Talk:Propulsive fluid accumulator

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Cleanup

I've cleaned up some problems. We could do with some more (sourced) material. -- 202.124.72.36 (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some (Jones et al). -- 202.124.73.138 (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Klinkman (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)please add a seminal reference on the subject, Paul Klinkman and John Wilkes,'Gathering Propellants in LEO: Moving From "Credible" to "Feasible"' (2009), AIAA Space 2009.[reply]

Reasons not to merge

This subject is mondo important in my personal opinion. For history of science reasons, leave it under the current PROFAC title.

Merging the PROFAC page with a propellant depot page would be incorrect. A space tug or space ferry could easily generate its own propellant, leave for a mission towing a payload to geostationary orbit, then return and generate its own propellant once again. The depot as designed would be filled from earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.180.86 (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

No consensus to merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest a merge with Propellant depot. This article is about a special case of the broader concept, and logically fits there. -- 202.124.72.36 (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The ASD material is weak, speculative and badly sourced (as well as being unfeasible and downright weird). It merits a passing mention at best. andy (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Accumulating space devices could be a supplier to a Propellant depot, one amongst many. It could also be used on say a Mars trip as a flying In-situ resource utilization machine to make propellant and oxygen for the return trip. I have added links to this page. I think that the pages should be kept separate. Andrew Swallow (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very reason for merging - it's a subset of the ideas for a propellant depot. This article explains it quite well. In addition very little serious work has been done on this in the last half-century while the orbital propellant depot is definitely moving forward. andy (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate as per previous discussions and as per Andrew Swallow. I find this a little in poor taste so soon after the failed delete. I was discussing working on the article with the other editor but he is not available until the weekend or beginning of next week; I really think that this wholesale removal was a little OTT. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Taste" is not a wikipedia guideline AFAIK. WP:BEBOLD is, however. BTW the AfD didn't fail, it just didn't reach any conclusion. andy (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the deletions nomination succeeded then did it? The over-eagerness to delete this and the Mayboroda article is quite bizarre, as if there was something personal in it. Never mind, I am sure that once they are both sourced and replaced things will be fine. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once articles are properly sourced things are indeed fine. Jolly good show, what? Unfortunately the Mayboroda article did not have those sources and nobody was able to come up with them, hence the deletion. Boo, hiss. You're welcome to try again if you can find the sources. As for this one, once the unsourced and otherwise dodgy bits have been removed it's revealed to be merely a slightly off the wall subset of a real article and hence the merge proposal. andy (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As andy wrote, "very little serious work has been done on this (the PROFAC concept) in the last half century while the orbital propellant depot is definitely moving forward." Since there are two distinct concepts, one of historical interest, there should be two different articles. Fartherred (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I am now sort of back. I see you have done something on it. great!

By the way, I am wondering why the Marwick part got deleted again? Can anyone explain please? Was there no sources? Was it not a sort of continuation of Demetriades' ideas? And by the way, what happened to Mayboroda again? this is becoming really amusing.. why does it not fit in it, o learned scholars? From the WIPO web-site page it becomes clear that Mayboroda's patents are based on the both Demetriades and Marwick. so what is the difficulty here again? Maybe my dear friend Andy knows? He knows everything it appears so And of course, in my opinion, although there is some logic in merging they should be kept separetely cos they are actually substantially different, i mean if you look at it deeply...not like....oh hey it;s all one!!! it s all about collecting something in space...great! let it be one... they may serve different, independent purposes..Andrew Swallow is absolutely right here by the way!!! (Ivan.sychev108 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sensing an emerging consensus not to merge. As to the rest, the former Marwick section was indeed totally unsourced. The former Mayboroda section had nothing but a few patent numbers (per WP:SPS: "Self-published media, such as ... patents ... are largely not acceptable as sources"). In my view, both sections were unhelpful, since they asserted solutions existed, but didn't describe them. Obviously, the article can still use good quality material backed up by reliable sources, if such sources can be found. -- 202.124.74.61 (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article name (was PROFAC ? now Propulsive fluid accumulator ?)

The present name is less than desirable, being a WP:NEO, although I confess to having no clear idea for an alternative. Any ideas? Or should we just merge, as suggested above? 202.124.73.104 (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the name to that of the original concept. andy (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than merge, we could ensure link from propellant depot to this article. - Rod57 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest delete propellant depot section

Suggest we delete propellant depot section, as is not in scope. Any objections ? Could put in See also. - Rod57 (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]