User talk:Rememberway
Velocity, by definition, is a vector. Would you please cite a reference when changing this. Thx Androstachys (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, would you cite a reference? It's simple conservation of energy. Check out the vis-viva equation, it's completely independent of the direction, and in this equation when you change v, and and have 1/a as zero for escape velocity, then you can trivially derive escape velocity from that. The vis viva equation holds for absolutely all orbits and eccentricities, it doesn't care about the velocity vector direction at all.Rememberway (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- If it was the case that it had to be straight away from the body (and that absolutely 100% definitely isn't the case), escape velocity would be pretty useless. A vehicle rarely burns straight away from the Earth, it usually attains orbit before burning for escape, and yet I know for a fact that the engines always burn in the direction of the orbital motion, and never straight outwards to achieve escape velocity. The orbital mechanics don't care; provided you have enough kinetic energy, gravity can't keep you in closed orbit.Rememberway (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Space Tether Response
Space tethers is a fairly involved topic covering many different applications. It seems that you are implying that I include everything into one gigantic page. I am happy to do so if you feel this is what Wikipedia is looking for, however it will involve scrolling down about 30 pages to get to the end.
- It's not that big, and a lot of the topics are very interrelated. This is a major overview of the area.Rememberway (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I also think that it's easier to prune a big, good article down, than to try to build a good article from one that has been (however well intentionally) overpruned.Rememberway (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I felt it might keep things more organized to have the main page talk about aspects that affect all space tether topics (like history, general system challenges, etc) Then link to more specific aspects of space tethers that have their own research community. Otherwise (for example) it is like having an article called 'airplanes' and then discussing everything about airplanes that ever existed. At some point there needs to be links to divide up major topics (or does there on Wikipedia?). Although I can see that each topic is perhaps not diverse enough to warrant its own page... my main concern really was length. I do want to keep to the Wikipedia style though. Please advise.
As far as the revision history, the original Wiki Page was called 'tether propulsion', and 'space tether' was redirected to that. The term 'space tether' is more universally considered the overarching term in the technical community, so I just swapped the pages by making the 'tether propulsion' page redirect to the 'space tether' page. So all the past history is still under that 'tether propulsion' page. Sorry for any confusion.
- No, I completely agree with the rename, but the way you did it has caused problems.Rememberway (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- The other side is that you removed a lot of the momentum exchange material. I'm much, much less happy about that; this seems to be a major part of the history of the research of the topic. The rotating tether equation specifically came from there for example. I think that the best wikipedia articles tend to be very broad in their scope.Rememberway (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
When I started this work, I found that there were 3 major pages that discussed the 'Space Tether' topic: Electrodynamic Tether, Tether Propulsion (Space Tether) & Tether Satellite. These entries were very scattered and overlapping in ideas and severely lacking in references & citations. My goal was to consolidate these pages (effectively keeping the majority of the publicly entered information). This would include putting everything in a cohesive order as well as filling in a number of gaps in the technology description. More importantly, I would cite all of the information entered.
My intent here is to educate the public more completely on the space tether concept. Since this is an emerging technology on the verge of becoming a reality a thorough description is warranted. Thank you for your advice on this.
KPFuhrhop (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Space Tether Response
I appreciate your updates and apologize for any difficulties I may have caused with my limited Wikipedia experience. Do you find your revised format/outline to be acceptable (segregating the sub-topics)... because I am happy with your restructuring if you are. You are right that it does look better with a small section for each of the side pages.
- I wasn't very happy with the old article, it was clear that it wasn't very accurate.Rememberway (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I also noticed that you created a new page for the mission history. That sounds good (it fits the restructuring), but I will want to create a link closer to the top to advertise this fact. The purpose is because the first thing on peoples minds when learning about a technology is "what has been done". I can do this.
- Well, it's best to look at things with a very broad brush here. I genuinely think that different people want different things first. I usually want to start with the theory and then move to the practice. Others, such as yourself want to start with the practice and consider that in terms of the theory. Some just want to look at the pictures first. At the moment we have less pictures; that's not usually good, people like the warm fuzzy feeling that pictures bring them. There's probably no absolute right or wrong.Rememberway (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I also apologize for any negative feelings I may hae caused with the removal of some of the space elevator sources. I in no way wanted to imply they were impossible. They are a very exciting area of research. My point was that the materials and economic feasability of such an endeavour are many generations off. They are definitely worth mentioning as a side area of study, but I just did not want to showcase them. I was tryng to focus on research that is making current operational progress.
- It's quite all right, Earth elevators are a bit rubbish right now, although they are possible on the Moon and Mars, and elsewhere they are very easy (e.g. Ceres).Rememberway (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Finally, you seem to be quite motivated and knowlegable wrt. space tethers. May I ask your background in this area? Thank you again from the tethers comunity.
KPFuhrhop (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- What can I say, I'm pretty much just a techy guy that likes tethers. (n.b. I prefer to remain pseudonymous on the Wikipedia for various reasons, mainly privacy, so I can't really go into personal details).Rememberway (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Source for gel propellant
Regarding your recent edit: Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Rocket propellant, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Hi Rememberway. Appreciate the assertion you added, but we really need a source for this claim to stay in Wikipedia. Do you have one? Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have google? Have you ever used it? Tell me, would using it have taken less or more time than hassling me?Rememberway (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- When you remove things from the wikipedia that are true, that are trivially showable to be true, you're a net loss to the Wikipedia. You are a drain on the Wikipedia's resources.Rememberway (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Vi Hart
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Vi Hart requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Jessy (talk) (contribs) •23:22, April 8, 2011 (UTC) 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)