Talk:Altair (spacecraft)
Template:WPSpace
Template:WPSpace
Template:HSF Project
This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lunar Surface Access Module (Project Constellation) → Lunar Surface Access Module … Rationale: Only one article, and it is unlikley that there will be any others.There is no point for the distinction in parenthesis. Target page currently redirects to Crew Exploration Vehicle, of which the LSAM is a part … Please share your opinion at Talk:Lunar Surface Access Module (Project Constellation). —GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Survey
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Support GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
- move complete - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lunar Surface Access Module (Project Constellation) → Artemis Spacecraft … Rationale: The LSAM has been named Artemis. NASA announced the new nomenclature on 3 October 2006. Please share your opinion at Talk:Lunar Surface Access Module (Project Constellation). Bchan 18:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Speculation. NASA has not made any official announcement yet. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- I should note that Orion was originally speculated to be called Alitair. Also, if Artemis is announced as the official name, then it should be called Artemis (spacecraft) for consistency with Orion (spacecraft). --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Previous spacecraft
Wasn't the Lunar Module the immediate predicessor of this spacecraft? Saying the space shutttle was is like saying the F-18 is the immediate predicessor to the F-22. Technically yes it was, but not in the same role.
The LSAM and its roles
As the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) is a heir to the legacy of the Apollo Lunar Module, it was designed by NASA with the mind as both a crew transport, and as a cargo transport. The Apollo Applications Program (AAP, which later became Skylab), a program similar to Project Constellation originally saw the use of the Apollo LM as both a lunar base (ascent module, minus engine) and as a transport. To supply the outpost, NASA would launch an Apollo Command/Service Module and a so-called "LM Truck," which would be guided down to the surface by the orbiting astronauts in a manner similar to that of the aerial drones used by the U.S. Air Force in Afghanistan and Iraq. The LSAM, which is, function-wise, a descendent of both the Apollo LM and the AAP LM Truck, would do the same function as that proposed for the AAP-era lunar base, but for the cargo-only mode, the LSAM would not need a crew to haul her out to the Moon — cargo LSAM can fly out and land with controllers in Houston doing the piloting. Also, the LSAM, unlike the Apollo LM, will have the same camping-like comforts that the Apollo astronauts would dream of (toilet, hot food, airlock, etc.). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rwboa22 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
The LSAM Ascent Engine
The article states that a RL-10 engine will be used on the ascent stage. This is incorrect, a hypergolic engine, similar to the one used on the CEV, is much more likely. References to the ascent stage using cryogenics should be changed.
Usage and Grammar Problem
Found this sentence in the "Description" area:
"It will also be flown unmanned, similarly to the Apollo Applications Program's LM Truck concept, but without having to fly a manned Orion spacecraft out to the Moon."
I cannot make heads or tails of this sentence. What will be flown unmanned? What is the LM truck concept? Are we sending unmanned Orion spacecraft to the moon? How is an unmanned Orion craft circling the moon part of the Altair manned moon landing project? I am completely lost. I appreciate any effort to make this clear. Kjdamrau (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)kjdamrau
Computer game
I came to this page when looking for the page about the Lunar Lander game. "Lunar lander" redirects here, but there's no "'Lunar lander' redirects here, for the game, see Lunar lander (computer game)". I only managed to find the game page using a google search. Surely this would be a useful addition to the page? Haddock420 14:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Altair
LSAM has now been renamed Altair. I am creating a single RM nomination to handle all articles affected. —GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lunar Surface Access Module → Altair (spacecraft)
- LSAM 1 → Altair 1
- LSAM 2 → Altair 2
- LSAM 3 → Altair 3
- LSAM 4 → Altair 4
- LSAM 5 → Altair 5
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''
or*'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Discussion
- Any additional comments: