Talk:Atmospheric satellite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Scope of article[edit]

I suggest that the scope of content of this article be limited:

  • to be narrower than the broad concept of unmanned aerial vehicles
  • to omit most details that are specific to individual aircraft types (Pathfinder, Helios, etc) that have their own Wikipedia articles

RCraig09 (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What's GOCE then?[edit]

The article says:

To date, all atmosats have been unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

GOCE was a conventional (orbital) satellite that orbited within the atmosphere, using an ion engine to provide continuous thrust to offset aerodynamic drag. Does it qualify as an atmospheric satellite? I think so. –PointyOintment (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The GOCE article says it orbited at >150 miles — above the atmosphere like a conventional Low Earth Orbit satellite, not an atmosat. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Definitely not an "atmospheric satellite" as the rest of the world uses the term, as it did not use aerodynamic lift. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose that Geostationary balloon satellite and High-altitude platform station be merged into Atmospheric satellite. These are all small articles and all deal with atmospheric satellites of one kind or another. As yet, there is not enough verifiably significant material out there to justify more than one article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose They're obviously distinct principles. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    In what ways are the geostationary balloon satellite and high-altitude platform station not examples of atmospheric satellites? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Observation. The structure and inter-linking of the Wikipedia articles should be determined by careful analysis of the reliable-source definitions of the various crafts. There might be a generically defined craft whose definition encompasses more narrowly defined craft. The WP article for the generically defined craft should have short summaries of the more narrowly defined craft, which in turn might warrant their own detailed articles. (Sorry, I don't know enough to render this analysis.) —RCraig09 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely merge Geostationary balloon satellite into Atmospheric satellite, unless the balloon article can be substantially expanded; this kind of fragmentation doesn't really help the reader. A merge of High-altitude platform station could be a bit more complex; the article is quite messy, as it is now; most of it could be merged, although the information on the specific projects by Lockheed could belong elsewhere (its own article as experimental aircraft type?) --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Observation. Also mind High-Altitude Long Endurance and High-altitude balloon which may also need to be integrated into one unified article with the others mentioned above. To me it appears as if many of these different names are just marketing language of different companies. With the renewed commercial interest in these vehicles by e.g. Google loon, Facebook Aquila, Zero 2 Infinity, World View Enterprises, ... this area of WP could really need some major facelift. Space.chris (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. If lighter-than-air and heavier-than-air sections become too large, it will be a good time to split.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The HAPS article is more detailed, but much of what it says would be true of any atmospheric satellite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ostrich (talkcontribs) 15:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. Taking into consideration RCraig09's thoughts from above the following structure seems reasonable to me: