Talk:Spacecraft

Hi, I'm an engineer

Hi, I'm an engineer an interested in making this page better. I figured I would put a comment here to see if others would be improving this page also. Rob 23:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the category for this article should be changed. I'm sure to which category yet, possibly space exploration. Rob 04:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Done. Rob 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pioneer Venus as first orbiter?

This article states that Pioneer Venus was the first "orbiter+lander" of Venus--however, the respective articles on Pioneer Venus and the Venera program show that almots all the Venera orbiters and landers arrived at Venus before Pioneer Venus. Can someone confirm this and correct the inaccurate article? --71.205.97.111 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on GNC vandalism

Hey clever anon user, you'd be surpised how a GNC engineer can foxtrot uniform a spacecraft.

• Is this really neccisary. --GW_Simulations 20:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"most famous fictional spacecraft" is unqualified

I'm really not sure that any of the fictional spacecraft from the "Halo: Combat Evolved" series should be listed as equally famous as either the "Millennium Falcon" from Star Wars or the "U.S.S. Enterprise" from Star Trek, because most people have heard of either of these two items but not necessarily of the Pillar of Autumn or In Amber Clad. Nevertheless, all of the above are noted as being "[s]ome of the most famous fictional spacecraft." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammargeek (talk • contribs)

• I would say that the Enterprise, the Falcon, and possibly Voyager, would be sufficient. --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 19:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed this segment and deleted the Eagle, seeing as how I'd never even heard of the show and I'm a pretty solid sci-fi buff. I substituted it for the TARDIS, which I feel is far more notable as it is the central point of the longest running sci-fi series in history. I also reworded the BattleStar Galactica part to make it clearer to the reader. I also chucked the Death Star in the Star Wars part, I think the list is sufficient now, all of those ships are famous to many people due to their prominence in franchises that have become popular for extended periods of time. --Spoonman.au 04:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Eagle must be on this list. It is one of the better known sci-fi spacecrafts. There are lot's of models and kits of it. And all this 30 years after Space: 1999 aired. Also, it's one of the few fictional craft that could work based on real world technology. Ricnun 14:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. And the merits of the ship and the series are not in question, simply the importance of this particular fictional vessel in popular culture, and I would argue this is not in the same league as the other ships on the list. --Spoonman.au 02:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Does the heat come from compressing of air or friction at reentry to earth?

I always hear that its from the friction of air, but i've also head that the compression of air is the course, whats the truth?

Vast majority is compression.WolfKeeper 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Query

ON: "a vehicle designed to leave Earth's atmosphere"

If an alien came to Earth in a ship, would it not be in a spacecraft? Shamess 20:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I see you changed it. It's more accurate now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Heaviest spacecraft

ISS listed as spacecraft, and according to the article about ISS it is 213.843 kg. Shuttle is lighter, so it probably should be replaced as heaviest spacecraft. Alternatively we can break up ISS to modules, and list them individualy. I think that first is better, but I'm not sure if ISS is a haviest spacecraft itself. Hexie 22:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

i dunno what you are saying ISS is not Mir, so i dunno what you mean by on "itself"? are you refering to the 1st module which is nothing more that a space tug to keep the US module in space, or the Zvezda (previously Mir-2).also how you list the solar panel that is not part of a module? are we going by launch or physical unit because the lab is heavier now that during lanuch and the tug is lighter... are we going by deadweight then... it is just hopeless if we start breaking them up and listing them without a good understanding of the variable... O_o" Akinkhoo (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fastest spacecraft

   * Helios I & II Solar Probes (43333399999.9999 miles per second).

The speed of light is approx. 186,000 miles per second !

And, sorry to be picky, but is the speed of these spacecraft really known to an accuracy of 1 part in 10¹⁵ ?

Mikegm71 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

omg like too cool for school man !!! totally! byebye

Spacecraft from other planets

A series of recent edits by User:The Yeti have reworded the lead section to generalize the subject of the article such that it includes the possibility of spacecraft which begin their voyages on the surfaces of planetary bodies other than Earth. A real-world example might be the ascent module of the Apollo Lunar Module, which could be seen as a spacecraft which was used for an orbtal spaceflight around the Moon. If inclusion of that kind of spaceflight is the intent of the recent edits, it might be better to add a single sentence covering those "return voyage" cases. But I'm dubious about the idea of expanding the lead of the article to include fictional or hypothetical spacecraft which are represented as having been, or which might someday be, launched from a planetary body other than Earth. There's nothing wrong with discussing those somewhere in the article, but shouldn't the lead really focus on the very common and well-documented case of spacecraft built by humans on Earth? (sdsds - talk) 14:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree. The very first sentence of the article basically defines a spacecraft. "A spacecraft is a vehicle or device designed for spaceflight." There is nothing in this to say "A spacecraft is an Earth vehicle or device designed for spaceflight." There is no logical reason why spacecrafts have to be solely from Earth, just because that is the current state of our technology and/or knowledge of other life off Earth. Apart from the fact that the article actually lists fictional spacecrafts, which by definition, are lauched from / orbit non-Earth planetary bodies, it should also be noted that we have, or in the very near future will have, the technology to do so in real life. We have launched craft from the Moon, landed & launched craft from comets and asteroids, and have space missions planned to land and then launch from Mars and its moons, plus also Jupiter's moons.

Why do you think spacecraft should be narrowed solely down to existing Earth vehicles ? Why do you think the definition means that they must have their starting point as Earth ? And why must the definition be narrowed to cover 'return trips' ?

Why is a hypothetical extension of the term not acceptable ? (such as, as current space programmes envisage, craft built from materials in-part gathered from Lunar or Martian origin). Most scientist also believe that intelligent life does exist elsewhere in then universe (it is just too big to believe that we're it and there's nothing else), and some will have developed interplanetary craft - which means obviously lauching from their worlds (not Earth!). This is just a logical, and scientifically accepted credible, extension - I'm not even thinking of the fictional realms of FTL craft, bug-eyed monsters, or other science fiction. Besides, the lead paragraph is meant to be a generalisation, and only later in the page should it narrows its focus more specifically. Also I only generalised the opening paragraph (without going into any details on hypothetical or speculative craft), and left the rest of the article completely unchanged, and so no other context has been changed. The Yeti 23:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

ATV

I think as the ATV is now operational and in Orbit it should be moved to the in orbit section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.191.35 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spacecraft vs Spacestation

should Mir and gang be listed as a spacecraft? i was under the assumption that a spacecraft need to be able to go some where, while the spacestation is capable of boosting itself, it is not design to travel, hence the term "craft" sound a little weird for an object designed to be stationary. should we vote on this? Akinkhoo (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

SpaceX Dragon in the Under Development category?

I was thinking that the SpaceX Dragon should be in the Under Development category. Anybody disagree with that? Planet Ceres 71.158.212.128 (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of it. If you have reliable sources for refs, go ahead and add it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Did it. Reliable sources on it's own page. It's amazing how many people haven't heard of it. It's the only manned spacecraft under development by a U.S. firm that would have the ability to get people to and from the space station on standard sized launch vehicles. So, when I read the article on spacecraft with absolutely no mention of one of the most important ones I guffawed a little. Planet Ceres 71.158.212.128 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

History

Somethig should be added but im no expert