back to flags. -- W. D. Graham 15:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Only indirectly related, but probably worth a few other editors starting to think about this with me. Many, many spaceflight articles and lists use the flag icons of nation states, and the icons (or flags) of national space agencies. However, after the first six decades in space we are beginning to see private, non-governmental space initiatives (e.g., Mars One, Google Lunar X-Prize, Golden Spike Company, etc.) and even, broadly considered, space "programs" (e.g., the SpaceX private and self-funded initiatives to go to Mars or develop reusable rocket technology). It seems to me to be POVish to use national flags for these private efforts, even though private companies typically have HQs in one country or another. If you have thoughts, let me know. Or feel free to move this to a new Talk page section if you think that would be more appropriate. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 22:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello old Spaceflight friends!
I recently read this article regarding USCV-1, the first commercial crew mission for NASA. It has some good information that could be used across the WP articles covering CCDev, and most importantly, has an actual mission name :) I leave it here for you folks to work with (there may even be enough information to start the USCV-1 article), as I am no longer very active as an editor.
Cheers! -- WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 14:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The logo we're using now, and the variants of it available on Commons, do not appear on the IMFoundation flickerstream or its website. Do we have any evidence this is actually the logo? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 09:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
{{ Cubesats2012}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 23:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
MAVEN (spacecraft) has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:MAVEN (spacecraft) -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 12:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Although not all documents are there.-- Craigboy ( talk) 23:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion about WikiData finally gave me enough motivation to put forward a loosely-related proposal that I've been meaning to bring up for a while, but haven't got around to. We currently have about five infobox templates doing essentially the same thing: our main infobox is {{ Infobox spacecraft}}, but there's also {{ Infobox space mission}} which is a mess of redundant parameters and mostly used for manned missions, {{ Infobox space telescope}} which has an over-detailed instruments section optimised for astronomical missions, {{ Infobox cargo spacecraft}} which is a derivative of infobox spacecraft optimised for cargo missions to space stations, and finally {{ Infobox space expedition}} for resident crews aboard space stations. Each of these have slight formatting differences, and varying syntax. I believe that we would be better off with a single, standardised and simplified template. I also think we should remove the cargo and instruments sections from the infoboxes in favour of covering them in the article body. I've drawn up a prototype at User:WDGraham/Infobox spaceflight - this is a work in progress, and I'm still testing it to find and fix bugs, but I would welcome some feedback on a) whether you would support standardisation and b) how the prototype looks/works, and c) what should be changed. -- W. D. Graham 20:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Since the response seems to have been positive, I've moved it to Template:Infobox spaceflight ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to begin rolling it out. I've added back the instrument and transponder sections, and I'll restore the cargo section for applicable articles. Kosmos 1484 is the first article with the new infobox. -- W. D. Graham 15:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
File:All PZT Mach effect thruster test unit.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 07:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to scope out how we might use wikidata in project infoboxes. It would seem a good thing to use for satellite articles. I'm not finding wikidata guidelines massively helpful. There's Wikidata infoboxes task force. I think we would have terms for satellites (similar to planets), and events for missions - could we have the same in one infobox? I've asked on the wikidata wiki for advice. Secretlondon ( talk) 09:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
—There has been quite a lot of activity over on Wikidata with respect to these proposals, and few English Wikipedians are weighing in. I fear we may get some badly thought-out and poorly-designed Wikidata data elements if more Spaceflight-interested editors don't get over there and begin to offer input. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 02:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
commons:File:Jiuquan Satellite Lauch Center assembly tower, China.JPG has been deleted, so, articles using File:Jiuquan Satellite Lauch Center assembly tower, China.JPG will need to be fixed either by replacement image or removal of the image link. -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 06:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I'm the Wikimedian in Residence for the Natural History Museum and Science Museum in London. The Science Museum have agreed to release 50 of it's images (at a medium resolution) under a Wikimedia compatible license. The 2 websites that the images would be available from are:
I'm hoping this is the start of something larger but could just be a one off so am trying to come up with a most wanted list.
I've started a list of images to release on my talk page, please feel free to add to it, I'd like to get over 50 so if there are any problems we still have a good list.
-- Mrjohncummings ( talk) 10:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
file:William pogue.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 04:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
image:RedSea.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 06:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I've requested approval for a new bot to replace PALZ9000 in updating orbital elements - PALZ was operated by Penyulap and has become defunct since he has been blocked. I would welcome the project's input on the proposal - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AstRoBot. -- W. D. Graham 16:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Just want to draw your attention to this. He won an AfD against me for my article on concerns for an early Mars sample return, and declared that it was his intention to remove all my contributions from the Mars project, which he has now done (removed nearly all).
