WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This page is within the scope of ||
||This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
||This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any threads with no replies in 31 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Who will operate/support User:AstRoBot in the future?
Per Huntster's comment above, I'm started a new section for that discussion, which seems to me to be a rather totally different conversation and topic than is a Talk section honoring WD Graham's retirement. N2e (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
very concerned for the future of User:AstRoBot, which automatically updates orbital parameters in spacecraft articles. Do we know if this will continue to operate? Is anyone capable of taking over operations if WDGraham decides to shut it down? — Huntster (t @ c) 04:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Given that no one has come forward with interest in running/taking over the human cybernetic management of the bot, I would guess then that the bot will eventually die a slow death, at some point in the future when the code runs awry, is shut down manually, and whomever watches over bots on Wikipedia finds that the bot no longer has a present/live owner. I don't like this outcome; just seems like what will likely happen to old bots that lose their human. N2e (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Seeing that it has not been working since 2-3 months ago I think I'm going to ask WDGraham himself on a forum I frequently visit (he's still a major article writer for that site) to see if someone else can take over the operations (like me ;)).... Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Rosetta: Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko is rich in deuterium
Report: Rosetta's 67P comet is rich in deuterium: . I am somewhat rusted in all physics subjects, but I believe this has a certain appeal for potential mining of deuterium for nuclear-powered spacecraft or for return to Earth. Someone here may be interested in "mining" this info. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Use Template:Infobox rocket engine
This template seems to be used in quite strange ways on different rocket engine pages, I'm planning to look at these and try to correct the obvious problems.
The problems are like Associated L/V being ESA on Vulcain and small things like that.
Is this a good idea? Anything I should think about?
I crossposted this to the Rocketry project.
--Larlin289 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Spacecraft style guide?
After browsing many different spacecraft articles, I've noticed that, among spacecraft of similar missions, there is no standardized "style guide" for what the layout of an article should look like. Specifically, unmanned, one-or-two-of-a-kind spacecraft with scientific missions/objectives. For example, the New Horizons mission has 6 unique sections (Background/Goal/Design and construction/Past mission timeline/Current status/Future mission time). The Stardust mission has 6 differently labeled but roughly similar sections (Mission background/Mission profile/New exploration of Temple 1/End of extended mission/Sample return/Results). WISE, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, SMAP, and Cluster II (and the list goes on...) are much the same- all have between 5 to 8 sections, all with different titles/layouts but covering similar categories of information.
At WP:Aviation, there is a standardized style guide for article layout for aircraft: WP:Aircontent. Within reason, why can't we do the same for scientific spacecraft? A suggested layout could be something like:
- Scientific Objectives
- Operational History
- Significant Results
- References/external links/etc.
Mission-unique subsections could be inserted under these common headings as applicable.
A standard layout would assists readers by clearly delineating what content is where, with no surprises between similar articles. Clearly identifying what information goes where across spacecraft articles would also help editors understand what kind of information should ideally be in an article, and weak/underdeveloped sections can be readily identified and improved.
My apologies if there has been previous discussion on this somewhere, and I've missed it. I'm also sure there's drawbacks to this idea- large amounts of re-work to existing articles being one of them. But I believe the benefits of having a standardized layout would be worth it. Thanks for reading- I'd welcome your feedback, positive, negative, or otherwise. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, one of the most important series of lists inside the scope of this portal has ceased to be maintained since the original editor for them left Wikipedia a few months ago. I and a few other editors are trying to keep the current articles updated, but there are still large gaps in content for many of these lists and there has been controversies in whether to add new types of content to them.
I hate to see them ending up neglected, so I am asking more members here to take a look on each and every single of the 50+ lists there and see if there are gaps in the list of launches, EVAs, planetary exploration events etc. for every single year there.
Also, if you are interested, get more references for every single individual event listed (even though some of the reference pages already listed have coverage for all events listed here from 1957 to 2015+). The more you find, the better!
One more thing, please try to make out lists of major orbital debris production events for each single year ASAP - after heated arguments one such list have been added to the 2015 article, but despite invitations for others to add more none were added for the past 2 months, leaving this section as an awkward orphan. I ask any editor who can make out such lists for individual years (should be easy using NORAD data) to do so over the next few months, or else I would have no choice but to delete it, because I believe that for such list series consistency MUST come before content additions. If you want to add new lists of data to them, do it for all, or don't do it at all.
Thanks for all who would like to join! Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
LIM-49 Nike Zeus
The article LIM-49 Nike Zeus is undergoing a FA candidacy and it looks like it could use some more feedback. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)