Talk:Spaceplane

Spaceflight High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Archives

Archive 1

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Outer space#Boundary|space]] The anchor (#Boundary) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Mass deletion

~~see: List of spaceplanes~~

@5Ept5xW: I do not agree with your mass deletion. If you want to make a point on the current proposals or recent tests, go ahead, but deleting all other past concepts and tests is not acceptable. I'll give you time to reformat the article instead of resorting to a well-deserved revert. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rowan Forest: Viewers will likely be visiting this page looking for a concise, up to date explanation of what a spaceplane is. A list of historic spaceplane concepts is better off as its own article.

@5Ept5xW: Maybe. In that case, it is expected you post such request/idea in this Talk page, or even create (cut/paste) such list yourself. Deleting all that information collected over the years, is not acceptable. I won't revert for now, but please proceed to recover the deleted info by creating the list. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rowan Forest: Sounds as though you have been here a while. What's the deal with the 'C-class' ratings of this page and why haven't the issues been resolved?

I am not involved with the quality ratings and I ignore their usefulness, but am aware that it has to undergo a formal review to be upgraded to "Class-B" and "Good article". After addressing the list creation of the deleted information, you can request an assessment (requirements to meet) in order to upgrade it to Level-B; See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: Please sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~; The software will automatically add your username and time-stamp. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rowan Forest: please ping me if you are going to respond. trying the four tildes now:5Ept5xW (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rowan Forest: According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment 'Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.'5Ept5xW (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@5Ept5xW: Yes, but having an interested "main editor" such as yourself that gets the ball rolling, will easily attract other Spaceflight editors to collaborate to that end. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article titled List of spaceplanes could be the recipient of the deleted info, in the form of a subsection titled "Undeveloped concepts'. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A list article is wholly inappropriate for such a text-based history. I have restored it here until a properly-discussed consensus can decide whether it belongs in this article after all, or needs spinning off as a standalone History of spaceplanes, or should just be deleted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I think it a notable topic that needs coverage. Attempts should be made to bed it in here, and a new article created only if a proper consensus subsequently deems the article too unwieldly with it in. Mass deletion should only be considered if serious copyright violation appears likely. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Steelpillow. Mass deletion without prior discussion on the Talk page is not the way things are done on Wikipedia. Besides, it is counterproductive because no amount of mass deletion is so large that it can’t be reversed in the twinkling of an eye. Much better to win the agreement of interested Users by starting on the Talk page. Dolphin (t) 10:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow and Dolphin51: According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment 'Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.'5Ept5xW (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I did read the foregoing. What are you trying to say here? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow: Not sure what you mean. Clearly the article needs a lot of work?5Ept5xW (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not have time right now to address the detailed content. I see that you are certainly doing a lot of work on it, for which you have my thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceShip III

A lot of bad content on SpaceShip III has had to be deleted. Since this spaceplane has officially been rolled out, is it worth a brief one-liner and article link yet? If so, would that be better included in with the SpaceShipTwo material, or in the separate section on ongoing programmes? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other orbital spaceplanes

On the page for the BOR-4, it lists it as an orbital spaceplane having 4 orbital flights. However, images show that it just barely went one "orbit" before reentering and used a near-suborbital trajectory. Should that be counted? Unbiquadium (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hazegrayart

It might be worth noting in the External Links section that the YouTube channel Hazegrayart has some very accurate renders of most of the unflown concepts here, as well as many other cancelled spacecraft.

-AAEexecutive (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me that these are necessarily "very accurate". Who says so? Why can we not just reference the source material they referenced? Do we really want our article sprouting dozens of links to an external site that has no editorial oversight? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating for current and near-future vehicles

Readers of the article would likely benefit if it were updated to briefly mention current and future vehicles that control atmospheric re-entry using aerosurfaces other than wings. Falcon 9 first stage grid fins are the current example; Starship booster grid-fins and Starship second-stage ailerons represent future examples. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know a fair bit about this. Please feel free to improve it yourself. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]