Talk:Constellation program

Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Page Needs Work!

I have created the Wikipedia entry for the Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, but it needs someone to read the two articles and watch the NASA video and then write a decent Wikipedia article. Can someone please step forward and do this? --Radical Mallard July 11, 2009, 7:53 PM EST

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives

The Alternatives section (Constellation_program#Alternatives is becoming a bit ridiculous in my opinion. Do we really need to list every possible method of reaching space, theoretical or not? Should we add Space Elevators, Soyuz, Shenzhou (spacecraft) and the possibility of using the tried and proven Apollo spacecraft launched on the good old Saturn V?

This Section needs to be limited to only alternatives that are being SERIOUSLY and OFFICALY considered, and not include any old method that a Wikipedia editor thinks may work. To do otherwise is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research

I will remove non-verified information from this section on April 22, 2010. Aalox (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My problem with that section is not so much the list of what's there now (someone had added the X-33, which I thought was going overboard). My problem with it is that "alternatives to Constellation" is really "alternative near-term methods of servicing the Space Station" and "alternative methods of attaining access to the Moon". The former topic is useful and verifiable; the latter one is more subject to speculation. It's possible that a section on possible lunar access methods might be useful to distraught users looking for solace or ammunition, both legitimate uses of Wikipedia, if a good, well-referenced section on the topic could be supplied. Voronwae (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw the suggestion that the X-33 could be an alternative, with a reference to an archived letter someone (possibly the editor) sent to nasa with the suggestion. Quite silly. Perhaps the ""alternative near-term methods of servicing the Space Station" should be moved over to one of the International Space Station articles, and the the alternatives to get to the moon in Exploration_of_the_Moon?Aalox (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I admit I just initially did a drive-by edit on the list of what was there without including references or going beyond getting rid of the X-33 bits. I think that what's on that list as of just now is legitimate and maybe even useful to people who come to the page looking for Constellation/Ares-specific info. I just hit it again and removed the Ares IV ref, given that Ares IV demonstrably doesn't exist, and basically just threw in a list of the CCDEV/COTS vehicle contractors (without listing the non-vehicle awards). I don't have time right now to make the section any better, but reasonably speaking the entire article could really stand some work. This is probably a very popular article right now, and it really would be good to have answers for the many questions I see people asking in their blogs (or articles in mainstream publications, for that matter). Most of the American public are very misinformed about Constellation. I think right now it's not a bad section to have in the article. The rest of the sections, on the other hand... Voronwae (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this be a "Bash Constellation Article?" I would not condone anything of the sort. This must be WP:NPOV (Although the debates section has pretty much destroyed all hopes of WP:NPOV. Aalox (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the present article is at all neutral and it doesn't present a clear picture of the opposing arguments to CxP. I'd say that probably the CxP debate section should be moved to its own article, and the CxP article re-neutralized to include only objective information. Regarding CxP debate, few CxP negatives are presented here in any substantive manner, whereas there's a liberal sprinkling of quotes from angry CxP advocates. The article needs to present just the facts. Regarding Ares IV, it isn't a proposed alternative to anything unless somehow someone brings it back, very unlikely, although it certainly merits mention elsewhere and it has its own article. Like I said, there's a lot of information that could be mentioned in this article and probably should be, like the many design changes that have occurred that make it no longer "shuttle-derived". Objective and factual information can be presented without "Constellation-bashing".Voronwae (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed line: "None of these spacecraft are designed to leave low earth orbit as required for lunar missions and the majority of the Constellation program, they are purely alternative methods for space station access."

This line needs needs citation and is at odds with SpaceX stated goals. SpaceX has indicated the Dragon will be used for Mars flights (http://www.spacex.com/about "Case for Mars" video). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.76.98 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Bias and error

I was surprised to see Neil Armstrong's comments featured so prominently along with the note that he was "the first man on the moon". This is nonsense in the way it is written. He was indeed half of the crew of the lunar lander that landed on the moon first but I can't see how this or his being closer to the door of the craft (and therefore the first to exit) gives him any special credibility on evaluating Constellation. On the other hand, none of Aldrin's comments are mentioned nor is it mentioned that Aldrin has a PhD and wrote his doctoral dissertation on docking in space compared to Armstrong's Master's degree. Nor is it even mentioned that Armstrong's open letter was signed by two other astronauts: Apollo 17 commander Eugene Cernan and Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell. cbsnews The way this is written it gives undo weight and notariety to Armstrong.

Secondly, there seems to be some doubt as to how much weight Ares V could lift into LEO. I've seen this figure given as 414,000; 396,000; and 287,000 lbs in NASA's own publications. Presumably they can't all be correct and since there are several it seems unlikely that the highest one is correct.

I also didn't see anything about complications caused by increasing the SRB stack from 4 to 5.5 segments or that the gain was less than expected. Nothing about base heating with RS-68 and solving this adds weight or reduces efficiency. Nothing about the weight problem on the 40 year old crawlerway with Ares V or that the launch pad would have to be upgraded or the doors on the assembly building enlarged.

The way that it is written it suggests that canceling the program was an almost unilateral decision by president Obama rather than his following the advice of a commission that studied the issue at a cost of $3 million over half a year.

There is also no mention that using SRB's may have a welfare component to support the company (Thiokol) that makes solid fuel engines for military applications such as Trident II's, Sidewinder's, HARM's, and other missiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brehmel (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the preceeding. The article is seriously biased. It does not reflect the vast delays and cost overruns of the project, or the lack of any realisic budget, and fails to provide any rationale. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, had spoken out strongly against the project, called in "not a dream, but an illusion" and said clearly that the nation could not afford it when it was introduced in 2004.

The goal of this article should be to provide an unbiased report of the chronology, not a political rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwoodard (talk • contribs) 02:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I did my best to remove the drivel that was editorial about unrelated programs, administrations and budgets, as well as properly cite both who was talking and where they said what they said. I added some references to Armstrong's complete point of view about limitations of relying on private enterprise, as well as a quick note that private enterprise is making some progress (which still feels like editorial, but honestly, the cherry picked quotations were such horseshit when I read this the first time, I think it helps to have 'he didn't think this was possible, but it apparently is' in there just to keep the whole thing honest). I still feel like the Buzz Aldrin bit is a non sequitur put in for an artificial perception of 'balance', but, because it's much more recent, it serves as a kind of bookend on the thing, and gives some closure on the idea of Constellation being a program with a specific purpose, as opposed to the jingoist personification of American glory or whatever the hell the previous editors were trying to convey. -Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:C0:1006:EC23:58CB:6133:BBA7 (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys like Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Jim Lovell, and Gene Cernan, and others really know what they speak about. They have lived trough it. If they think that this is worth doing, I believe them. Pekka Lehtikoski.208.65.88.172 (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is still at least 50 percent pure garbage, and I'm tempted to flag it. It appears that the article has become a dumping ground for space nuts who come by and feel that they just have to say something about their perception of what Constellation was or what's happened politically in the intervening years. It needs serious cropping. I won't do it now, but some day I feel I need to do some radical cutting and restructuring unless somebody has objections. Voronwae (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to start by axing the "Astronaut Community Support" section, if nobody has any objections. It seems to me that this section is just a thinly-veiled excuse to list Armstrong's objections to the program's cancellation. Given that it was Sally Ride who pointed out that Constellation had a number of fatal problems, including the potential to break the space agency, this section deserves a different name at minimum. I don't see the point of the section, though, and rather than try to make it useful, I'd like to delete it wholesale. Voronwae (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article a year later, the whole "debate" section looked seriously one-sided. I waited a year, and saw no objections, so I deleted the "Astronaut Community Support" and the similar "Congressional Criticism" section. If someone wants to revert my changes, it needs to be updated to include some of the reasons that the program was really cancelled - after all, Constellation had very serious fiscal and schedule problems that really needed to be solved, many of which have remained with its congressionally-mandated successor, the Space Launch System. This article really is still disorganized and inaccurate, but it's better without the rhetoric. On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't object to a section covering some of the huge debate surrounding Constellation and SLS. Voronwae (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure the "Justification" section adds anything factual to the article. Any objections to deleting that too? If someone beats me to it, all the better. Voronwae (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be good to snip out some day the implication that President Obama shut down this program. Those parts make it sound like President Obama was against the USA having manned space flight --and that could make him look bad. That's unfair to the only honorable president since Bill Clinton. Also, in his speech (the .ogg file video), President Obama said he's actually strengthening the space program, so the article ought to say that our space program got better because of this venture ending. The article also has an area giving George W. Bush some credit for getting the program started. That part needs to go! Human spaceflight is still popular well-thought-of so it's best to avoid associating any of it with the woebegotten W. It should be easy enough to get a consensus of reasonable editors going on that in order to 3RR away any dissenters. After all, we're supposed to be about good science here instead of gung-ho nationalism. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

"That's unfair to the only honorable president since Bill Clinton."

Yes, thank goodness there is no political bias in Wikipedia! 2600:8805:A985:4300:BD21:C9EB:A558:1CD5 (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Capitalize title

The name of the program is the *Constellation Program*, which is a proper noun and both words are capitalized. Inkeeping with Wikipedia's style guide, the P in the article title should be capitalized., and this page should be moved to Constellation Program.   –Justin Force 19:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done DNA Ligase IV (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Article needs updating pretty bad.

This article is in need of updating, and hence I put up the update tag. Specifically, how the decisions surrounding the Constellation led to the Space Launch System (SLS). It should be noted that the SLS re-uses the space shuttle orbiter engines (in a throw away manner no less!!) and designs for the external tank, but the question that needs to asked is how does that compare to Constellation program's goals and costs? Historically it's important, and this article needs a lot of work and updating. Nodekeeper (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Having just visited the article as a reader I agree that it badly needs a once over. As a start have requested a copy edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Constellation_program. That should tidy things up making it easier to work on but it won't make any of the additions Nodekeeper suggests. -Arb. (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Came by and did some editing, updating and error correction, but lots and lots of work remains on this article. Voronwae (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the "alternatives" section needs to be mostly scrapped and rewritten to cover the larger and more general idea of using other launchers versus listing the world's current launch vehicles. Comments, anybody? Voronwae (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Major revisions

I picked this request up from the Guild of Copy Editors (requested by Arb) and I've been copy editing the article for the past couple days. As I see it, this page is in need of some major revisions which I'm not sure I'm the best person to make, given that I don't have a huge amount of knowledge of this subject. Specifically, I think that the Missions section is massively bloated; that information is in the sources, and the amount of detail included just seems excessive. If someone else with more knowledge of what information is most important wants to take that on, I'll appreciate it, but if not then I'll do it, starting tomorrow. So don't say I didn't warn you. DNA Ligase IV (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm removing the balance tag; it's four years old and the section isn't particularly biased. I am also removing the requiring update tag, since the content that is cited in the above talk page discussion isn't so much outdated as just lacking. You're welcome to replace it with a more accurate tag. DNA Ligase IV (talk)

Edit  Done.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Constellation program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100204201200/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/afp/20100131/ts_alt_afp/usspacepolitics to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100131/ts_alt_afp/usspacepolitics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I propose List of Constellation missions be merged into this article, or either Ares I-X / Orion where applicable. The article currently consists of an extensive list of planned missions as of 2009, but with it being cancelled in 2010 is it still notable enough for a separate article? If kept as its own article it should be made clearer in both the page name and table of planned missions that the program is cancelled. MarsToutatis ^talk 13:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Against I think its better to leave these as two separate articles. Thanks Fotaun (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constellation program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811185822/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/trs.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/trs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)