Talk:Enhanced Imaging System
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Enhanced Imaging System article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This page was nominated for deletion on 2 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This article deals with a military black project.
Because of the nature of such projects, the most authoritative sources (any involved governments and defense contractors) may not even acknowledge its existence. The most reliable sources may be highly speculative.Please ensure that the article is well and reliably sourced and does not contain unverifiable information or vague predictions.
For more details, see the black project working group of the military history project.
|This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.|
Maybe some things people shouldnt know about. I find theres quite abit of information that is "need to know". Maybe some revisions on certain articles need to be placed.
- I don't quite understand that. If it's known to reliable sources, there's nothing new about describing them here... 22.214.171.124 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (BTW, sign your talk page comments)
However, this article seems to be particularly poorly sourced and light on information. I don't need a page to tell me a bunch of stuff that science fiction writers have said about a satellite (which may not even exist). Personally, I'd vote for deletion, or at least sticking a warning at the top of the page. (I've since done this) 126.96.36.199 13:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
conflict with KH-12 page
This page contradicts the KH-12 page. Were USA-161 and USA-182 KH-12s or KH-13s? Also, I find it odd that neither page even contains the word "Keyhole" ... I mean, that's what everybody knows the satellites as, and that's what KH stands for after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettland (talk • contribs) 08:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Prime time network news reported satellite as being KH-13 Key Hole. Noted in personal log. LanceBarber 05:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Notability is certainly disputable. Some cited references contain unverifiable claims, original research, references to works of fiction etc. But notability is the main issue here. This article seems to have been of interest to a certain user with particular interest in so-called 'black projects'. No real notability, no verifiable sources. Proposed deletion. --Javit 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, Notability isnt disputable. THe KH-series of satellites is famous and has been around for years. I will take down the PROD immediately. Squidfryerchef 15:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is Lacrosse 5 mentioned?
I am very surprised to see Lacrosse 5 listed here as a suggested KH-family IMINT. All analysist I know rather feel it is a SAR. In terms of orbit inclination (57 degrees) and orbit eccentricity (0.0008) it is similar to other Lacrosse SAR's like Lacrosse 3 and very unlike the accepted Keyholes (97 degrees and 0.05)). It's brightness is also unlike the accepted Keyholes (it's much brighter).LaMa (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Franky, I feel this page should go. It is highly ambiguous, with questionable data (see above). There already are pages on the KH-11 and KH-12 KeyHoles that are much better in quality. Real existence of the "KH-13" isn't clear at all! LaMa (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think the easiest way to deal with this is to remove everything that is not related to EIS and move the article. Should be uncontroversial since I suggested it as an alternative in the AfD, so I'll do that. --GW… 19:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
August 2013 leaks
NRO budget information leaked in August 2013 suggested that EIS was still fully-funded, implying that it had become part of the KH-11 series. What would be the best way to incorporate this into the article? --W. D. Graham 12:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Amateur determined orbits at http://www.io.com/~mmccants/tles/classfd.zip