Talk:Orion (spacecraft)

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

Size compared to Apollo[edit]

This sentence seems mathematically incorrect: "With a diameter of 16.5 feet (5 meters) as opposed to 12.8 feet (3.9 meters), it provided 2.5 times greater volume." Even assuming "2.5 times greater volume" really means "2.5 times the volume", it still cannot be correct. A 5 meter diameter cylinder has about 1.6 times the volume of a 3.9 meter cylinder of the same height. Elsewhere in the article it says "[the crew module] will have more than 50% more volume than the Apollo capsule." which seems more accurate. Mnudelman (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Orion capsule is quite a bit taller. Kaleja (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
In that case, the article should compare both dimensions, so it does make sense.—Finell 04:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


Why isn't the article's title "Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle", with redirects from "Orion spacecraft" and "Orion space craft" (and any other appropriate redirects)? —Finell 04:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If I had to guess, it's because there's a general consensus that article titles should be whatever is the most well-known designation, it's designated as the Orion spacecraft in everyday language so Orion (spacecraft) doesn't seem too far fetched to me. Best Regards InsaneHacker (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Header Picture[edit]

Now that the capsule has been flown, would it be better to have an actual picture of the EFT-1 Orion instead of a computer rendering? I realize that the rendering might look better, but having a real picture seems better than just a conceptual design.

Since nobody seems opposed to this i'm going to change the header picture to an image of the capsule splashed down.Mnethercutt (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

B-class review[edit]

At the request of @N2e: I have begun to conduct a b-class review of this article against the WikiProject Spaceflight criteria. I will post a more detailed review later but for now I have identified the following obvious issues.

  • The article uses a non-standard infobox which should be changed - I would suggest Template:Infobox spacecraft class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
  • In several places the article uses non-SI units; for science-related articles SI units must take precedence
  • The Orion Lite and Funding sections should either be expanded or merged into other sections.
  • The "Orion Program mission section" needs to be rewritten completely. There are several parts of this that I actually found quite condescending to the point that I failed it against criterion B6; for example stating and restating the outcome of EFT-1 (the green background looks awful) and whether missions are crewed or not, and having a separate column for acronyms.
  • The article is tagged with {{Include-NASA}}. Any article tagged with this can never attain B-class status and the copied-and-pasted content needs to be found and rewritten before the page can be considered.
--W. D. Graham 10:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)