Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Template:Rocket engine proposal.

Hey! It's me again! Thanks to all for helping me improve the rocket engine templates. I've been working on a nav template Template:Rocket engine (its in my user space) for the concept of rocket engine. Please note the dangerous similarity in name with the recently discusses Template:Rocket engines, which is plural and has different caps. I believe that now that the latter is better scoped, we should rename it to Template:Orbital launch vehicles rocket engines. But that is a different discussion.

This Template:Rocket engine is currently not ready to go into an article, but I believe that it is a good tool to navigate in a glimpse all concepts about rocket engines and, at the same time, to have an idea of areas to enhance regarding rocket engines in Wikipedia. Basically, everything in black should be worked on. This is a big undertaking, and I will need help. I will ping some of you just to get an opinion and post this same request on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation since all use rocket engines. As usual, please respond on the template's Talk Page. Baldusi (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, "rocket engines" exist for more thing that just orbital launch vehicles, so using that for only orbital launch vehicles would be inappropriate. The most common and most widely used rocket engines in the world are found in model rockets, toy rockets, and rocket-propelled munitions, like RPGs. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I concur that I would like to rename that template. But that's also why I'm proposing my version of a template for generic terms of rocket engine. If and when we put that in main space, we can think of renaming the other template. In any case, this discussion would be better held on the template's talk page.Baldusi (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:Fallen Astronaut

I've had good luck with this before, so I'll try it again. Human3015 (talk · contribs) insists on categorizing the Fallen Astronaut article as Category:Tourism on Moon. Please take a look and weigh in there; WP:OR or WP:CRYSTAL? What say you? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Orbital airship

Hi, the orbital airship article looks to me like a single commercial company pushing an impossible scam. I have started a discussion on its talk page at Is this for real?. Contributions gratefully received. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This article now carries a WP:PROD deletion nomination -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. My apologies for forgetting to notify this Project. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Reg docking port in the Info Box Template

Hi All,

I'm new to wiki and I recently started my contribution to wiki.

This is regarding the docking port information in the Info box (Right Side of Wiki Page) for Soyuz-TMA-16M.

Recently you might have heard about the soyuz relocation from Posik module to Zvezda module.

In this case, please suggest how I can provide multiple docking information in the Info box.

Currently I can't provide this information in Soyuz-TMA-16M page since the template is used in multiple pages and it may end up with a mess.

Apologize for any violation of this questions. Thanks!

Thanks, Anand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandvn (talk • contribs) 17:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Orbital airship for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Orbital airship is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbital airship until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Calling all British members (Sept 2015 to March 2016)

Cosmonauts: Birth of the Space Age Exhibition

Opens 18 September 2015 at the Exhibition Road in South Kensington, London

Cosmonauts will reveal the most significant collection of Russian spacecraft and artefacts ever to be shown in the UK, including: Vostok 6: the capsule flown by Valentina Tereshkova, the first ever woman in space Voskhod 1: the first multiple-crew spacecraft LK-3 Lunar Lander: a single cosmonaut craft built to compete with Apollo a collection of gadgets that cosmonauts – and pioneering space dogs – need to live in space, including a shower, toilet, medical instruments and survival kits for crash landings."

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/visitmuseum/Plan_your_visit/exhibitions/cosmonauts.aspx

We could really use pictures of the LK Lander and its docking system. I would go myself but I live about 5,000 miles (8,000 km) away.--Craigboy (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"Miniaturized satellite" vs. "Smallsat"

Please weigh in on a Move discussion going on. The proposal is to change the article named "Miniaturized satellite" to "Smallsat" The discussion is here. N2e (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for eyes on Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

An IP user has continually re-added what I consider to be original research (synthesis) to this article, to the effect that the requirements for the Manned Spacecraft Center site were met by Cape Canaveral, implying that it should have been located there. I seem to be the only one who cares (unless silence indicates consensus), because there have been no other non-minor edits on the page besides myself since June 29, and this started on June 19 this year. (This user has been using seven different IP addresses, but it's pretty obvious it's all the same person.) Could someone else check this out and weigh in? Am I completely off base? Thanks. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I believe you are right. But it would probably be better if said user could be reached and the situation explained. The irony is that should he chose to first write a blog about it and then quote it, I would be acceptable. But what he does is original research.Baldusi (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree in that it lookslike WP:OR and WP:Synthesis. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss it with him, both at the article talk, and on his last 2 IP address talk pages. He has responded, but negatively with "censorship" and "not cooperating", refuses to acknowledge original research. Thanks for the responses. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI: I thought this troll gave up and went away, but somehow I missed that he had come back on August 30 to put the same nonsense in Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. (He also started originally on Mercury Control Center.) Might want to watch these three, though it might turn into a game of whack-a-mole (what fun). JustinTime55 (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thousands of Nasa Apollo mission photos uploaded online

The Project Apollo Archive project placed on the photo-sharing site Flickr more than 8,500 photos from the program, rescanned from original versions into high-resolution formats. The project expects to have about 13,000 images online by the end of this week.see BBC article here. all the best --Golan's mom 11:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by אמא של גולן (talk • contribs)

White House Astronomy Night

I've created a new article on White House Astronomy Night.

Suggestions for additional WP:RS sources would be appreciated, at Talk:White House Astronomy Night.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with the WikiProject Spaceflight to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."

Please see the idea at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015. please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Skyhook article and Skyhook1 sock puppet

Hello. last winter User:Skyhook1 was banned indefinitely for persistent introduction of original research at the Skyhook (structure) article, and for employing multiple sock puppets to revert all changes. A few weeks later, in January, he hijacked the SpaceX redirect "Space exploration technologies‎" [1] to publish his skyhook assay, and amazingly, it stayed there undetected until now. Please keep your eyes open for any similar redirects by him, and please report his sock activity. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

22 of his sock puppets blocked and counting: [2]. Expect him back. All socks are into space technology topics pushing POV on skyhooks. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Moon landing

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy § Moon landing

I've started a discussion there. I'm wishing to hear a few opinions. My question: Does this article satisfy what people are really looking for?. Cheers, Huritisho 22:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That's really more of an issue to be discussed with WP:SPACEFLIGHT and WP:MOON (and possibly WP:POLITICS or WP:HISTORY) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Those projects aren't nearly as active as this one. Also, I'm already familiar with some users here. Huritisho 12:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's only obliquely relevant to this project. Praemonitus (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

---

moved from WT:AST. Well, I want opinions on this Huritisho 08:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've left a reply at Talk:Moon landing, the best place for the actual discussion, now that notification has been given at relevant projects. Evensteven (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Corporate astronaut?

Dear spaceflight experts: Is there such a thing as a corporate astronaut? Is this woman one? Draft:Leslie Wickman —Anne Delong (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems like some private space companies will train their own astronauts. [3]. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be no evidence of widespread usage of the term "corporate astronaut" in the outside world. NASA calls privately-employed space travelers Payload Specialists, which would probably be the term for Ms. Wickman. But this isn't why this article was rejected; there is lack of evidence of notability and that she actually went into space, which I would consider a qualification for the term "astronaut" (despite a title Lockheed gives.) JustinTime55 (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Blue Origin vertical landing of a rocket that has exceeded the Karman line

Blue Origin put out a presser to announce that their New Shepard rocket flew suborbitally to space, and then successfully landed a vertical landing, early today US time. I've started a discussion on the Blue Origin Talk page, including a link to the press release. Will wait to update article until reliable source media cover the (rather historical) event. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

LISA Pathfinder

The LISA Pathfinder will be launched on Dec. 2, can someone please tag it accordingly for imminent launch? Thx. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

New Horizons talk page proposal

I've written down two proposals for the New Horizons article which I think are necessary in order to improve the article (at least the visual aspect of it). Before I start editing, I would like to get some feedback from other editors interested in the subject. Thank you. --Saxum (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposing to move this category and its children to "requested images"

Please see discussion at Category talk:Wikipedia requested images by subject#Proposing to move this category and its children to "requested images (of/in ...)". Thank you for your time. JJ98 (Talk) 17:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Landing pads

Now we are landing rockets on landing pads, we need to be able to support this in infoboxes. I propose that we should have a new {{Infobox landing pad/pad}} to deal with this case, and modify {{Infobox launch pad}} to have an additional "total landings" field. (Perhaps {{infobox spaceport pad}} might be a better name, once that change has been made.) I can't yet see any plausible scenarios in which the same pad might be used for both landing and takeoff, but I certainly can see the logic in clustering launch and landing pads together in a single facility, once the accuracy/safety aspects of powered landings are sufficiently resolved. What would other editors prefer? -- The Anome (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that the current launch pad infobox is insufficient now, and that separate infoboxes for launching and landing will be helpful. One other thought, since "landing pads" do and have existed, for other than rockets (e.g., helicopters, radio-controller aircraft, STOL aircraft, etc.), maybe {{infobox spaceport landing pad}} might work. Agnostic on the other questions. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Some rockets in development are planned for horizontal landing on a runway. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and such has already existed at Kennedy Space Center for the Space Shuttle. I notice we don't have infobox templates for airports or runways. How to generalize? JustinTime55 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not an {{Infobox spaceport}} template that can selectively handing both launches and landings? Having two different templates seems unnecessary. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Since we currently use {{Infobox launch pad}} for launch complexes (which contain multiple pads), an alternative to creating a new {{Infobox landing pad/pad}} might be rather to modify {{Infobox launch pad/pad}} with a "type=launch or landing" parameter so it handles both cases. I don't think the name change to spaceport is really necessary, since as I said we're using it for launch complexes (aka spaceports) now. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's being used for that purpose now, but considering we moved to more generalised spaceflight infobox templates, why not do the same with these launch/landing pad infoboxes? — Huntster (t @ c) 18:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess a name change wouldn't be so bad; we would still need an {{Infobox spaceport}} with a nested {{Infobox spaceport/pad}} which handles launches and landings. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Certainly, just as Infobox spaceflight has subtemplates. It would just serve as a one-stop shop for any spaceport function you might encounter. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well everyone seems to agree that its time for a new Infobox for Landing Pads with sub-templates, Why not start designing one now? - Ninney (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Space.com deadlinks

Came here after editing ISS Expedition 1, where I found that all but 1 of 12 Space.com sourced references lead to "404 Errors". I had already tagged 2, after trying to find a new link, then I found out it was a bigger problem, and was even mentioned on the talk page there, back in October 2011! 220 of ^Borg 09:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Thermal Management"

The usage and topic of Thermal Management is under discussion, see talk:Thermal management of electronic devices and systems -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hypergolic

On Category:Rocket engines using hypergolic propellant, I removed the following passage:

The following articles relate to rocket engines that utilise hydrogen.

Hypergolic propellant

Hydrogen is not hypergolic. Fixing a blatant mistake. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Two-line element set to Template:Infobox spaceflight

Is there any tool for quickly transforming TLEs to Infobox spaceflight orbit parameters? SkywalkerPL (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

SkywalkerPL, I know of nothing that would automatically format TLE data into usable infobox data. I use http://www.satellite-calculations.com/TLETracker/SatTracker.htm to at least convert TLEs into something readable and detailed, so you might find that useful. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Landing pads (part 2)

The previous discussion about converting {{Infobox launch pad}} to support landings got archived, so here's an update. I just updated {{Infobox launch pad/pad}} with these edits, and the document page is updated as well. I'm not entirely happy with it, as it is a little kludgy...the box was simply not set up to do this sort of thing. I'll continue to look into the best way to create a unified template for launches and landings, but this should do for now. I've mocked up an infobox here to show what Landing Pad 13 might look like if LC-13 and LZ-1 data were mixed. Let me know what you think. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Space Shuttle missions

I have re-nominated this article for FLC. If anyone has time, a review would be wonderfully appreciated. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 23:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Upcomming launch ExoMars TGO & lander

The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter is scheduled for lunch launch in 14 March (3 weeks from today) on a Proton rocket; can somebody please add that template with the time-counter thingie? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, it's actually too early to have a Wrapper on the article. Generally the wrapper would be shown 7-10 days prior to launching with time specified. I had updated the wrapper with next Proton launch & would enable it in the first week of March. Refer [Launch Wrapper Templates] for updating next launches of any spacecrafts.-Ninney (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Spaceports

Hi, all. I've come across Kumasi International Airport which is listed under Category:Spaceports in the Ashanti City-State and Category:Space program of the Ashanti City-State. But I can't find this location listed on Spaceport. So, is this a valid spaceport location? Thanks for any insight you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so; I see no evidence this airport is a "spaceport". Looks like either vandalism, or an ESL problem. At the very least, the edit calling it a "spaceport" looks of questionable competence (repeated, overlinked phrase.) JustinTime55 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

List of X-planes and images

Should the List of X-planes include images? I have started a discussion here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Italics for spacecraft and OLV names?

Spacecraft names

Per MOS:ITALICS, consensus practice is to italicize the names of spacecraft (e.g. Voyager 1, Space Shuttle Challenger) (but not missions, see JustinTime55's comment below). Recently, Hillbillyholiday boldly de-italicized the names of all spacecraft in many astronomy-related articles, giving as a rationale that NASA does not italicize the names of spacecraft, which is true. (See discussion at Talk:Venus#Italicizing craft.) Likely because NASA does not italicize, most inexperienced editors also do not italicize the names of spacecraft, resulting in many sub-FA class and lesser-watched articles having inconsistent application of italics for spacecraft names. The question at hand is: should Hillbillyholiday's bold edits be reverted, or should spacecraft names be de-italicized across Wikipedia? A2soup (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I should point out that I did not de-italicize all spacecraft. I was merely going by the NASA style guide which states:

All orbiter names should be capitalized [sic] (e.g. Atlantis, Columbia, Discovery). We also italicize lunar module and command module names (e.g. Eagle, Columbia, Odyssey, Aquarius ). We do not italicize mission names (STS-44, Apollo 11). All ships should be italicized (e.g. the Hornet , the Enterprise ). We do not italicize the names of probes and robotic spacecraft (e.g. Voyager, Cassini).

This project does not have a lot of FA-class articles to go by, but all those that mention spacecraft follow the NASA style. (Apollo 8, Hubble Space Telescope, Laika, Glynn Lunney, Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., and Gerard K. O'Neill)

Across the rest of WP the italicization is indeed wildly inconsistent, often within articles. The MOS says we italicize: Spacecraft (often fictional): the Space Shuttle Challenger, USS Enterprise NCC-1701, Constitution-class starships. I think this needs to be expanded/clarified as I doubt anyone expects Saturn V or the ISS to be italicized yet they are both "spacecraft".

Taking Voyager 2 as an example: NASA says don't italicize, Britannica doesn't, and nor do the vast majority (~90%) of books I checked via googlebooks. Anyway, I now see there have been discussions on this project in 2011 and at the Village Pump in 2015. Both ended without clear consensus, except that people would like consistency. Perhaps we need an RfC at MOS:ITALICS? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 10:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup: I disagree with your assertion that we established a consensus to italicize all spacecraft names; we did not. We basically follow the NASA rule: the MOS says "Named, specific vessels" are to be italicized:

• Spacecraft (often fictional): the Space Shuttle Challenger, USS Enterprise NCC-1701, Constitution-class starships"

and that's perfectly consistent with the NASA rule. I agree with Hillbillyholiday: Voyager 1, Apollo 11, etc. are mission names, not vessel names. It might be argued that a name like "Voyager" is a class-name, in which case "Voyager 1" (italicize the name but not the number) might be appropriate (but maybe not.)

All of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo mission pages follow the NASA rule. Do you propose changing all of them?

This underscores the fact we really need to work on our Spaceflight project guidelines, which we've been talking about for a while. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, that's a fairly fine distinction I missed in the MOS. I wonder, though: when you write something like "Voyager 1 flew by Uranus in 1986" or "The Mars Climate Orbiter was destroyed on arrival at Mars", you are clearly referring to the spacecraft themselves, although the mission names are the same. In fact, while "Apollo 11" usually refers to the mission since the spacecraft have different names (Columbia, Eagle), I think that probe names usually refer to the spacecraft, not the mission, since the spacecraft does not have a distinct name. I think it would be silly to italicize or not italicize "Voyager 1" depending on context. What would you suggest in light of this? I am personally neutral - I just want a clear guideline established. A2soup (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

OLV names

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was orbital launch vehicles are generally not named, specific vessels per the MOS:ITALICS guideline. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

---

I asked this question on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) but was redirected here, although OLV names are not actually being discussed here.

Hereby I want to ask should orbital launch vehicle names (such as Falcon 9 v1.1) be italicized or not? You can chech proposals on WP:VP (proposals) with drawing parallel between writing ship names (non-)italicized depending on whether they are occupied by human or not.

My suggestion is to follow "OLV Falcon 9 v1.1" analogy to the "HMS Victory" with italics in both examples [if we do not take in account this argument of "(non-)occupied by humans"; "OLV" stands for "orbital launch vehicle"]? Thus, I suggest italics for OLV names.

What about these italics here, in the beginning? Should they be removed or not? What about italics inside the text of Falcon 9 v1.1 for some rocket names (e.g. Falcon 9 full thrust)?

One more thing: If there’s no rule in MOS to stop me, can I put on my own italics on .en Wikipedia or any other in both title and text of the article Falcon 9 v1.1 [for .sr I have the secondary source mentioned above that says "Write car names in italics.", and nobody has anything that says "Don’t use italics for names of OLVs."]? --Obsuser (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Strongly disagree I see no good reason to use italics for the Falcon 9. It is in no way analogous to "HMS Victory", for two reasons: 1) it's not a manned vehicle (we don't typically name unmanned ships, planes, etc.); and 2) as nearly as I can tell, it is not a reusable launch vehicle like the Space Shuttles were, but is at least partially expendable (the article doesn't seem to explicitly say, which I think is a failing.) We have a Spaceflight project consensus (which we need to formalize) that defines what the MOS term "named vehicle" means when applied to spacecraft. We do not italicize any orbital launch vehicles.

Those italics you see in the Falcon 9 full thrust introduction are being used for a different purpose, to highlight "also known as" phrases. (The MOS says: "Use italics when introducing or distinguishing among terms." MOS:ITAL) JustinTime55 (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I only know what I read in our article Falcon 9 v1.1, but it seems as if this launch vehicle is not reusable (although SpaceX plans in the future to make a variation that is reusable). So this makes it more like a warship class (like Iowa-class battleship rather than a specific vessel (like Iowa). Since no part of "Falcon 9 v1.1" is the name of a specific launch vehicle, no part of it should be italicized. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The point is, you have to understand the essential meaning of the phrase named, specific vessels as used in MOS:ITALICS (which is actually a more detailed guide than MOS:ITAL.) The sentence on spacecraft isn't detailed, but by its context you should see the analogy to ships above it (thus, Eagle, Columbia, Challenger, etc.) Giving it more thought, reusability isn't so important, since the named Apollo Command and Lunar Modules were certainly expendable. We don't italicize ship, plane, or spacecraft makes and models (which is what "Falcon 9" really is). The MOS also mentions trains and locomotives (again, specific), but we never italicize cars (make or model) in the English Wikipedia (unless someone chooses to name his car, such as Christine), regardless of what they might do in Suriname Serbia. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Following on from the above, the analogy of the italicisation of ship classes does not necessarily hold for OLV classes. The below taken from Lead ship#Naming:

Ship classes are typically named in one of two ways; echoing the name of the lead ship, such as the Pennsylvania-class battleships, whose lead ship was the USS Pennsylvania (BB-38), or defining a theme by which vessels in the class are named, as in the Royal Navy's Tribal-class frigates, named after tribes of the world, such as HMS Mohawk (F125). If a ship class is produced for another fleet, the first active unit will become the lead ship for that fleet; for example, the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates are known as the Adelaide class in the Royal Australian Navy. Larger civilian craft, such as the Sun Princess, the lead ship of the Sun-class cruise ships, sometimes follow this convention as well.

Essentially, when a ship class is italicised in the name, it is because it is named after the specific ship that formed the working prototype, and the ship itself would have an italicised name; in the example above, the ship class is the Pennsylvania-class battleship because it is "a class of ships like the USS Pennsylvania (BB-38)". To go with the "Falcon" example above, then it could only really be a Falcon-class OLV if it were a class of OLVs modelled on a ship called Falcon. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I still see Falcon 9 v1.1 as the specific name of only one OLV (nobody will ever again call OLV "Falcon 9 v1.1"). For me, "specific name" from your definitions or MOS is still not well and clearly defined.

While reading our article, I noticed the sentence "The November 2013 production rate for Falcon 9 vehicles was one per month." If Falcon 9 v1.1 were a specific vehicle, there wouldn't be a "production rate", there would be only one Falcon 9 v1.1.

Also, our article SpaceX CRS-7 tells us one of these launch vehicles "disintegrated" on July 28, 2015, yet subsequent launches of this launch vehicle have occurred. So obviously "Falcon 9 v1.1" is a model name, not a name for an individual launch vehicle. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

JustinTime55 mentioned locomotives. Related to that, I don’t see difference between Falcon 9 v1.1 and Union Pacific Big Boy. This is one perfect example: Union Pacific Big Boy, which is not italicized in the .en article consistently (title and intro do not have italics; infobox title does).

I see analogy leading me from "Union Pacific Big Boy" to "SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1" or better "SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1", i.e. we do need italics. Instead of "Falcon", OLV could have been called "Big Boy" or any silly or not silly name which is specific in any case equally. On the other hand, if it had name "SpaceX" or "SpaceX + something" (like Boing planes do, with extra numbers and stuff) – then I’d say we don’t need italics. Maybe I’m completely wrong, don’t know. --Obsuser (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are completely wrong, and I don't know how to help you understand that "Falcon 9 v1.1" is a model name. It flew 16 times, and never once did SpaceX give any of these vehicles unique names, as NASA did with its Space Shuttles Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour. Italics are not proper for "Falcon 9 v1.1", any more than they would be proper for "Space Shuttle", Saturn I, Saturn IB, or Saturn V. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Now I see what you want to point out. It is a model and was/is being produced by some rate; however, yes – however again, it is still "Falcon", "Mosquito", "Frog" or "SpaceX" – whatever name they give it – it is a unique name for either one or N models of that specific OLV.

Can you consider this: We have two OLV models called "Frog" and "Frog 2.0", or "SpaceX" and "SpaceX 2.0". How would you refer to these: just "Frog accomplished..." [capitalized at the beginning of a sentence] or "SpaceX delivered..." not knowing if it is SpaceX company or something?

It would be convenient to use "Frog accomplished..." or "SpaceX delivered..." i.e. "OLV SpaceX delivered..." as it is not important whether we have one OLV or ten of them produced for some reason; they are same indeed and article can never describe only one specific model; article describes that vehicle which has specific name and shares its function with some other also specific OLVs which might or might not have two or more produced instances... Problem I’m affected by is possible translation of "Falcon" and ambiguity. --Obsuser (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation is not a valid reason to change our text formatting style (and putting it in italics does not disambiguate anyway). We have never had a problem with ambiguity of model or manufacturer names; the meaning is always clear from context (if the text is written well), and we also have the advantage of using Wikilinks on first mention of a term. Existing real-world example: Saturn V; we always make it clear we're not talking about the planet or the Roman god. And the unwritten international translation rule is that proper names are never translated; when writing about the rocket, Falcon 9 remains "Falcon 9" in any language, and is not translated into the name of the bird. The Saturn (rocket family) article explains the origin of the name, and Falcon (rocket family) explains that Elon Musk chose the name based on the Star Wars Millenium Falcon. (Though I see the Millenium Falcon article does not seem to mention reference to the bird.) JustinTime55 (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we please close this now? You have written much, but failed to give a compelling reason to disregard our MOS:ITALIC style guideline. If you wish to get a consensus to change the guideline, you are welcome to try at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Good luck. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No need for anything else, thank you. --Obsuser (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

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.

"List of space programs"

List of space programs has been nominated for discussion at RfD -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"SpaceX CRS-8"

talk:SpaceX CRS-8 marks this as "low" importance. This seems rather odd, since it marks the first success in landing a rocket at sea, for future improved booster stage recovery percentages and reusability, so would be a milestone event in spacerockets. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the assessment criteria, I think the mission was given low importance because the commercial resupply missions are considered routine; they launch every few months and travel only to the ISS in LEO. This goes with the precedent set by most CRS-OA Cygnus missions.--Cincotta1 (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Lists

I am going to make a list of lists that need some work. Feel free to add to it, and definitely feel free to provide input.

• Lists of rockets
  • I believe this list should combine the military rockets and missiles lists. Taking a glance at the military rockets, they are at least mostly all missiles. Thoughts?
• List of sounding rockets
  • Should we red link the sounding rockets without pages to encourage people to write a page?
  • Could use some better sources. I love Astronautica as much as the next guy, but perhaps we could find some other sources?
  • Perhaps we could adopt a similar approach to these lists as WP:AVILIST?
• Timeline of rocket and missile technology
  • Missing quite a few historical events, if anyone has the time to update it.

This is just a starter project. Seeing if anyone has any interest, after this I am going to try to work on a lot of rocket and rocket engine related pages, as well as help out anyone that has a project. Let me know what you think of the above ideas for improvement. I'll post to the talk page of the individual lists before I edit them as well. Kees08 (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Astronaut task force

Hey all. I put a little effort into creating a page where we could have a group of people work on articles relating to the Apollo era astronauts. Ideally, I would like to get all of those articles to a minimum of B-class, which I would not be able to do by myself. Feel free to discuss on that section and provide feedback. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Launch vehicles

I think Small-lift launch vehicles, Medium-lift launch vehicles and Heavy-lift launch vehicles should be brought into the Spaceflight WikiProject. I've just done some work converting the list on the medium-lift page to a table to match the small-lift page, but it is still quite a mess and needs more expert help than I'm able or willing to give. --Korakys (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but I have added the wikiproject spaceflight banner to small-lift and mid-lift talk pages. Heavy lift already had the banner.--Cincotta1 (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecraft propulsion

An anonymous IP (87.254.76.130) was doing some heavy editing to the Space Propulsion article [4] up until a few hours ago - 19 edits to the Table of Methods, the Energy section, and the Example section.

The IP has also edited other articles, of which most edits seem to be related to that topic [5]. However, I am really unable to tell because I have not edited in this area very much. I think someone from this project who is familiar with this area should have a look and make corrections if needed. These might all be legit and helpful edits - or the edits might not be helpful. Thanks in advance. Regards. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I got my Master's in Propulsion, but that doesn't really matter because looking at the edits it appears as if they are mostly housekeeping (formatting tables, equations, etc). I don't think any material changes occurred with the propulsion article. If there are specific instances in the article you are concerned about, let me know and I will check out it. Thanks for keeping an eye out! Kees08 (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Links to music files

Hey there, looking for a consensus on this since it would change many articles.

Most manned missions have the wakeup calls listed (example here). They link to the music files on NASA's website.

Now most of those links are broken. It is fixable, but I personally don't think we should be linking to those songs anyways. I think the links to the wiki articles is enough. Although NASA probably got the proper permissions to post the songs to their webpage, I think it is extraneous and not value added.

I propose removing that column entirely from all of the articles. Opinions, suggestions, thoughts? Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Astronaut infobox update

Hey there, I am hoping to add some additional fields to the astronaut infobox, and was looking for input before I changed it.

Please direct the discussion to the talk page, located here. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kees08 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction: RM-81 Agena importance

@Cincotta1: It doesn't make sense to me that you rate the RM-81 Agena as low importance because it's "an upper stage", while you just ranked the Atlas-Agena which uses it, high importance because of its historical significance. There is also the fact that the Agena was used as the target vehicle for the Gemini program, which obviously enhances its importance. Should we consider revising our importance assessment guidelines? I personally don't go for an overly rigid, bureaucratic adherence to rules like this. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think my reasoning for giving the upper stages low importance is because they are subsystems of the vehicle and coverage of that article would overlap with the more important launch vehicles articles. There might of also been some precedent somewhere, where other upper stage articles were given low importance. After about 1500 assessments I am bound to make mistakes, so you can feel free to revise any assessments I make if you feel I am in error.--Cincotta1 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cincotta1: first of all just want to say I have really appreciated the work you have been putting in for assessing. You have really increased the quality of this WikiProject.

@JustinTime55: I agree that our importance guidelines need to be revised, I don't think we were adhering to them as-is, and it would be a good time to revisit them. With that, if Cincotta1 agrees and would like to head it up, I think it would be most appropriate for him/her to try to do a first draft, since they have just gone through 1500 articles and have a good feel for the importance scale. Cincotta1, would you be interested?

I personally would also be interested in revising our assessment scale to be more like MilHist's, it is much easier to assess to their standards because they are much more clear. Thoughts on all of this, from both of you (or other interested parties)? Kees08 (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply:

I am willing to try to rewrite the importance scale, but I would like some input on what everyone expects before I dive into it. As it stands I am not really following the published guidelines; I am relying more on precedents set in earlier assessments.

The guidelines for importance levels were written back when the project first started. I think that now we have a much better idea of what constitutes top, low, etc. I wouldn't mind if you made a subpage here or used your sandbox, and then rewrote the importance guidelines. What sort of input on what we all expect do you want? Kees08 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking for anything from the current assessment framework that absolutely must go/be kept. As well, any criticisms on what I have done so far assessing; right now all I have to say if I have been doing things right or wrong is this thread and a couple of thanks notifications.--Cincotta1 (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I looked at the military history assessment page. My thoughts:

• I like the idea of having multiple classes for lists (as opposed to the single list class) and don't think it would be too hard to implement something similar here.

• I agree, I think we should implement it. Kees08 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• I personally do not think we should remove the importance assessment from this project as was done at MilHist. I guess I would have to hear if people think it is useful to have

• Agree here as well. Kees08 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Using the B-class criteria in the C class could be a good way to ensure more of our articles are evaluated on that scale, added to the appropriate categories and etc.

• I definitely agree with this, this is the reason I brought up their criteria. Right now, ours are very subject to the reviewer. Clearly defined C-class criteria will make it easier to make the jump to B-class. Kees08 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm relatively new to the project, so I am not sure why we don't use the A class, but unless there was a reason I am fine with reinstating it like MilHist has done.--Cincotta1 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree here as well. Might contribute to why we have so few featured articles. Kees08 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think once we achieve a consensus that the guidelines could be improved, we should rewrite the assessment and importance criteria on a separate page, then come back here and get a consensus. Thoughts from anyone? Kees08 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the NASA Space Flight Medal has been nominated for discussion

Category:Recipients of the NASA Space Flight Medal, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Rename SpaceX CRS-n missions to Dragon CRS-n

Spaceflight editors may wish to comment on this global move discussion. — JFG ^talk 10:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Salyut 7, Skylab B

Hi there. I`ve found a very interesting information about two secret US suggestions that could have been take a place in th 70`s. The first is about an american idea to occupy abandoned Salyut 7 and send american shuttle to achieve military secrets and was approved by president Reagan. The second was to build a huge combined space station consisted of Skylab B (or even the first one) and Salyut 1. Of course none of this ideas have accomplished but it seems very special to me so I added this things to the articles. unfortunatley, my english is not as good as you expect so I request your help to help expanding the few lines that I`ve written.

Thanks, Tal (Ronaldinho The king) 12:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

and by the way, this project seems like a great idea, I would contribute as much as I can. Tal (Ronaldinho The king) 12:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to Salyut 7 because it is based on sensationalist, though amusing, speculation (as noted by cited article itself). The Wired story you quote in Skylab B sounds legit; thank you for adding it. — JFG ^talk 12:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I read the info about Salyut again and it did sound quite fabricated. I would probably expand Skylab by myself. Tal (Ronaldinho The king) 13:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

US (and Soviet) space program sidebars

To achieve parity with Template:Soviet space program sidebar, I just created Template:United States space program sidebar with similar layout. You are welcome to review this and add anything significant I may have overlooked (such as more modern space probes and launch vehicles). Note I chose to be inclusive of manned programs proposed but never funded (e.g. Space Transportation System and Manned Venus Flyby), following the lead of the Soviet sidebar which includes TMK, Buran, and Kliper. Assistance is welcome in transcluding this navigation template in the appropriate articles. The same is true for the Soviet template, which is currently included only in Soviet space program and Soviet space dogs (which is not linked in the sidebar). JustinTime55 (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

We have the normal navbars, so why are these sidebars, which get in the way of infoboxes and images (and don't they cause layout issues in mobile or somesuch?), needed? — Huntster (t @ c) 02:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I can only assume by "normal navbars" you mean those listed on Template:Spaceflight navboxes. There is no "Soviet (not Russian) space program" nor "United States space program" listed there, and none of these navboxes fill the same function a sidebar does by conveying that articles are "Part of a series of articles on (topic)". These two sidebars have collapsible lists and are not large enough to interfere with infoboxes and images. No one apparently has a problem with the sidebars Template:JFK series and all the similar ones for major historical Presidents (Washington, Lincoln, FDR, ...) and every recent President since Reagan, interfering with their infoboxes.

Nothing in the "unofficial guidance essay" or editing guideline says that sidebars are mutually exclusive of navboxes (just the opposite), or suggests that they interfere with infoboxes. As for images, the guideline says "The large chunk of highly visible screen space might be better used for images or essential information", but obviously this needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree in that by policy, they are not mutually exclusive, but in practice, they are a duplication, and the side-bar is significantly more intrusive (larger dimensions) than the navbar. My 2 cents. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pilot-Cosmonauts of the USSR has been nominated for discussion

Category:Pilot-Cosmonauts of the USSR, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Launching of OSIRIS-REx

Does anybody know how to add the impending launch header to this article? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean (I'm a complete beginner here), but are you looking for Template:future_spaceflights? 170.178.234.233 (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, OSIRIS-REx has launched but I think you are looking for Template:Launching. Golan's mom(talk) 12:06 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Wake Shield Facility page improvement

I'd like to suggest that a bit more clarity is given to the Wake Shield Facility article . As someone who knows nothing of the subject, it was not clear to me what an "ultra vacuum" actually is and what the advantage there is to doing these experiments on the edge of the atmosphere rather than in space. If anyone knows and can share that would be nice. 03:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)24.215.166.115 (talk)

Spaceacts citation

I was digging around Spaceacts (warning: unsecure link), and noticed it was an exact duplication of a NASA site. I recommend we replace all of the external links and citations to Spaceacts with the real NASA link. It looks like Spaceacts is dead anyways, as it routes you to another site. As an example of copying the info from NASA, Spaceacts Anders article vs NASA's Anders article.

I'll be replacing links as I go, just figured I would point out the filepath is the same on the NASA website, so you can pretty easily update it the NASA version.

Let me know if I got anything wrong, thanks! Kees08 (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It turns out that even the NASA page is a duplicate of this NASA page. It doesn't matter which NASA page you use, but I would recommend one per article, and I would recommend against the Space Acts page. Kees08 (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for revised assessment criteria

All,

After looking at a few other Wikiprojects, I wanted to propose some changes for our assessment. Please see the proposed changes at the link before. If I didn't propose it correctly, yell at me to fix it or feel free to fix it yourself. Thanks!

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Assessment/QualityV2Draft

Kees08 (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@רונאלדיניו המלך, JustinTime55, Cincotta1, Kees08, Craigboy, Frietjes, JFG, Rmvandijk, N2e, Ulflund, Nagualdesign, and WDGraham: Any thoughts by anyone? Hadn't received any responses yet. Let me know, thanks! Once we have a consensus, I am going to review every article in the backlog, I just wanted to have this done first. Kees08 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I am taking this that no one has any real strong feelings against it. I will give it until 10/14 for any comments (if any are received we will discuss til resolved), then implement it. We can always revert the edit that implements it. Kees08 (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kees08: The proposed new criteria look reasonable and I'd like to thank you for your efforts. — JFG ^talk 12:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of redundant lists of lunar missions

We have historically developed a List of lunar probes and a List of missions to the Moon whose contents overlap greatly. Please discuss the merge proposal. — JFG ^talk 14:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 7 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"climate research satellites" vs "earth observation satellites"

Greetings,

I noticed that there are two articles, List of climate research satellites and List of Earth observation satellites, that seem to have significant overlap. Both articles are in need of updates and improvements. Before I suggest a merge- is there a reason for the distinction?

Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much about the satellites specifically, but on the face of it, I would consider "Earth observation" ontologically to include "Climate research". Depending on how much the satellite perform observation functions besides climate research, it may therefore be worth merging the "climate research" list into a section of the "earth observation" list. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously a "climate research" satellite would necessarily be an "Earth observation" satellite, but not necessarily vice versa. I don't immediately see a need for both articles. That said, the climate research satellite article is arguably the one with the better formatting, so if you decide to merge, I'd use that one as the template for how the end-result article should appear. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Not sure when I'll have the time to do it, but I'll give a merge a shot. (I'll post a merge suggestion on the Earth Observation page for a few days first). Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Project goals

I have been looking at other projects to try to figure out what makes them more active and collaborative. As Sasuke Sarutobi (talk · contribs) pointed out, having goals for the project is very important.

I would like for us to develop some goals and put them on the front page of the project. I am going to suggest a couple of things, but I really want them to be based on what you guys want to do. I would like to set the goal deadline for the end of 2017, but that can be changed.

20% of all astronaut articles B-class or better.

5% of all cosmonaut articles B-class or better.

100% of all operational launch vehicle articles minimum B-class.

Minimum 75 Good Articles.

Minimum 15 Featured Articles.

Could also have a goal of a Good Topic. Or anything really. I am just coming up with ideas in general. What do you guys want to work towards in 2017? Kees08 (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Launching nominated for deletion

I nominated this template for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 15. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of "payload specialist" and "mission specialist"

I opened a discussion on the talk page of Payload Specialist and also advertised it on the talk page of Mission Specialist, suggesting they should be changed to lower case, but haven't heard "fine by me" or "not so fast" from anyone. If no complaints are lodged in the next few days, I'll move them. Not trying to be sneaky. Chris the speller ^yack 21:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"Space program"

Space program has been nominated for discussion at RfD -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment and importance guideline revision

@JustinTime55:

@Cincotta1:

It has been a few years since the assessment and importance guidelines have been addressed. I have created a page for each for us to discuss and edit. I would rather not clog up this page with a ton of discussion about it. Look forward to seeing you all at those pages!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Assessment/ImportanceV2Draft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Assessment/QualityV2Draft

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kees08 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Infobox spaceflight extension.

Please see my proposal to extend {{Infobox spaceflight}} in the Talk Page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldusi (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just added

Film of the historic Project_Excelsior jump

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas (talk • contribs) 00:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

GAR

SpaceX reusable launch system development program, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Kees08 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Changes to WPSPACEFLIGHT

FYI, we're discussing changes at WP:ASTRONOMY at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Unilateral_changes_for_this_project made by MartinZ (talk · contribs) that affect pages of this project. Notably, some changes have made spaceflight a subtopic of astronomy (which doesn't make sense) -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Suborbital spaceplane

There's been a suggestion to merge Suborbital spaceplane to Spaceplane since 2010. Please participate at the discussion at talk:Suborbital spaceplane. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Moved to talk:Suborbital spaceplane

 Redirected as there was no supplemental information to merge. — JFG ^talk 21:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Pad explosions in infobox

We are treating pad explosions prior to launch inconsistently for various rockets. Comments welcome at Template talk:Infobox rocket#How to count accidents prior to launch? — JFG ^talk 21:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Skyhooks

Opinions are requested for a proposed merge of recent article Non-rotating skyhook into the more generic Skyhook (structure). Please discuss at Talk:Skyhook (structure)#Merge overlapping articles. — JFG ^talk 19:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Settled. Somebody deleted the new article per WP:CSD#G12. — JFG ^talk 11:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 7/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Spaceflight, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

SpaceX CRS-11

SpaceX CRS-11 has a LOW importance rating. Shouldn't that be a bit higher since it's the first reused capsule? -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Astronaut class of 2017

All the new astronauts announced yesterday are currently proposed for deletion. Debate of notability of Ascans. Hektor (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Link to thread? I am not very familiar with AfD. I will comment on it later tonight. Thanks for the heads up! Kees08 (Talk) 17:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD thread is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonny Kim. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

{{SpaceX}}

The {{SpaceX}} template is getting huge. So I propose to split off the Falcon launches into a separate template

Hello, WikiProject Spaceflight. You have new messages at Draft talk:Template: SpaceX Falcon spaceflights.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Draft talk:Template:Falcon rocket launches

— JFG ^talk 23:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Recovery ships

Dragon aboard ship

Does anyone know what ships SpaceX uses to recover Dragon capsules after splashdown? -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Responded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Recovery ships, as that's where the discussion evolved. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/asds -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Blue Origin moon colony

We have an article on Elon Musk's SpaceX's Mars colonization effort. Do we have on article on Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin lunar polar colonization effort? [6] -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

There has been very extensive secondary source coverage of Musk's Mars plans, over 4 to 5 years now. I've not kept up with all the latest on Bezos/Blue Origin announcements, but do we have a half-dozen reliable secondary sources on Bezos plans? And is he just offering to sell stuff to government agencies or is he funding the hardware/software development and the missions and early colony build out himself? I don't know; but if not, that might argue for somewhat differential coverage of the two projects, at least until a few years pass and ongoing seriousness is shown. There have been an awful lot of "announcements" of Lunar plans that never got beyond powerpoint decks and whitepapers. YMMV. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Spaceflight IRC channel on Freenode

Hey all,

I started a channel for spaceflight on Freenode, ##wikipedia-spaceflight. I will be idling in it usually, at a minimum, and would love to talk spaceflight or collaborate on articles/projects. Wikipedia has a guide for connecting to IRC if you have not done so in the past. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 03:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Have you given thought to looking through the DRAFT-class and STUB-class articles for this project, and then bringing up interesting ones here? -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

On IRC? I mean I could, but it is me and a couple other users typically. I would be more than happy to help (with mentorship and with actual work) expand stubs, if anyone else happens to join the channel. I passively expand stubs through the various projects I have, but I can always do more! Kees08 (Talk) 05:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Depending on traffic, people reviewing the chat logs could go over stuff, and have the IRC channel function like a COTW /COTM forum. Incidentally, is this channel publicly logged? And if so, where is it logged to? -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Public logging is generally discouraged on Wikipedia channels, and I do not plan on logging this channel. Anyone is welcome to idle there and pick up whatever we happen to talk about. Kees08 (Talk) 07:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Julie Payette

FYI, astronaut Julie Payette is becoming the (defacto) head of state (GG) for Canada. So information about her might be showing up in various sources -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Merging Sunkar with Soyuz-5

In recent announcements, the Soyuz-5 name has been applied to the Sunkar project. Please take a look and comment at the merger proposal: Talk:Soyuz-5 (rocket)#Merge with Sunkar. — JFG ^talk 10:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Falcon 9 booster B1031

FYI, I have a draft at DRAFT: Falcon 9 booster B1031 which can be merged somewhere, if needed -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

First content made for Wikipedia in space!

ESA Astronaut Paolo Nespoli's spoken voice

The first ever content made in space specifically for Wikipedia was uploaded to Commons today, and is used on Paolo Nespoli. See Close encounters of the Wikipedia kind for how this happened. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful story, cosmic thanks to you Andy! — JFG ^talk 21:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Italics

Will somebody please explain to me when using italics is appropriate, and when it isn't, when writing about spaceflight?

I made a minor edit to Gravity assist when I noticed that "Luna 3" wasn't italicized like "Mariner 10" was. A quick look at the Luna 3 article told me that it should probably be italicized. Then I noticed other apparent contradictions so I visited MOS:ITALICS and learned that spacecraft names are italicized but mission names are not. Fair enough, I thought. However, there seem to be quite a few apparent exceptions to this rule, or inconsistencies. Mariner 10 for one. In the Gravity assist article "Mariner 10" appears both italicized and not. The Mariner 10 article itself does not use italics even when talking about the probe itself. My guess would be that (per MOS:ITALICS) if a spacecraft is not given a proper name (the name of the craft is the same as the mission) then we don't use italics, but then why do we italicize Cassini–Huygens?

Any advice would be much appreciated. I like to make edits that improve consistency. In the meantime I'll refrain from making any edits one way or the other, and just quietly grumble to myself. Cheers. nagualdesign 20:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Well noted. Personally I'd lobby to italicize every spacecraft, even if it's the same as the mission name. Perhaps we can signal this discussion at WT:MOSTEXT? The MOS:ITALICS guideline currently contains a blatant error, stating Also, most real-world spacecraft at this time are not given proper names, thus Apollo 11, Saturn V, Falcon 9, etc. are not appropriate, being mission names. Obviously, Saturn V and Falcon 9 are rocket names, not missions; and I would gladly see Apollo 11 italicized like Luna 3. — JFG ^talk 21:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Feel free to {{ping}} me if there's any further discussion. nagualdesign 16:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: @JFG: consensus has been established in Wikiproject Spaceflight that the italics style only applies to named, specific vessels such as Spirit of St. Louis, Columbia (Apollo 11 command module), Columbia (one of several specific Space Shuttle vehicles), etc., but not spacecraft mission names. This reflects NASA's style guide and common usage in other encyclopedias and reliable sources. Please review Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 7#Italics for spacecraft and OLV names? where this has been discussed here. Also the minor mistake about calling Saturn V a "mission name" has been corrected and does not disqualify the consensus; please check that again. You are defying this consensus by italicizing mission names. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to clarify things. So am I correct in thinking that Cassini–Huygens is italicized even though (according to the article) that was the name of the mission, which included the Cassini and Huygens spacecraft, because the mission itself didn't really have a separate name? And has the "Mariner 10" in the Gravity assist lead simply been italicized in error? Also, when you say, "You are defying this consensus by italicizing mission names", what are you referring to? The only edit I made was to italicize "Luna 3" in the Gravity assist article, since the Luna 3 article shows consistent italicization.

To be honest, you've only told me what I already knew and haven't really responded to the specific examples I cited, some of which are cases where the mission itself has a proper name and other cases where there has probably been a simple error (by who knows who). You seem to have mistaken me for somebody who wants to do things their own way, when I actually came here to ask how it's supposed to be done after I made a single edit. nagualdesign 01:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the above. It's the same principle as for ships; you italicise "USS Enterprise", for instance, but not "Operation Sea Orbit". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I know this already, having read MOS:ITALICS, but that doesn't really answer my questions, does it? What I really want to read is something like, "The Luna 3 article has been italicized in error," and, "Italics should be used for named, specific vessels (ie, proper names given to ships, aircraft, spacecraft, trains and locomotives) but not to mission names (eg, Apollo 11) unless the mission itself has also been given a proper name (eg, Cassini-Huygens)." nagualdesign 01:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: To clarify:

• I think it's appropriate to italicize Cassini—Huygens because each spacecraft was a one-off probe which qualifies for the rule (Cassini and Huygens). Sometimes unmanned space probes can be a tough call because they may be thought of as one-offs (e.g. "the Voyager probe"), but the fact they are followed by serial numbers (1 and 2) belies this and, I think disqualifies them from italicization.
• I didn't mean to imply you personally were disregarding consensus; note my response was combined to you and JFG, and I meant that JFG's preference to italicize was what went against consensus.
• I remained silent on the inconsistent state of italicization (e.g. Luna 3); I think the expectation that the state of the Wikipedia will always conform perfectly to policy and guideline consensus at every given point in time, is a bit naive. I am not surprised that there is inconsistent awareness, understanding and application of the style guide in this context.15:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it worth it to start a page on WP:Spaceflight MOS? Easier to find things there than buried in an archive. Kees08 (Talk) 00:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the further clarification, Justin. Putting my naivety to one side, I think I'll go and boldly remove the italics from the Luna 3 article, and de-italicize Mariner 10 and Voyager 1 in the Gravity assist article, with a note in the edit summary that links back here. I also agree that it would be worth starting a page on WP:Spaceflight MOS, Kees08. Cheers. nagualdesign 16:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for Brilliant Pebbles needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Brilliant Pebbles; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Create a page listing the less-used launch complexes at Cape Canaveral

After creating the requested page for Launch Complex 45, I realized that there is little enough information to get beyond a stub, and the same is true for several other launch complexes that have their own pages (e.g. LC-25, LC-6, and LC-47). Would it make more sense to create a page listing the various launch complexes at Cape Canaveral, and reserve separate pages for the highly-used complexes (e.g LC-39A, LC-34)>? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good to me; you could put a redirect on the pages that you already made to the new page you are planning to make. If there is ever enough coverage about the other complexes, we can always replace the redirect with an article. Kees08 (Talk) 19:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll get going on it in the next few days. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Actually, the list already exists: List of Cape Canaveral and Merritt Island launch sites. (Also, are you sure that's the right Roland linked from LC45)? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Good catch! I was unable to find that page. As for the missile, that was the only Roland missile I could find, and the source did say it was for testing of the Roland missile. But it does seem suspcious that they would use a launch complex for a SAM. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh, checking that source, turns out that was the Roland missile in question. [7]. Whoda thunk? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Great work, Balon Greyjoy. Glad you cleaned that article up. It's needed work for a long time. N2e (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

InSight launch site - Conflicting info at NASA

Because of the current edit war regarding the launch site for the InSight Mars mission, I looked at the most recent info from the InSight home page, which has 2 separate web pages quoting contradictory info:

• https://mars.nasa.gov/insight/mission/launch-vehicle/ quotes Cape Canaveral
• https://mars.nasa.gov/insight/mission/timeline/ quotes Vandenberg

I contacted the Mars Program and pointed out the contradiction. I don't expect a quick answer. Given that both pages/sources are from the same "reliable" entity, it is evident we can't quote one site over the other. For the sake of accuracy and civility, I request input for the best way to proceed. Should we quote both? Go back to the original (Vandenberg) since no announcement of launch site change was made? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page, there are more sources than just these pages. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Referencing pages from a book

Does WP:SPACEFLIGHT have a standardized/preferred method of referencing specific pages from a book? I am currently using following a citation, which superscripts the page number as non-hyperlink text next to the citation. I noticed different methods used throughout, such as shortened footnote method used through on Alan B. Shepard. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I at least (and this appears to be the usual standard used by related projects WP:AIR and WP:MILHIST) use the format <ref>Author year, p.##</ref> for the inline portion of citations. IMHO, at least, the superscript-inline page number listing clutters the page badly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

See {{sfn}} for a smooth, linked method for page referencing. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

YMMV but I, at least, despise those things. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I'm genuinely curious as to why, if you don't mind, just to gain some insight into others opinions of that system's flaws. Toss it on my talk page rather than here, if you would prefer. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not a problem. I'm not sure I can really define it other than they just look wrong to me; that and they're harder, for me at least, to keep straight vis-a-vis the conventional <ref> system. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the insight. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice for new mission name

There are two recent mission concepts called Oceanus:

1. Oceanus (spacecraft) - a proposed mission to Titan
2. OCEANUS (Origins and Composition of the Exoplanet Analog Uranus System) -an orbiter to Uranus; the draft is at my sandbox: User:BatteryIncluded/sandbox

I want to make the second article live in WP, but there is the name conflict that needs disambiguation. I was thinking to name them something like:

1. Oceanus (Titan orbiter)
2. OCEANUS (Uranus orbiter)

I am requesting your input on the best way to proceed. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue with your suggestion, seems fine to me. To me, the words in parentheses are just to make it possible to link to separate pages with the same name, and do not matter all that much as long as they are different. Kees08 (Talk) 04:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There are some guidelines about disambiguation precision, but that does appear to fit them pretty well. One note, even with the second one being an acronym, the MOS wonks may prefer that you not-all-caps it... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The pages are now: Oceanus (Titan orbiter) and Oceanus (Uranus orbiter); while Oceanus (spacecraft) is now a disambiguation page. Thank you for the advice and help. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Notable?

Is Bishop Ring (habitat) notable? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A preliminary look at Google and Google Scholar showed no hits. Other than the single self-produced reference by Bishop, I see no other references. I'd say since he conceived this 20 years ago, that it had had absolutely no impact, therefore it is not notable. In my opinion, a 1.2 million square miles space station is quite a fantasy. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you are safe to send it to AfD and see what the outcome is, though BatteryIncluded probably already guessed it. Kees08 (Talk) 23:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

John Glenn A-class

I started an A-class review on John Glenn at MilHist, stop by and leave a review if you find time! Kees08 (Talk) 01:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Naming conventions

You are invited to comment on Talk:SpaceX Dragon#Requested move 12 February 2018, and more generally on possibly reviewing the WP:SPACENAME conventions. — JFG ^talk 23:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Reusable launch systems

I have been trying to improve the article on Reusable launch systems. There are a lot of mentions of stillborn or vapourware projects. No doubt some of these are more significant than others, but I have not edited enough spaceflight articles to have a feel for which, if any, should be deleted as lacking any significant coverage in reliable sources. Any help or guidance would be appreciated. Please post any replies to the relevant article talk page topic. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11

Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Laser communication in space

I would like to rearrange and expand the page Laser communication in space which is listed as high priority of the project. Please join me at Talk:Laser communication in space to discuss a suitable structure. Space.chris (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Glenn needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for John Glenn; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Human spaceflight vs Manned Spaceflight

I wonder if I could suggest that we make a move to reduce use of terms like "manned spaceflight" in favour of something more inclusive such as "human spaceflight" or "crewed missions".

I know it might not sound much to some of you, but it does make a difference, and if that doesn't sway you, then perhaps the fact that "human spaceflight" is now the spaceflight sector's standard term. NASA, ESA and many media style guides all state that "human" or "crewed" should be used these days.

Cheers. Radiokate (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This is reasonable, I will try to remember it as I go through articles. May be a good AWB task. Kees08 (Talk) 01:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone needed more info, this article talks about it a little bit. Kees08 (Talk) 06:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Update on this, I got AWB all figured out and am planning to mass-edit our articles to conform to this, by changing manned/unmanned to crewed/uncrewed, unless consensus says not to. Does anyone have any objections before I make a few thousand changes? I will wait seven days for comments. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 22:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand the motivation, however I think we should not retroactively change vocabulary. "Manned spaceflight" or "human spaceflight" has been a cultural symbol for decades; suddenly calling it "crewed spaceflight" because 21st-century polite society is wary of any gendered word would be anachronistic. We should rather follow the vocabulary used by contemporary sources: for those events where most WP:RS refer to "crewed" flights, then we can use that word, otherwise keep them "manned". — JFG ^talk 22:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure this will change your mind, but here are a couple more links to read on the matter: Planetary Society and Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors (the second one is what changed my mind on the matter, and that regardless of the time period it should be changed, except in instances noted in the manual). Kees08 (Talk) 23:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I support using "human spaceflight" in place of "manned spaceflight" (except for specific historical references, as the NASA style guide points out), but not "crewed spaceflight". That is not a common term, unlike human spaceflight. Unless there's overwhelming support otherwise, I think following that NASA document is the most neutral way of handling this. Also, Wikipedia also commonly uses "robotic" to refer to such missions, and I see no reason to change this. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I too support "human flight". Although the historic word has been manned it is not so any more for the last 30 years or so. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Two points:

• Use "human", not "crewed" (not universally accepted, and can sound awkward).
• Please make sure your bot follows the rule that we do not change the language of historical quotes. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: I will try to get into more detail later today, but for your second point, AWB stands for AutoWikiBrowser, which I am really just using as a fancy find and replace machine. I see and review each individual change before committing the edit. Long story short: I will make sure that whatever we end up deciding on (looks like we are leaning towards human, I have some examples where that would sound awkward we can work through) that I do not alter quotes. Kees08 (Talk) 18:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about the phrase "manned mission" and weight of sources

Talk:Human mission to Mars#Requested move 5 March 2018

Is "manned mission" a gender-neutral term, and how much weight do we give to NASA's style guide? -- Netoholic @ 03:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Both Wikipedia and NASA strive for gender-neutral terms:[8]. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

For myself, I prefer the term "crewed spaceflight", as it is gender neutral and avoids political correctness at the same time. People like Buzz Aldrin don't dispute that he was a crew member of Apollo 11, and side steps any controversy at all. On top of that, you could even in theory use Sputnik 2 as an example of crewed spaceflight, even though it wasn't "human spaceflight". --Robert Horning (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Assistance with new article name: MoonLIGHT

Hello. I just finished a draft on a payload to be deployed to the Moon south pole by Moon Express. The payload is a laser retroreflector called MoonLIGHT. My draft is at my sandbox: [9].

I am requesting someone's help to make the name and redirect(s) for this new article, as I am not experienced in that. As it is, the name MoonLIGHT redirects to Moonlight and I don't know how to create my article name without messing other important redirects with similar spelling. Any help will be appreciated. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a definite answer, but other spacecraft/satellites with common words as names usually have (satellite) or (spacecraft) next to their article name (i.e. Glory (satellite) or Curiosity (rover)). Maybe name the article "MoonLIGHT (experiment)" ? Skyraider1 (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I moved it to MoonLIGHT (experiment). Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything at MoonLIGHT; I believe that typically article titles are case-insensitive after the first letter (which is auto-capitalised). Since this is the case (pardon the pun), I would think it reasonable to have it as the primary topic at MoonLIGHT (as setting up a redirect from there is either going to go straight to the article, in which case it might as well just be hosted in place of the redirect, or else redirect to the main Moonlight article and frustrate anyone who has taken the time to capitalise the correct letters). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm confused, because MoonLIGHT is not a redirect for anything, and the article should be located there since no need for disambiguation exists. A link would simply be added to Moonlight (disambiguation). Want me to take care of it, Battery? — Huntster (t @ c) 18:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

When I search for MoonLIGHT it redirects me to Moonlight. That's why I came here, as I don't know how redirects work. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if you can move it without a redirect and without the need for a disambiguation, that would be nice. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Huntster (t @ c) 03:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Icon on Template:Current spaceflight

Template:Current spaceflight currently uses the Space Shuttle as an incon, which seems a bit inappropriate for a template called current spaceflight. Any objections to changing it over to File:RocketSunIcon.svg, which is the icon used on the main page of this Wikiproject and for the Spaceflight portal template? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I noted the irony some time ago, but I did not think of changing it. About time. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, but looks like this template is deprecated: not used in any article as of today,[10] and last activity was several years ago. — JFG ^talk 17:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

True, but it may certainly become useful in the coming years if Mr Musk's ambitions are realised. Good spot. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Redirects

• The confusing thing. Space mission is a redirect to Spaceflight, but Space missions is a redirect to Space exploration. Both redirects have many incoming links. But what is the better target? 91.124.117.29 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Our upcoming launches page is rarely updated

When I first found the spaceflight portal 2 months or so ago, it hadn't been updated since October 2017. I think it's a nice feature to have on our landing page, but we rarely update it. I'm okay with updating it whenever I have time, but mostly I don't. Anybody who can think of a solution that requires less constant input on the part of the editors, please help. I can only code (very badly) in python, so I can't really help if the answer is "make code that does it for us". I'm still really new to wikipedia though, so if this is a stupid request, please let me know! I don't mind.

Aabernat (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's your solution: 2018 in spaceflight#Upcoming launches. — JFG ^talk 21:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I would love to officially deprecate/delete the portal, if we have support. I do not think the project is active enough to support it, and I am not sure any project is active enough really. If anything, I would support a newsletter over the portal, and even then projects have a hard time with it. Kees08 (Talk) 03:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Questionable edit

I saw an edit by a new user (diff). I do not have time right now to see if it was legitimate, though at a glance it seems like it removes all negative information about the subject. Can someone take a more thorough look and revert if necessary? Kees08 (Talk) 02:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking through the edit, it certainly removes some of the more negative aspects about Ham. However, I do not feel that it is to the detriment of the article, as it removes many extraneous details (Ham's lack of children from her first marriage, her divorce in the Columbia aftermath section). The only questionable part seems to be removing the section about the conflict of interest from the Columbia Investigation Board. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It was also improper to remove the second paragraph from the lead; I agree with the subsequent edit which restores this in addition to the noted conflict of interest. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out. Seems good now. Kees08 (Talk) 03:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

TESS launch

Does anyone know how to paste the "impending launch" thingie at the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) article? Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: {{Launching}} was deleted. You can use {{Current spaceflight}} instead. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent Changes Link - Broken?

Hey all, As a newer Wiki user, I was exploring the front page of this WikiProject, so I clicked on "Recent changes" (under Matters of Interest of the bar on the right). It took me to a 404 error. This is the link: https://www.toolserver.org/~tim1357/cgi-bin/wikiproject_watchlist.py?cat=1&template=WikiProject+Spaceflight+articles&limit=25&user=&order=desc

Has it changed? Could anyone fix this? Thanks Lucie Person (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it has been down for awhile. I will try to copy another projects Recent Changes page soon, until then it will remain down. Let me know if you find anything else broken; I recall finding several things awhile ago and only fixing some of it. Kees08 (Talk) 08:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Questionable article

To me Spacefaring does not seem up to WP standards and duplicates material covered in other articles.PopSci (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Whatever is useful should be merged to Spaceflight. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Now listed at both articles. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

NOAA Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs (CRSRA) / National and Commercial Space Program Act

[11][12][13] Do we have an article on the law and/or the office? -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Does this have to do with SpaceX and not being able to transmit video? If there is enough coverage, we can write an article about it; I did not see an article yet. If there is not enough coverage, we can slip it into a SpaceX flight article instead or somewhere like that, and create a redirect there. Kees08 (Talk) 03:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

[14][15] Yes, it's the thing about SpaceX not being able to broadcast. Though, NOAA's announcement shortly after that flight said it affects all launch companies. [16][17] -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Understood. We have no articles on it; but please start one if you find it meets GNG. Kees08 (Talk) 18:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

New space station comparison diagram

Size comparisons between current and past space stations as they appeared most recently. Solar panels in blue, heat radiators in red. Note that stations have different depths not shown by silhouettes.

Hello all, I've made a vector diagram to compare space station sizes. It should be updatable and correctable over time. It's not my field of expertise and I've been surprised how hard it has been to find accurate plan flat diagrams, so please direct edit to help correct errors! I originally posted this over at WP:Astronomy, where it was pointed out that there were two distinct Salyut architectures (DOS and OPS series). I've subsequently found this wikisource text as well as a couple of images from historicspacecraft.com (it that's reliable) [18] [19]. Any advice or help appreciated. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Great image! I can't speak about the size comparison itself; I don't know much about the stations themselves, but as someone who doesn't know much about the stations themselves, it's very intuitive and illuminating. Great work, Evolution and evolvability! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Would the Bigelow Aerospace Genesis stations be counted (two prototype stations, never manned)? Or the USAF MOL (a boilerplate was launched)? -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Very nice work, thanks! Agree to add Genesis, not MOL. Perhaps add the B330-based Space Complex Alpha as a planned upcoming station? — JFG ^talk 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Good ideas. I'll add the Genesis stations that have been tested, as well as the other salyuts. I'm wary of including planned upcoming space-stations, since that leaves a lot of room for interpretation of what is sufficiently planed to be included, and there are quite a few concepts in the works. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 23:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

On a note about failed stations, aside from the failed MOL prototype, several DOS and OPS stations also failed to reach orbit. Additionally, there's the backup Skylab station (Skylab B) that was fully functional sitting at the Smithsonian. Also, on proposed stations, there were/are station proposals that were to use modules already in orbit, such as Mir 2, and OPSEK (ie. Mir 3). Though I agree that proposed stations should be a separate image, if one is to be created. Perhaps keeping the same scale for cross comparison purposes. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha, just realised I'd not put in a scale bar yet! Will add that too. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2suit

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 2suit, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 65.94.42.219 (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy deletion nomination tag for 2suit for two reasons:

• In the nine years since it has been recreated, editors have added additional information. To speedily delete this before having a chance to move the material from subsequent edits into another article would certainly lose relevant & useful information.
• After nine years, this article has reached WP:EDITCONSENSUS. A speedy deletion would thus violate the Wikipedia policy on consensus. This requires a fresh nomination for deletion.

Peaceray (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Pulse propulsion

Do we have an article on pulse propulsion ? We have an article on nuclear pulse propulsion (ie. Project Orion) but during Project Orion, they developed the proof of concept model using conventional explosives, pulsed propulsion with non-nuclear explosions. This kind of drive should be covered somewhere. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to eliminate importance for WP:Spaceflight

Relatively recently, we had a discussion to modify our assessment page a little bit. While we have not seen a lot of change come out of that (anyone want to be the first A-class review? I will set up the page!), I think it was a positive change.

At the same time, we discussed if we wanted to modify our importance criteria, but held off on the discussion. Since then, I have converted to WP:MILHIST's point of view. MILHIST does not use importance ratings, due to their limited utility and that they can cause some grief if people see the importance of an article differently. While I do not think much grief has occurred on this project due to their use (if any?), I never find myself changing priorities based on the importance value of an article. If anything, I go to the pageview tool and see which pages are the most popular to prioritize my work.

Therefore, unless some people on this project use them to prioritize their work and would to continue to do so, I recommend their elimination. We can focus our efforts on other, more worthwhile tasks. I can do an WP:AWB run to clear out the importance ratings for our project, or have someone else perform one. Let me know your thoughts thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 02:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@JustinTime55, BatteryIncluded, Cincotta1, and JFG: I will need some discussion before I unilaterally delete a param from so many pages; pinging some prominent project members. Do any of you have any opinions? Kees08 (Talk) 18:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately importance is a subjective assessment, whereas page views and article size are more tangible measurements of the level of interest and coverage in any subject. I have no objection to get rid of importance. (Note: still on wikibreak.) — JFG ^talk 19:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The Version 1.0 Editorial team uses the importance ratings to select articles for their print version, as discussed here. As far as I know this is the only real relevance of the importance parameter if a wikiproject doesn't have an internal use for it. The V 1.0 team has a mechanism to assess when individual wikiproject importance ratings are not given, and individual wikiprojects (like MilHis) can choose not to assess for quality. For this project, the old discussion to rewrite the importance criteria showed that people agreed on some broad strokes, but didn't really have strong opinions on the finer details. I think this project would be fine without importance assessments.--Cincotta1 (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm conflicted about this. I agree with you, that I don't use it, in the sense that I don't necessarily think "lower importance" articles are not worth working on. (I guess that's the definition of being an "information nerd". :-) However, what really is the down side to keeping importance? Cincotta1 has found the project can handle its lack, but is it really worth the effort to remove it? I guess I'm OK either way. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a very frequent or prolific editor, but when I do get the itch to edit, I'll pick the most important article with the lowest quality and make an improvement there. I'm sure I'm not the only person who prioritizes this way. There's also a fair amount of work that probably went into assigning importance, it would be a shame to have to repeat if the project becomes more active in the future and could benefit from the organization importance could provide for editing efforts. Someone had to stick up for it. Sanchazo (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I likewise tend to use importance fields for any re-assessment work I do. Further to Sanchazo's point, WP Military history is a more mature project, so a lot of the benefit of prioritisation for higher-importance articles has already been taken; for example, Milhist has a goal of 15% articles at B-class or above; they're already at 11% (19,059 of 168,114), as opposed to 3% of Spaceflight articles (235 of 7,237). I obviously can't compare with Milhist, but in Spaceflight, 13% of top-importance articles are B-class or above (15 of 109), 16% of high-importance (60 of 375), 3% of mid-importance (60 of 1,857), and 1% of low-importance (52 of 4,260). Even if all the rest of the top and high-importance articles were B-class or above, the project would still not even be at 9%. That's a lot of articles begging to be improved.

As a side note to that, there's also the matter of what Milhist's current goals are and how the assessment categories support them. All five of their goals are to do with quantities of high-quality articles across the project, so having importance scales may begin to detract from that being met more quickly (especially if you consider cases of improving and assessing smaller numbers of high-importance and complex articles vs. large numbers of low-importance and simple articles). Given that, as Sanchazo and I have pointed out, there is an increased tendency to work on higher-importance articles, it means there may actually be a lot of "low-hanging fruit" left unpicked.

One last note about particular characteristics of Milhist is that the number of different task forces would mean that differing respective importance ratings would be needed for all task forces of which an article is a member. This very quickly passes the point of diminishing returns.

To summarise, I think a wider conversation we need to have is about what goals we want as a project, and then start looking at what we need from the assessment mechanisms to support these goals. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That's fine; I can leave them. Thanks for bringing up good points! Kees08 (Talk) 07:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Review and suggestions

Requesting third-party review and edit suggestions for draft revisions of requested articles Association of Spaceflight Professionals , Christopher Altman, and Tau Zero Foundation. Thanks for your input – Vector Mobile (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Orbital launches by year

All of the templates listed in the above navigational template need to have WP:HLIST applied (and I am a bit concerned about the massive number of red links, which is antithetical to WP:NAVBOX).

I'd like to request some help in doing so, and I'd also like opinions on e.g. Template:Orbital launches in 1969 would look after conversion given that there is some "keying"--as I'm not entirely sure, where payloads are mentioned, whether those are payloads of the preceding mission craft, or otherwise... I have it mind to treat them as sublists, but someone should check me on the intent. --Izno (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand your intent, but I would disagree that the yearly launch navboxes "need to have WP:HLIST applied". What's the big "need" there? Also, they have red links because they are meant to include every object launched into space in a given year, and those red links help editors identify missing articles. That is a good-enough rationale to deviate from the usual navbox rules. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that a new format, less cluttered and more precise, has been applied since 2017, and retroactively back to 2013. Perhaps if you would like to help, you could work on bringing the older year templates to the newer format. — JFG ^talk 17:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Another proposal for Assessment change

@Kees08, BatteryIncluded, Cincotta1, and JFG: While we're on the subject of using Wikiproject Military History as a model for our assessment guideline, there's something else they do that I think would be a very good idea for us to emulate (and in fact, I wish it were implemented project-wide, because it addresses a generic problem). Note how Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment has added quality ratings for Lists beyond the standard "List" and "Featured List". Lists are prone to being full of unverified entries, and not well defined. Some Wikigrouses call this "WP:Listcruft", blame the list as inherently undefinable, and in extreme cases, nominate a list they don't like for deletion. I don't think this is necessarily the list's fault, rather is due to of a fact of human nature which the project's Utopian ideals have created a culture making us loath to acknowledge: that most people are not very good at thinking abstractly (and thus understanding the true nature of a list, and what does and does not belong in it).

Notice MilHistory creates quality levels for lists (beyond just "List" and "Featured List"): they add CL (C list), BL (B list), and AL (A list). This in effect makes "List" equivalent to "Start", i.e. needs a lot of work, as opposed to C which is barely passable (mediocre). I think these extra ratings are a very good idea; this will provide a motivation for lists to improve by adding a real grading system (beyond just "ungraded" and "perfection"), that holds editors accountable to WP:Verify. When we modify our assessment, I think we should add this. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(pinged) Great idea. Let's do it. — JFG ^talk 20:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

On mobile so brief answer, but I tried to implement that in the last proposal, but maybe I did it incorrectly. Fully concur though. Kees08 (Talk) 22:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment WPMILHIST's "A"-class requires a full review, the same as a GA, FA or FL nomination, so does the project wish to implement such an intensive review process short of FL status? If not, then just leave off the "AL" rank. Also, I think that "STUBLIST" should be available. There's a {{list-stub}}; WPMILHIST also evaluates WP:SIAs separately from LIST and DAB (type SI), that's also something that can be implemented here, with little work (pages that are SIAs include a footer {{SIA}} ) -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that BL and CL are definitely worth adding to the project. AL is worth putting forward for discussion, but unless there are specific editors who would be interested in using that classification, I'd hold off implementing it until A-class becomes more of a thing for the project. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I fully support the aim of Lists quality being ratable, for exactly the reason that JustinTime55 mentions (so much unsourced and unverified claims in our lists).

However, one caution, I think that the system in MilHistory probablyu works, in part, 'cause they have a very large number of active editors working with that system. I've been involved in the spaceflight porject here for well over a decade now, and I'm not sure this project has the sustained level of interst by enough editors to make such a system long-term sustainable, and of high-quality. I don't have a great idea of what ot do about that, but it might be good to discuss it, get other's perpectives, etc. Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Pancam & PanCam

Hello. I just finished a draft of an article on ExoMars' camera PanCam. I just realized the MER rovers Spirit and Opportunity carry a camera setup called Pancam (upper case C). Being that the cameras are actually different and from different manufacturers, they deserve separate articles, but I am not able to create "PanCam" as it automatically redirects to Pancam. Any help will be appreciated. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC) (Formerly BatteryIncluded)

Rowan Forest, from the article history, this appears to be resolved? Just double checking. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. User JFG helped me with that and with another new article. Somehow I always mess disambiguations and redirects, so I now ask for assistance. Thanks to ya'll. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Zond 5 needs eyes

The launch date and landing date are all over map, even on past changes in its history page. The infobox date for landing back on Earth and the date in the text are different, as is the launch date in the present form of the page and in older versions. This is a major historical mission (if you don't know why you will when you read the page), and launch and landing dates should be nailed down. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The launch date in the current version matches that cited in the sources, including the COSPAR catalog. I have corrected the date atmospheric reentry occurred in the text. It looks like the sources cite September 21 as the reentry date and September 22 as the date it was recovered, someone had gotten the two confused.--Cincotta1 (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cincotta1, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Interactive 3D models!

Wikimedia Commons has recently allowed the upload of 3D models. The addition of 3D models will allow a much better understanding of the structure of spacecrafts and rockets than 2D diagrams. Fac-tory-o already made several models of spacecrafts, including Juno and Voyager. It would be great to have more.

I think there are also some 3D models on the official NASA website that are open source. Converting them to .stl and uploading them to Commons should be fairly easy.

See this link for further information. Note that only .stl files are supported right now.

File categories:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:3D_models_of_rockets
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:3D_models_of_spacecraft

— Preceding unsigned comment added by XYZtSpace (talk • contribs) 00:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal at WT:DYK

There is a proposal at WT:DYK#S2019 that may be of interest to this project. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 12

Newsletter • August 2018

This month: WikiProject X: The resumption

Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!

-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

User BatteryIncluded = Rowan Forest

Since I have been active in this project for many years, I got feedback that I may want to communicate to the members of this Project, as well as the Mars Project, that I changed my Wikipedia name from BatteryIncluded to Rowan Forest. I am a cell and molecular biologist and I worked briefly in a collaboration with NASA regarding astrobiology before my retirement. I am still interested mostly in the science perspective of astrobiology and astrobiology missions, but I am able to contribute to Wikipedia on some basic technical reports on spaceflight as published by the mass media. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed major edits for Space Shuttle article

Hello WP:SPACEFLIGHT! While looking through the top-importance articles, I saw that the Space Shuttle article is currently C-class. I have spent some time thinking of how to improve it, and left a proposed section reorganization on Talk:Space Shuttle. I would love to hear some feedback before I begin tackling the rewrite. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The Planetary Society's Planetary Report is now an open access journal

This is great news for Wikipedia editors who want better sources to improve articles on Wikipedia!

The Planetary Society has just made all 38 years of their The Planetary Report open access. No more paywall in place to block access to the older historical issues. I'm a member, but always give away, or eventually throw away, the old issues. The Planetary Society is making our magazine open-access

With the publication of the September equinox issue of The Planetary Report, The Planetary Society is making our magazine open-access. This issue and all 211 back issues are available for download! Happy reading!
—— blog description of the new policy, Emily Lakdawalla, 18 September 2018.

Welcome Planetary Society to the 21st century: open access, creative commons, share our writing with the world! Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Apollo 11

I have Apollo 11 up for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Apollo 11. If you have the time, please drop by and provide comments. I am hoping that this article can be taken to FAC in time for it to appear on the front page for the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing in 2019. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for having Apollo 11 a featured article on the anniversary of the landing. But why are you putting it up for review on the Military History project? It was a mission by a civilian agency and one of the three astronauts (the mission commander) was a civilian (former Navy, but fully retired in 1960.) Fcrary (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm putting it up for review there because it cannot be put up for review here; this project has no A-class review process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice: discussion about Electron's country of origin

Editors may be interested to participate in the ongoing discussion at Talk:2018 in spaceflight#Electron country of origin. — JFG ^talk 14:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Chinese NewSpace

There are a couple of new launch vehicles from a new-ish Chinese "commercial" company, apparently more of the NewSpace persuasion than the traditional national space program persuasion. The company article (LandSpace) mentions the launchers, but the launchers, engines, etc. don't all have articles. Is anyone interested in getting the Chinese space efforts, private and government, covered better in Wikipedia? Here's your chance.

This has been a long term need, something we've been talking about on this Talk page since 2011], at least. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Galactic Penguin SST: (based on previous Talk page discussions a year or more back) and @Jaccoob23: (recently joined the wikiproject Talk page): both of you have previously indicated interest in articles on space in China, and by Chinese entities. Might you have any interest in the improvement initiative on some of the evolving Chinese stuff, so that it might become better covered in the English Wikipedia? Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is probably a bit difficult I'm afraid because info on them are very sparse - even by "new smallsat launcher start-up" standards. Most of the info are also in Chinese and buried in many different places.

The start-ups that I think might be able to be talked about here without being stub articles would be OneSpace and LandSpace, maybe also LinkSpace too. Info on the others are too sparse for Wikipedia standards - heck even the detailed parameters for the CZ-11 and KZ series, rockets that already flew to orbit multiple times, are still on the large!

I'm not sure I have time to write in the near term, but I have been attempting to summarize their developments in a forum post so maybe I'll have something to show up later. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Since the information is so sparse, perhaps it would be better to have one article describing these companies as a group, rather than one each. That's more or less what the NewSpace article does for US and European companies. Or perhaps just add a section to the NewSpace article. Then add articles on individual companies as information becomes available. Fcrary (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, not that sparse Galactic Penguin SST. Fcrary, i-Space is pretty newly created, and seems to have a number of acceptable sources (I can't read the Chinese ones) but several are in English. Someone has AfD'd it, but Rowan Forest has already helped improve it and leave a view on the AfD. I'll do the same soon. N2e (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The article on i-Space (Chinese company) survived it's AfD.

Still, a lot of work is needed on the Chinese space scene, and especially its seemingly growing private business presence in the industry. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Things are improving. I have documented all non-vaporware Chinese rockets at Comparison of orbital launch systems. By the way, that article is currently a featured list candidate, and I would welcome some help from fellow editors to get it up to the necessary standards. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Comparison of orbital launch systems/archive1. — JFG ^talk 14:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new banner

Proposed banner for Wikiproject Spaceflight

I made a new banner for the top of WP Spaceflight pages here.

The new banner uses a blurred version of a panoramic shot by Kevin Gill as the background. The image has been featured on the SWRI Juno Mission webpage. The text is set in Futura, which is also used on the Apollo lunar plaques.

Switching to the new banner can be done by swapping the wikitext at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Tab header for the one here. Go/no go?

Posted by XYZt (talk  |  contribs) on 04:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you try brightening the text up? Kees08 (Talk) 14:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: Done! – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 03:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'll miss Hubble, though. Care to add it in the top left corner? or the ISS? That would be a nice symbol of worldwide collaboration for space endeavours. — JFG ^talk 14:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. I think I'll add some silhouettes of famous spacecrafts. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 06:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice

Could use some extra eyes on the "Skylab mutiny" page. Thanks - wolf 17:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Examination of Apollo Moon photographs for deletion (discussion here)

Hey so an article in your project (Examination of Apollo Moon photographs) (and one I believe relevant to your interests) has been nominated for AfD by yours truly. Article has had issues related to POV, lack of reliable sources, use of original research, and a lack of wikipedia-like style for at least a decade. These issues have not been fixed. All useful and wikipedia-relevant content has already been merged into Moon landing conspiracy theories. The fact that this article exists at all on wikipedia reduces the overall reputation of the wiki. All relevant photographs already exist on the other page, all relevant citations already exist there, etc. So if you'd like to contribute to that discussion, go ahead and check out --->Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination). Thanks!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing in yearly spaceflight tables

I made a proposal to improve sourcing for each entry in the table of spacecraft launches. You are invited to participate at Talk:2018 in spaceflight#Sourcing improvement. — JFG ^talk 11:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Methalox: We should have a stub article on this topic (or a stub-equivalent section of an existing article)

It seems to me that the topic "Methalox" is important enough, interesting enough, and has sufficient sources to justify making it a stub article.

(*cough* It's in the news these days *cough* - https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-miniature-bfr-spaceship-falcon-9-launch-elon-musk/ - so people might be researching this topic and we should accommodate them.)

Alternatively, we could find an appropriate existing article and make "methalox" a several-paragraph section, equivalent to a stub article. Thanks - 189.122.238.134 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Also here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rocketry#Methalox:_We_should_have_a_stub_article_on_this_topic_(or_a_stub-equivalent_section_of_an_existing_article) - 189.122.238.134 (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. I'll assist you. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for checking InSight page against B-class criteria

With recent attention and developments in the page, I'm confident it could be upgraded to B-class, or nearly b-class (with one or two criteria unchecked). Unfortunately, I don't have the skill or knowledge to properly assess the article. Nickrulercreator (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

More floating landing platforms for rocket boosters

It started with the experimental "droneship" from SpaceX in 2014, with first successful Falcon 9 booster landing on a ship in 2016. Three of those were built, two are still in operation (one on each coast of the USA), and they are both long past the experimental stage. A third is under construction, somewhere.

Well, now there is a second design of a floating rocket landing platform, being built in a shipyard in late-2018 and 2019, for Blue Origin.
I created this article earlier today — Blue Origin landing platform ship.

I would appreciate more eyes on it. Please make any improvements you'd like. We could especially use someone who knows how to sketch/render graphic images, and they could perhaps create a concept image of the new rocket landing ship from two things:

• the png image at the top of the article ([[File:MF Stena Freighter 2004.png|MF Stena Freighter 2004]]),
• possibly using this video released by Blue Origin for inspiration, which shows the landing ship about 1 minute in. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominated the Blue Origin landing platform ship page for a Did You Know? appearance on the Wikipedia Main Page. N2e (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

An RM to lower-case Apollo Command/Service Module

FYI, there is an ongoing RM discussion at Talk:Apollo Command/Service Module to lower-case 'command/service module'. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If the RM lower-cases the Apollo Command Module it may immediately question and change the casing of Apollo Lunar Module as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Page move discussion at BFR_(rocket)

There is an interesting page move discussion going on over at Talk:BFR_(rocket)#Requested_move_3_December_2018 which, I think, has broader implications for Wikiproject Spaceflight launch vehicle articles more generally. It would therefore be good to get more editor's eyes on the topic to weigh in with views.

I'm a bit mixed. One discussion proposal is to split the article into a separate article for Starship and Super Heavy; but that would seem to leave the LV as a whole (both 1st stage and 2nd stage, together, described in a single article) as problematic. Most launch vehicles (maybe all?) on Wikipedia seem to have an article on the entire LV. I'm a bit uncertain right now. Def hope more editors will think on the matter and share their thoughts. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Stafford Air & Space Museum photos

I have about 150 photos that I took at the Stafford Air & Space Museum to upload to Wikimedia Commons. However, I don't think that I can add descriptions to all of them. (1) I don't have the time, and (2) I don't know what some of the things are. Is someone interested in putting a description on these photos? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ping me when you upload them and I will try. Kees08 (Talk) 02:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have gone through a batch of 40 of them - adjusting the color some (the lights in the museum were not daylight-colored) and sometimes adjusting the brightness. That is a pretty tedious task in itself. I'll probably have them in 2-3 days. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: I've spent hours on the upload and they (147 of them) are in the Wikimedia Commons Category Stafford Air & Space Museum. I've added additional categories to some of them, but they need categories, as well as descriptions. I've requested rotation on the ones that need it, but that takes several hours to be done. I was at the museum only about an hour, but it has taken me several hours to get the photos ready to upload and uploaded. I appreciate help in adding descriptions and categories. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually working on them myself, going in numerical order. We'll see how far I get. :) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - it is a big task. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Still at it, even though it's sometimes slow going. For anyone else who wants to help, this web page about the museum exhibits may be useful. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Categorizing photos of a museum collection can be a long slog. Sometimes, as in the case of the huge collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the institution helps by providing an online catalog. Sometimes the photographer helps by getting unblurred pictures of placards. As it happens, looking through the category I ran into four photos of a liquid rocket engine, probably American but categorized as a Soviet hand grenade. That's why those who are working this thing should also check their Commons watchlist a few times a week. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bubba73: As a former Okie (I recently moved to Japan), I made quite a few trips to the Stafford Museum. I'd be happy to help you work on any additional photos that you have. Unfortunately, I felt that the museum didn't lend itself to great photos due to small space and poor lighting, so I don't have many of my own to contribute. I only saw the Gemini 6A at the Oklahoma History Center, and moved a few days after it changed locations. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. People have done a lot about providing good captions, and categorizing them. They may be through. Yes, the lighting is poor in the Stafford Museum, which is why I had to use a flash a lot of the time.

I have around 300 photos of the National Museum of the United States Air Force that I haven't uploaded yet, that I will need the same kind of help with. Most of them are airplanes, though, but there is some spaceflight stuff there - several rockets, a real Apollo CM, a real Gemini capsule, and what I think they said was a replica Mercury capsule. But, IIRC, the Mercury seemed to be an almost-complete real one. It was missing the hatch, the retrorockets, the parachutes, parachute cover, and maybe the heat shield, but otherwise it looked like an almost-complete real one. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

According to my very official Excel document listing the locations of the manned spacecraft (I made it using info on Wikipedia), the only flown space capsule at the National Museum of the USAF is the Apollo 15 CM. I just double checked on the museum's page, and the Gemini capsule is the unflown prototype of the Gemini B for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory. But please ping me when you get around to uploading all of your photos, I would be happy to help categorize and caption them. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you are right. I will try to put them up within the next couple of weeks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as the Mercury capsule, it is "flight-rated production vehicle that never flew." according to this. I don't think it is the one that was to be Alan Shepard's second flight, because I think I've seen it somewhere else. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, the one intended for Shepard's second flight is in Virginia Mercury-Atlas 10. (I haven't seen it.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It's at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia, which may be my favorite air and space museum. It's an annex of the Smithsonian, and has an amazing number of aircraft and spacecraft. I would highly recommend it; it is a major source of my backlog of 5,000+ photos to sort, edit, and select which ones to upload. If you are still in Oklahoma, I recommend the Cosmosphere and Frontiers of Flight Museum. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Bubba73, it's true, I've gotten distracted, as tends to happen with me. One particular object I'd like some advice on: the upside-down rocket engine in these photos:

Stafford Air & Space Museum, Weatherford, OK, US (35).jpg

Stafford Air & Space Museum, Weatherford, OK, US (43).jpg

Stafford Air & