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.
Suggestion for Spaceflight WikiProject ambox notice
I was on the Philae spacecraft page when I noticed that the ambox notice had the American space shuttle as thumbnail.
Since the shuttle has long been retired, I suggest Wikipedia use the Hubble Space Telescope as a thumbnail instead on those notices.
What do you think?
Techno Singular (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I would oppose that suggestion. This isn't an astronomy wikiproject, and the primary connotation of the HST is astronomy, not spaceflight. What about using Sputnik 1 instead? It's recognizable, and was the first permanent orbital spaceflight object, without confusion with rocketry or astronomy. It is the epoch marking object of spaceflight. -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Sputnik 1 would be a good idea. What I really aim for here is to replace the space shuttle thumbnail. It's just that on this very page, Wikipedia is using a Hubble Space Telescope. I'm opened to anything that represents spaceflight more significantly.
Techno Singular (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- If we are proposing that the Shuttle should be removed because it is no longer current, I fail to see the logic in replacing it with an image of a spacecraft which reentered long, long before the Shuttle was ever conceived. --W. D. Graham 18:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally I don't see the need to change this. That said, if there is a consensus that the Shuttle should not be shown because it is no longer flying then I think the new image should satisfy four criteria; it must be of a spacecraft which is a) globally recognisable, b) of worldwide significance, c) currently in operation and d) the image must be clearly representative of spaceflight rather than a related field such as planetary science or astronomy. Under these criteria I would suggest that the ISS would be by far the best candidate should a need to replace the image arise. That said, I disagree with the need for criterion c and as such oppose changing from the current image which does meet the other three criteria. --W. D. Graham 19:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am very much in favour of using the ISS as a new thumbnail. I proposed the Hubble Space Telescope because it is being used on this page. However, the HST is more representative of astronomy while the ISS meets all four criteria (criteria I admit I had not considered in my initial suggestion). Techno Singular (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Duplicated cables in the sky
Is it my imagination or does pretty much the same content show up in Skyhook (structure) and Orbital Tether and perhaps a few other articles? Jim.henderson (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment aren't skyhooks a type of moment exchange orbital tether, that is used for space launch? (ie. orbital tethers can just be used to change orbit, and not reach down to the surface, and can work on different principles, by using electrical charge instead of moment exchange to change orbits) Or atleast that was my understanding of the topic. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
FYI, several images on Commons have come up for discussion at WT:MOON relating to the Apollo mission artefacts. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- My proposition is to divide year navbox by month. See here:  18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really see the advantage. True they are a little monolithic at the moment but splitting them in this way just makes them appear longer and harder to read. --W. D. Graham 09:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Harder to read? I'll be honest, I think breaking into months is fantastic and increases reader comprehension. Being longer isn't an issue since they are collapsed by default. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Seeing as they are sequential, I think having them as they are makes it easier to read the series --W. D. Graham 17:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just tidied up List of Constellation missions, having noticed last week's Orion flight getting listed there. I've rewritten the lead to emphasise that Constellation effectively ceased to exist in 2010 and the current/planned missions aren't really "Constellation" in any sense. Two things that this raises:
- a) what, if anything, are they called? Is there actually a named program at the moment? I've seen flight lists on the Constellation page, the Orion page, the SLS page, etc. If there isn't a name, should we have some kind of overview page? "NASA Orion program", or something?
- b) Is there any value to having this Constellation list? It effectively shows a single moment in time - the proposals as of a few months before it was finally cancelled. There were many other proposed flight sequences, none of which (in retrospect) were any more real or concrete than the others; this is just the one that was there when the music stopped. It feels like it might be better to give a summary of the types of mission that were planned and merge it back into the main Constellation article.
Thoughts appreciated. I've not been following this very closely... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- As you say, Constellation ceased to exist, so while Ares I-X can be left in that list, anything EFT or EM should be chopped out. The "planned missions as of 2009" should probably be clarified to note that those will no longer happen, perhaps? As far as I know, there isn't an overarching program name for the modern Orion and SLS (other than "Senate Launch System", har har). The current mission list can probably just be dumped in the Orion article and be done with, but given how few and far between they are, and how very likely things are to be rescoped or descoped with new administrations, I don't see a need for any kind of overarching program article. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Seems to have been reverted back to the old version with a note that the current flights are 'in effect' Constellation. I'm not particularly up on the background here to argue the details - anyone want to have a look? Andrew Gray (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Can you spell original research? :-) Burden of proof is on anyone who asserts Constellation "in effect still exists." JustinTime55 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Andrew, I think your edits look fine, and I agree with Justin that those edits restoring the old material were not appropriate. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The program doesn't have a name.--Craigboy (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Mercury Program mission audio
Hi. I've located, and am in the process of uploading to Commons, recordings of the mission audio from the Mercury Program. I have all of the manned flights, but sorting out some of them is going to require listening and comparing to the transcripts to get them in the right order, since they are only marked by the NASA audio archive file number, and not the actual sequence. The suborbital flights (and the first 'chimp' orbital flight) don't have that problem, and it seems like clips of them would be quite appropriate for articles... Alan Shepard lifting off, for instance. The ones that are currently up...
I'll continue uploading the others over time, but it's going to take a bit for me to get them sorted out... there are things like John Glenn discussing his 'fireflies', for instance. Reventtalk 07:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)