Talk:Spacebus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spacebus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Expand

Could someone please expand this article. It's almost too small to be a stub, and I am sorley tempted to {{prod}} it. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded it a bit. It still needs a lot more work. But now we can call it a stub? :) I'm having problems finding which company built what. Different sources say different things. Someone can fix, perhaps. And i didn't list all Spacebus 3000 satellites, it was quite a bunch... Kricke 00:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete re-writing

I change completly this article in June 2007, taking as reference the French version, writen by me, Guy Lebegue, the engineer who "invented" the name Spacebus™. The English translation was made by Shirley Compard, also retired from the Space industry, where she was Press attachee at the Les Mureaux Centre. --Friendly, Kasos_fr 10:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of ™

After reading a bit at MOS:TM, I'm inclined to think the use of ™ in this article isn't fully compliant with the Manual of Style. It says in part, "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." Does that mean we should trim some of them from this article? (sdsds - talk) 16:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no reason to use it in this article, and all of the instances should be removed, per the manual of style. I'll do that, and I've removed the link to the French Wiki as a reference, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and shouldn't be used as a reference. Additionally, I'm removing the magic word of {{PAGENAME}}, as we don't use that in article space generally speaking, and I have reinstated the standard TOC. Probably they do things differently on the other Wikis, and no offense meant by any of this to whomever created/works on the article. Ariel♥Gold 21:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure

I could find no very logical place to add the (very relevant) information about the fate of Rascom QAF-1. The article simply doesn't talk about any failures of Spacebus satellites. This led me to reread the article, and now I wonder if the article is entirely balanced, or if it seems to promote Alenia-built satellites? It might be intrinsic in the current structure (i.e. the section headings)... I'm honestly not sure. (sdsds - talk) 05:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

En fait, seulement 2 Spacebus ont eu un problème majeur lors de leur mise en orbite: TV-SAT1, le premier satellite allemand de télévision directe en 1987, une vieille histoire, et ce Rascom. Mais les contrôleurs travaillent dessus tous les jours pour lui faire atteindre l'orbite géostationnaire. Par contre, ne pas parler d'Alenia-built. La construction du satellite a débuté dans les années 2000, la société s'appelait Alcatel Space, devenue ensuite Alcatel Alenia Space, en 2005, puis Thales Alenia Space, maintenant (voir l'historique dans la version fraçaise de Cannes Mandelieu Space Center. I hope you read French?--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with a little help from babelfish! It is common for Wikipedia articles about expendable launch systems to be very explicit in their coverage of the success record of the system. We report how frequently Proton rockets fail; we discuss at length whether a particular Falcon 1 launch should be counted as a success or failure, etc. Wikipedia has much less thorough coverage of satellite bus technologies. (And the Spacebus article is one of the best, by the way. Compared to e.g. the coverage of the Boeing 702 and the Space_Systems/Loral#1300_series_platform, the work done on this article is spectacularly great!) But anyone studying a satellite platform wants to know about its historical reliability. How many fail to reach their orbits? How many of the spacecraft have had on-orbit lifetimes that met their design objectives? The GPS satellites article has some of this information, for example. I don't think this information needs to be in the lead section, though. So for this article I wonder, is there a sensible new section to add where this material could be covered? (sdsds - talk) 23:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour votre compréhension de la langue de Molière. Je continue donc dans ma langue maternelle.

Comme vous pouvez le découvrir dans ma page utilisateur, je suis retraité de l'industrie spatiale, et plus précisément du Centre spatial de Cannes Mandelieu, (Cannes Mandelieu Space Center), et je connais assez bien l'histoire de la famille Spacebus, et c'est donc moi qui ai rédigé l'article Spacebus sur WP francophone avec une version anglophone que je m'efforce de garder rigoureusement au même niveau.

Comme je l'ai dit (voir tableau), à part 4 qui ont été perdus lors d'un échec de lancement, mais ce n'est pas de la faute des satellites, UN seul a été vraiment perdu lors de sa mise à poste (TV-SAT). L'incident rencontré sur RASCOM est le premier incident "sérieux" depuis 1987 (plus de vingt ans). Mais pour l'instant, ce n'est qu'un incident, le satellite n'est pas (encore) perdu. Et je mettrai à jour la rubrique au fur et à mesure de la parution officielle des événements (lecture le la presse spécialisée). Je ne publierai aucune information dont je peux bénéficier tous les jours dans mon ancienne entreprise. Il en est de même pour les articles sur l'aéronautique et les divers accidents sur des avions.

Mais bien évidemment, quelques autres Spacebus ont eu des petits soucis en orbite qui ont été généralement corrigés. Mais il faudrait se replonger dans la littérature spécialisée depuis plus de vingt ans pour voir ce qui s'est raconté! Or, je n'ai pas à mon domicile une telle collection. Mais, c'est promis, si je trouve un jour un événement marquant ayant causé un grave problème (qui ne peut pas avoir entrâiné de perte humaine, heureusement, comme cela se traduit pour un accident aérien), je mettrai le commentaire adéquat dans le tableau du Spacebus correspondant.

Nota: si vous avez une traduction dans la langue de Sheakspeare de ce que je viens d'écrire, mettez-la ici, je vous en serai très reconnaissant. Friendly, --Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography section

I think that this section adds very little to the article, and should be removed. It is just a list of articles from one magazine. What is the point of it? --G W… 07:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Revue aerospatiale was an international magazine, published during 30 years, fully writen in both French and English during 17 years, between 1983 and 2000. It was saled in press shops. It covers a lot of sujects in the aerospace domain, writen by scientific or economic journalists. They can be found in good libraries, waiting for Internet publications by Google in the future, why not ?--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what does it add to the article? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection on information. We don't need a list of every article, book and website ever written about the subject. It's the same principle as WP:LINKFARM. --G W… 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but all articles quoted concerns Spacebus satellites. I will suppress those concerning specific satellites, like Turksat, Arabsat, .. leaving only those describing the plateform itself ans its improvements.--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could they be converted to inline references instead? That way, all the content could be preserved (including the ones about individual satellites). --G W… 15:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subsections

We don't need subsections for every single variant that has ever been produced. There isn't enough information to justify it, so the article just looks a mess. One section for each major variant (100, 300, 2000, 3000, 4000) is enough, unless more information can be added (that isn't already covered here or in List of Spacebus satellites. --G W… 08:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Spacebus. 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:

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) 09:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Spacebus. 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:

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) 07:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Caspk PSTSBN 103 SBNEO illust r8.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]