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.
How connected is the MV Delta Mariner ship that carries ULA rockets to the spaceflight WikiProject?
MV Delta Mariner is an ocean-going ship that was purpose-built to carry Atlas V and Delta IV rocket components from point of manufacture in Decatur, Alabama to either Cape Canaveral, Florida or to Vandenberg AFB, California, for United Launch Alliance. It is currently neither categorized nor tagged on Talk page as of interest to this WikiProject.
Should it be?
I'm personally agnostic, so am merely asking. If anyone thinks it should be, just add a cat or tag the Talk page for this project. N2e (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's an interesting question. Personally I don't think it should be included, but other articles like MV Retriever, MV Liberty Star and MV Freedom Star have been tagged. So it should either be tagged, or the tags removed from those other articles. I'm not sure what would be best. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, since no one else has gotten interested in the question, I just went with the simplest solution: a single edit to make MV Delta Mariner match the other three. If someone feels differently, please revert and let's talk.
- In the future, it is possible that there will need to be a category for spaceflight-related maritime vessels, and one not exclusive to NASA as seems to be the case in those four articles. Things like the private Autonomous spaceport drone ship (also US), as well as the spaceflight-related vessels of non-US entities (e.g., Soviet space communications and surveillance ships, etc.) may suggest it. N2e (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I finally went ahead and created a new category for spaceflight-related maritime vessels, and have added the ten or so that I could most easily find to that category, including the private SpaceX landing platform as well as a few government ships from the US, USSR, Russia and France. If anyone knows of others, please add those as well; or clean up old (and perhaps now unnecessary) category classifications as you wish. N2e (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Could anyone help with secondary sources and links at the article on Alexander Bolonkin? Hafspajen (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Retirement of project member WD Graham
The other day, I happened over to WikiProject Spaceflight long-time contributor WD Graham's page to ask him a question and, inadvertantly, learned that WD has recently retired from Wikipedia, effective 14 February 2015. I left a message of appreciation for his many years of work on the English Wikipedia on his Talk page. You may wish to do the same.
I'm writing this so that other interested WikiProject Spaceflight editors might 1) know about it closer to the event, and 2) hop on over there, or do it here, and wish WD well as he moves on to other fruitful pursuits for his intellect and diligent efforts that have, in the past, benefited all of us so much. N2e (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- This makes me 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)
- I've opened a new section below to discuss the technical miscellania of AstRoBot. It seems to me that this section is better left as a single-topic section honoring WD Graham's contributions to this project over many years. ... and I truly hope that some others who are well aware of that contribution will weigh in and say something about it. N2e (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
Italicization of spacecraft
You might be interested in the discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 48#Should this be italicized?, which is discussing whether "named, specific vessels", including spacecraft, should be italicized (e.g. Ranger 7, Ranger 9, Apollo 11). GoingBatty (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- There is no such vessel as "Apollo 11". That's a mission name only. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Some comments on coverage and PoV issues on everything about SpaceX
Well, I have been quiet on any article issues on this portal (mainly because I deal with data tables and not articles), but there's something about the coverage on SpaceX here that I would like to, ahem, slightly rant about. While I do not believe this is intentional, I think that there's quite a bit of SpaceX related materials that are written in a SpaceX-centric way and unintentionally lead to PoV issues for them.
Here are some examples that I feel there are issues:
- 1. The Launching template used for announcement of satellite launches. Recently people have been adding info about 1st stage recovery attempts to the remarks section for F9 launches and.....I feel this is both verbose and unnecessary. This template is mostly used as an imminent launch announcement with the launch time listed for people to look up, and adding such long sentences really affects the readability of it (it took me a few more seconds to look for the launch time), plus it also have PoV issues because I feel such long descriptions detracts the attention from the one and only reason for a launch to take place - to deliver a satellite. Any 1st stage recovery experiments are subject to last minute changes (as seen from the last launch) and should not be taken for granted as the main attention focus of that launch. To me, such content should be mentioned in brief in the payload page and in details on a new page on the chronology of the development of 1st stage recovery techniques by SpaceX, but not in a template; such addition of info to it is IMHO SpaceX-centric and takes away attention to the payload. No-one talks about Space Shuttle DDOs in missions, for example.
- Basically, I feel that such info should not be added to these templates or at most should be short and brief, not written like the example I listed.
- 2. I feel that the list of launches of the F1/F9/FH rockets should be sprinkled with less info than it is right now - and most of them are related to the LSP, not the customer or anything else. I can see 1st stage recovery efforts info listed there (although I also feel some of them are a little bit too verbose to be listed in this list, e.g. the tidbit about the CRS-5 launch in January), but.... "The launch is Boeing's first-ever conjoined launch of a lighter-weight dual-commsat stack that was specifically designed to take advantage of the lower-cost SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle." (next launch for F9)? Really, I feel that this info is bordering trivia to be listed in the list of launches table (and instead should be added into the page for the 2 satellites). You see, these list of tables usually involves just a list of info on the number of launches of a certain rocket, the launch time, the launch pad used, outcomes etc. These info that are related to the LSP should not be covered in such details in launch lists and should instead be added to directly related pages like the ones about SpaceX 1st stage recovery techniques. IMHO, the current configuration have readability issues and puts too much info from the LSP PoV.
I think there are even more issues but these 2 are what I can write down concretely. Discuss if you all have different opinions about these issues and/or other issues you can think of about SpaceX articles and sections in other articles that mentions SpaceX. ;)
Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- On the first item, I started a discussion on the Template talk:Launching/Falcon (Canaveral) Talk page two weeks ago during the last Falcon 9 launch campaign for the DSCOVR mission, but nobody else weighed in on it. That issue, which was mission specific, is now past. But we could certainly discuss the topic more generally if a group of editors are interested. N2e (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)