For details of what he has deleted so far (along with one other editor), see User talk:Robertinventor#Other sections deleted by the opposing editor
I believe this amounts to censorship of wikipedia as there is now, as far as I know, no mention in the Mars Project of concerns about forward contamination issues for Mars, hardly any mention of backward contamination concerns (and that biased), and no mention of recent research since Phoenix in 2008 on the possibility for present day habitability of the surface of Mars for micro-organisms. Robert Walker ( talk) 10:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interplanetary_contamination#Merger_proposal_III
File:STS068-258-80 Sydney.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
the copyright status of image:SpaceX Dragon COTS Demo 1 logo.png , image:CRS SpX-1 emblem.png , image:SpaceX COTS 2 emblem.png are under discussion, see WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone add more views to that section? Smacks of WP:FRINGE. It's currently mostly based on Levin's publications. A search in Google Books finds plenty of material... Someone not using his real name ( talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Interkosmos patch for GDR Cosmonauts.svg is being discussed at NFCR, see WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The copyright status of some Apollo 16 images is up for discussion at WP:NFCR. The images are:
-- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I just gave W.D. some feedback on his phase 1 rollout on Template talk:Infobox spaceflight. I hope I'm not the only one here who cares about the early manned missions. Could y'all check it out and maybe weigh in? Thanks. JustinTime55 ( talk) 21:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
AstRoBot has now entered trial, for now editing the four pages worked by Penyulap's bot up until it was blocked. Are there any other pages (some of the major observatories, perhaps), which could benefit from being included in the trial? Adding a small number of pages to the trial would be useful as it would give a clearer picture of how the bot is working. -- W. D. Graham 18:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Further to my last post, I would like to propose adding the following articles to the AstRoBot trial:
image:PlanetEarth.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The mod 4 sequencer used in LC 16 is operational at the Space Walk of Fame Museum in Titusville FL. The consoles from LC 36A are also at the SWOF. Also an Air Force report detailing costs and other items about the various LCs. 97.68.139.157 ( talk) 15:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC) G McLain 17 Aug 013
I have updated Missing topics about astronomy and other space-related topics - Skysmith ( talk) 08:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 30#Template:Infobox space expedition. Frietjes ( talk) 17:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It's looking like a lot of the NTRS links taken down after the security scare have been restored. Graham1973 ( talk) 03:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Template:Launching/Falcon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. The issue brought up has applicability to all Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Launching templates -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 07:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
image:SpaceHub Southeast Logo.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 09:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I converted SpaceHub Southeast ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from Indian English to American English, because this is an American company based out of Atlanta, Georgia. If you think that MOS:RETAIN is more important than MOS:TIES, feel free to revert me. -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 09:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Could someone possibly provide a third opinion on a discussion ongoing on Talk:Intelsat 5 regarding date formats in the article. -- W. D. Graham 16:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Somebody has just gone through and removed all of the pre-embedded {{ launching}} tags from articles. It's not the first time this has happened, and there have been a few other problems with the preembedded tags as well - sometimes pages get missed in an update, and the tag shows on the wrong rocket or launch pad, or an old payload which was launched years ago and never detagged. I'd like to propose automating the process. I'm thinking put a parameter on the template page to set how far in advance of a launch it is shown - defaulting to around a week - and have the AstRoBot place the templates on the articles linked to from the template - possibly with additional whitelist and blacklist sections in template so if a less-relevant page is linked it won't get tagged, or a relevant page isn't linked then it will still get tagged. Then, a day after the specified launch time, the bot can remove the templates - with some way to override this in the event of a delay, and perhaps a longer wait if the launch fails. It's just a vague idea at the moment; I'd be happy to code it and open a BRFA if people thing it's a good idea; does anyone have any input? -- W. D. Graham 15:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please give a third opinion on a content dispute I am engaged in on Talk:Atlas (rocket family) with User:Ajh1492. -- W. D. Graham 11:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that Huntster enabled automatic updates to elements on NEE-01 Pegaso, and it made me wonder whether or not we should stop updating orbital elements once a spacecraft ceases operations. Is it better to have up-to-date orbit data in the infobox, or data which was representative of the spacecraft during its mission? I think there could be good arguments for both, and a discussion could be beneficial to the project. -- W. D. Graham 11:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
A discussion has gotten started, in two different sections, of the CASSIOPE Talk page about naming the launch article, and about whether secondary payloads should even be mentioned in the primary payload/launch article.
Interested WikiProject Spaceflight editors should probably take a look, and weigh in if you have an opinion on the matter. N2e ( talk) 03:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
With an active discussion (see below on this Talk page) going on the refactoring of WP:LAUNCHES, and the emerging consensus seeming to be that specific launches may also be, and even generally be, notable in and of themselves, separate from their spaceflight payload, I'm wondering if the CASSIOPE/ Falcon 9 Flight 6 (mission payload/notable launch) should not just be split right now, and a non-redir Falcon 9 Flight 6 created, just like 66.41.154.0 was suggesting. There truly is no doubt that that particular launch, the first of the Falcon 9 v1.1 is very notable, totally separate from the low-priced (20 percent of list, since it was a demo launch) CASSIOPE payload?
Anyone else have an opinion on this? Should we go ahead and create Falcon 9 Flight 6 now? Or should we wait, per the current (but outdated) WP:LAUNCHES essay and not create an independent launch article until the new essay is complete? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 20:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Does a spacecraft capable of landfall have undercarriage or landing gear or can one use either term? I guess the scope ranges from the legs of the Apollo Lunar Module to spaceplanes like the Space Shuttle to re-usable VTVL boosters. The current Undercarriage article is mostly about aircraft, but a section on spacecraft has recently been added. It has been suggested that the article name be changed to Landing gear. So far only aircaft enthusiasts have contributed to the discussion here - your comments would also be welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Would appreciate some additional eyes on the Lynx (spacecraft). From the sources I've seen, the little spaceplane is clearly "in development" and not mere vaporware "concept" like many space ideas. That said, the Lynx is way behind its original schedule, and the article needs a lot of cleanup work. Another editor has now added the phrase "concept" three times, and I've reverted her/him three times, and I'd like to not run afoul of WP:3RR (fourth revert is a no no). Cheers. N2e ( talk) 13:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I have added an extensive summary of both the article content goofiness now, and the editing disruption that has occurred to the normal process of constructively editing the article, over on the Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) Talk page.
Since I am out of the game due to the three revert rule, and since User:WDGraham has said he has made his last comment on the matter due to perceived trolling by Pete (aka User:Skyring, the editor name used in making many of the recent contested edits to the article), I would very much appreciate some other editors taking a look and considering next course of action to get the Lynx (spacecraft) article improved. N2e ( talk) 13:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The AfD is over (result: Keep). I am attempting to get a consensus on the Lynx (spacecraft) Talk page on a single word in the lede sentence. Some other editors going over there and weighing in would be much appreciated. N2e ( talk) 16:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Things have settled down over at Lynx (spacecraft). Three BRD discussions have been amicably (if arduously) resolved; the AfD discussion is over (result: Keep); the active editing disruption is over; and an essay for how to utilize primary sources in Spaceflight articles has been drafted, and seems to be gaining consensus; others would be welcome to offer their thoughts.
Many thanks to the editors who joined the discussion to help improve that article! N2e ( talk) 09:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Starting a central discussion since more than one page is affected; can we look to move " Soyuz 18a" and " Soyuz T-10-1" to titles which haven't been made up. The Soviet Union never used this type of numbering - it's a Westernised anachronism used to identify missions which were in reality unnamed; There was never a mission called "Soyuz 18a" - there was a mission which would have been called "Soyuz 18" had the USSR announced it, but they didn't so it wasn't. In all other cases of this rather than using made-up designations we have used the hardware designations - so in these cases Soyuz 7K-T No.39 and Soyuz 7K-ST No.16L. -- W. D. Graham 17:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm starting to get a little concerned about the "national space programme" navboxes (such as {{ Indian space programme}}, {{ Japanese space program}}, {{ European Space Agency}}, etc). No inclusion criteria have been set and people just keep adding things to them and in many cases go into far too much detail than seems appropriate for top-level templates. The Japanese one is probably the worst of the bunch, and the Indian one is also in particularly bad shape.
I think a lot of these templates could do with a rewrite, and many of the series of individual satellites should be split into their own navboxes to avoid cluttering the main boxes. I've had a play with the Indian one at User:WDGraham/ISP, but it might be helpful to set out some kind of standard format for every country. Any ideas? -- W. D. Graham 21:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with 66.41.154.0, who commented above that WP:LAUNCHES needs work. I believe WD Graham has also commented to me, on another page, that he, too, thinks we probably need to revisit that page. It was last discussed, and adopted, two years ago, in later 2011.
I can't lead that effort right now, but will definitely participate in the discussion. Anyone else want to get involved? ... and, perhaps, kick it off with some tangible thoughts? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 03:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I've put up a suggestion at User:WDGraham/Spaceflight notability for a new notability essay to replace WP:LAUNCHES. I would welcome input. -- W. D. Graham 18:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
We currently have a number of articles consisting largely or entirely of material taken word-for-word from public domain sources such as NASA and NSSDC. I'd like to propose changing the project's C and B-class criteria to discourage this practise. I suggest adding a fourth C-class criterion: "The majority of the article does not appear to have been copied from another publication, regardless of whether it is appropriately-licensed and referenced"; and appending to B-class criterion 4 "The article contains no passages of text, other than quotations, which have been copied from any other publication." -- W. D. Graham 20:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a potential problem with regards to JPL images and their copyright. This might affect many images of the various spacecraft operated by JPL. I posted a notice on Commons:Commons:Village_pump#JPL_images, as I didn't know where else I should post this. I would be happy if users from here would participate in the necessary process. Tony Mach ( talk) 00:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I've written the data for the convert macro to do the specific impulse/effective exhaust velocity conversion. It's live, but not permanently installed yet, but it does work, although it's still a bit experimental.
Simple use:
{{convert|350|isp}}
→ 350 seconds (3.4 km/s){{convert|3.4|km/s|isp}}
→ 3.4 kilometres per second (350 s)Simple with wiki-linked units:
Support for tsfc conversion:
Support for ft/s, miles/s, km/s
Note that tsfc is a bit buggy at the moment, you can't go to standard units. Isp doesn't have this problem.
{{convert|1.2|tsfc|m/s}}
→ 1.2 lb/(lbf⋅h) (29,000 m/s)But you don't need that much for rocketry stuff anyway. GliderMaven ( talk) 16:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a dispute concerning whether the article Apollo 11 should be tagged with the {{story}} template, or indeed whether it suffers from the issue implied by that template. I would welcome comments from interested editors, particularly those with subject-matter expertise, at Talk:Apollo 11#Story style. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
After a lot of searching, I've managed to locate several documents relating to an incident in early 2001 where the WIND satellite was mistaken for an Apollo asteroid and given the designation 2001 DO47. I've linked the material I found to the talk page of the article, I'm not sure how to integrate it into the article as it stands and any help would be gratefully appreciated. Graham1973 ( talk) 03:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I had asked for a discussion to address the redirect GSAT-6. Anybody having some involvement with the GSAT-6 redirect, might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if not already done so). Ninney ( talk) 00:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Just reminding you that the deprecated template {{ TLS-H}} is still in use on a few pages, namely: 1973 in spaceflight, 1974 in spaceflight, 1981 in spaceflight, 1991 in spaceflight and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/101107. Debresser ( talk) 07:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I've taken care of 1981, I'll take 74 as well to reduce your workload -- W. D. Graham 18:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Year | Status | Notes |
---|---|---|
1973 in spaceflight | ![]() |
|
1974 in spaceflight |
![]() |
Doing offline --
W.
D.
Graham 15:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Do you want me to work on (July - Dec.) ? - Ninney ( talk) 02:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC) |
1981 in spaceflight | ![]() |
|
1991 in spaceflight | ![]() |
Bifurcated into two articles 1991 in spaceflight (January–June) & 1991 in spaceflight (July–December) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/101107 | ![]() |
Do let me know at earliest whether to proceed ahead or not ? |
Please update the table. - Ninney ( talk) 14:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a request for multiple page moves at Talk:Undercarriage#Multiple_pages_move_request. You are invited to participate. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,I am not a big reader of this part of wikipedia (spaceflight) but I was searching for something like size of "human population in space" in numbers and I find few data in wikipedia, I see that we have List of countries by population, List of countries by past and future population (1950–2050), World population, Demographics_of_Antarcticaand McMurdo Station capable of supporting up to 1,258 residents, but in a fast search I dont see the word "population" in Timeline of Solar System exploration or Human spaceflight, or ISS, aniway I find a nice source http://www.space.com/6503-population-space-historic-high-13.html ,maybe the numbers are tiny today but that still is big data that deserve being posted in a enciclopedia, sadly I am not educated about this issue, I cant choose in which corner of wikipedia it deverse get posted. Aniway you all do a great work-- Feroang ( talk) 03:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)