Talk:Sedan Crater
 | The contents of the Sedan Crater page were merged into Sedan (nuclear test) on 10 March 2024 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Update the link to current tours
[edit]https://www.nnss.gov/pages/PublicAffairsOutreach/NNSStours.html is the current link.
Visibility from space
[edit]OK, so you don't believe me, but your source is just wrong, that's all. See: [1]. --IvoShandor (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's a common misconception that very little is visible from space, so I can see how the source made such an error. Anyway, I removed the info, the link above should confirm everything. --IvoShandor (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK reworded to show intent that it is with the unaided human eye. Of course most objects, even small animals are viable from space using high powered lenses and other tools. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well I don't know about the animal thing, for instance, most Google Earth images are not taken from space, but from planes within the atmosphere. However, I am okay with your clarification, save one minor thing, I think the word "few" is misleading, or perhaps a bit inaccurate, there are more than a few objects visible, and if we wanted to get really into a semantics argument it could be argued that a crater isn't an object at all, but some kind of man-made land formation. But I am not really into arguing and don't think it's a huge deal, make whatever changes you feel appropriate, I just don't want the article to be misleading or inaccurate, that's all. --IvoShandor (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I know this is a ten year old argument, but I edited it back to "from space" as that is all the source provided says. It makes no mention of "with the unaided eye" or "from Earth orbit" and I believe the term "from space" in the source is so vague it borders on hyperbole. If there are no arguments, I would like to remove the reference to this fact entirely as the claim is undefined, unless someone can come up with a better source (and perhaps pictures?). Sunberet (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that "can be seen from space" is better, and that it still doesn't make much sense and would need clarification from a different source. It would be fine with me to remove the claim until a better and more meaningful source shows up. --Jhertel (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I deleted the sentence and kept the source. I'll keep my eyes open for a better one. Sunberet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that "can be seen from space" is better, and that it still doesn't make much sense and would need clarification from a different source. It would be fine with me to remove the claim until a better and more meaningful source shows up. --Jhertel (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I know this is a ten year old argument, but I edited it back to "from space" as that is all the source provided says. It makes no mention of "with the unaided eye" or "from Earth orbit" and I believe the term "from space" in the source is so vague it borders on hyperbole. If there are no arguments, I would like to remove the reference to this fact entirely as the claim is undefined, unless someone can come up with a better source (and perhaps pictures?). Sunberet (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well I don't know about the animal thing, for instance, most Google Earth images are not taken from space, but from planes within the atmosphere. However, I am okay with your clarification, save one minor thing, I think the word "few" is misleading, or perhaps a bit inaccurate, there are more than a few objects visible, and if we wanted to get really into a semantics argument it could be argued that a crater isn't an object at all, but some kind of man-made land formation. But I am not really into arguing and don't think it's a huge deal, make whatever changes you feel appropriate, I just don't want the article to be misleading or inaccurate, that's all. --IvoShandor (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK reworded to show intent that it is with the unaided human eye. Of course most objects, even small animals are viable from space using high powered lenses and other tools. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Radioactivity?
[edit]Anyone know the level of radioactivity exposure? Is it safe for tourists to explore there? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 02:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's certainly an interesting question, and damn hard to find an answer. This article has a suggestion... that apparently the radiation levels are within safe limits at this point. Of course that there are signs warning of radiation hazards suggests that the area contains unsafe zones. I've gotta agree though, it's an odd thing... fiction and the media seem to hammer home the finality of radiation in a post-atomic world, and discusses how long radioactive waste takes to decay. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Program vs. programme
[edit]Can & Worms I suspect. Recent spelling edit chaanged programme to program & I'm not certain this is correct. In English, program is used in reference to a computer programe, and programme is used for all other senses of the word, this is another sence of the word, but I will leave it as I'm not too fussed & happy with the grammer anarchy.
- Not in the US where we only use program. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I fogoton u guys ruled English now Steve Bowen 22:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not true. However it is a US related article where the major early work was done by a US editor. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I fogoton u guys ruled English now Steve Bowen 22:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Number of annual visitors
[edit]The 10,000 visitors per year figure is outdated and incorrect. Though I'm aware the source for that figure is official and legit, it cannot be currently correct and gives the wrong impression of the site.
Aside from occasional special programs, the only way to visit the site is the Monthly Community Public Tours which only allow up to 50 people and happen once a month. That is at most 600 people/year. https://nnss.gov/community/monthly-community-public-tours/ Stoic Correction (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)