Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight

Main page   Discussion   Members   Assessment   Open tasks Popular pages   Recognized content   Newsletter   Awards   Portal Relevant entries in OpenStreetMap Use the "overpass turbo" link in the upper right corner for details / coordinates aeroway=spaceport / aeroway=launchpad / aeroway=landingpad company=aerospace / aerospace:product logistics=spaceflight / logistics=aerospace other aerospace values such as faculty=aerospace Astronautix.com a reliable source? Mark Wade's site has been brought up in many FACs, with the self-published nature of the site considered a strike against its reliability. Mark Wade is a reliable source, per the American Astronautical Society's History Committee. I have found errors in his work, but no more, and not more egregious, than I've found in "reliable" sources including encyclopedias and the NSSDC. That said, I tend to use other, more direct sources when I can, but I would not disqualify something from Featured status for citing his work. :) --Neopeius (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC) I disagree with nothing you've said, Neopeius, especially the serious attempt to find other more direct sources whenever possible. That said, the place to have this discussion is on the reliable sources noticeboard if you want anything to stand up when later discussed on various spaceflight-related Talk pages. (and then, if you do that, come here, and INVITE spaceflight editors to the topic discussion on RSN). Just my 2 cents. N2e (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC) The RSN has ruled that it is a reliable source; but FAC requires high quality reliable sources. What makes a reliable source "high quality"? Nobody knows; it is decided by consensus on a case-by-case basis. Spaceflight editors are required at FAC, not RSN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Where is the discussion of Mark Wade at RSN? Just for my morbid curiosity... :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)::::Not much: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190#Johnston's Archive - self published site. TJRC (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Other discussions, not at RSN: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 4#Use of astronautix.com - reliable source? and Talk:International Space Station/Archive 13#Sourcing problem: astronautix.com Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Ah, these predate the HistCom's awarding of the Ordway Award. If a committee of the top space historians in the country (including NASA's historian, the NASM historian...and also me ^^;;) consider a fellow reliable, then who (the hell) are we to argue? :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC) The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject 881 UTC Aerospace Systems 5,052 162 Unknown Unknown 125 Zhurong (rover) 32,777 1,057 Stub Mid 173 Oleg Novitsky 25,131 810 Stub Mid 253 Yusaku Maezawa 19,172 618 Stub Unknown 269 Yulia Peresild 17,830 575 Stub Unknown 312 VSS Unity 15,728 507 Stub Low 361 Victor J. Glover 13,119 423 Stub Low 457 Long March 7 10,865 350 Stub Unknown 477 Space diving 10,459 337 Stub Low 548 Heavy-lift launch vehicle 8,936 288 Stub Low Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Units of thrust used in articles about SpaceX launch vehicles There has been some discussion about the units of thrust used in various articles about SpaceX launch vehicles. This followed one editor's across the board change of all articles about those launch vehicles (to make the primary unit of force "tonne-force".) Most of this has taken place on the SpaceX Starship talk page. One editor felt that thrust should be primarily expressed in tonne-force, because of a tweet my Mr. Musk which seemed to prefer this unit. The discussion has run the usual fourteen days, and it looks like four other editors feel this is inappropriate, because it is not a SI unit and because SpaceX itself (as opposed to a tweet from the company's CEO) uses kN. I think that decision has reached a conclusion and a consensus, to shift back to kN as the primary unit. But since this affects multiple articles, I would like to make sure there are no objections from people following the Spaceflight Project. Fcrary (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Being largely away from editing these days, I was not aware of the changes and associated discussion. I would join the dissenting editors in preferring the SI unit kN, which allows easy comparison between various launch systems. — JFG talk 12:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Discussion at Karman Line There is a dicussion at Karman Line that may interest members of this community over if NASA and the FAA recognize the boundary between air and space as 100 km or 50 mi.Garuda28 (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Thanks, Garuda28. And to editors who care about the matter of the "beginning of space" or the "edge of Earth's atmosphere", there is even a somewhat broader topic on that Talk page in the section right above that one, started earlier, but with little input. So if the topic is interesting, please do look in on it. N2e (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Lynk Global With their fifth test satellite in orbit, I decided to create a new article for the company Lynk Global. Satellite to cell phones, global reach, could be big; or it could be just another failed space telecommunications play. Either way, the obviously notable company needed an article, and with plans to get to a 5000-sat megaconstellation if they can successfully execute and their 5th sat in orbit, it was time. Would appreciate other spaceflight-interested editors reviewing it, and enhancing it if you wish. N2e (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Lithobraking I think this article is very suspicious. Searching with google gives two types of results: 1) obvious copies from the article 2) references to the video game Kerbal Space Program from 2015. The article was created in 2004. This version contained a reference to this website with cartoons ("Tongue-in-cheek term apparently coined Jan. 05, 2004 by Illiad"). It appears that the following happended: The term appeared in a cartoon in 2004 Someone created a wikipedia article in 2004 People copied the article A video game from 2015 used the word (inspired by wikipedia?) The word become more popular because of the video game I discovered all this because someone translated the article to German. The deletion is discussed right now in de.Wikipedia. Do you think this article can remain in en.Wikipedia? --Kallichore (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC) Coming for us in 2021: new methods of spaceflight will mean new descriptive terminology will be needed It seems 2021 is the year. After less than ten private persons got to orbital space in the entire past two decades from options provided by the Russian Soyuz orbital space capsule flights to the ISS (7 actually, 2001–2009), plus 8 more if we add in the SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo test pilots (2004–2020 total of 7) who have flown to suborbital space, the total number is still only 15 from 2001 through 2020. That number is going to now rise rapidly! With the opening up of commercial spaceflight this year—Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo suborbital option, Blue Origin's New Shepard suborbital option, and SpaceX's Crew Dragon private orbital option all are taking their first non-government sponsored people to space in 2021—some of our existing definitions and practices in the Wikipedia endeavor to explicate spaceflight for a global encyclopedia readership will be tested. Moreover, the roles and functions of people going to space are going to both blur, and expand. Terms we have used broadly in Wikipedia articles up to now ("crew", "crewed spaceflight" [replacing the former, and now deprecated "manned spaceflight"; almost a find-and-replace in hundreds of articles], "astronaut", and other terms I imagine, will soon come up for discussion, in multiple articles. We have some terms that are already worked into a few articles, for example commercial astronaut or spaceflight participant, but the word "crew" and "crewed spaceflight" is still ubiquitous in Wikipedia human spaceflight articles. Here's an example of questions I would expect us, as editors, to have to deal with in the coming months: Am I "crew" if I spend 15 minutes on a suborbital spacecraft in an autonomous capsule? Would I be "crew" if the capsule were flown by a couple of pilots, but I need to do nothing other than strap myself back into my seat after a few minutes of weightless flight? What if I have to help another person get strapped back in? What if the private company trains me to help my neighbor in the spacecraft under certain circumstances? Would I be "crew" on an autonomous orbital space capsule that spends four days in orbit, and all four people need to do a few things aboard the craft that, if we were on a ship or a jetliner, we would have "crew" working for the transportation operator doing for us? (stow things for safety, prepare meals, clean up the toilet to deal with exigencies, ...) Does a person being "crew" make it a "crewed spacecraft"? If there are no persons in the "crew" role, would it still be a "crewed spaceflight"? or merely be passengers on a flight to space? I would not suggest we debate all the many possible questions here, right now, in this section. I do think it would be useful to think about how we, as Wikiproject Spaceflight participants, might suggest we address the topic. One alternative is to just let it get dealt with on any article pages where it comes up. But my sense is there is probably a better way, and it could be valuable for the project for us to discuss this topic proactively. Interested in what others think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)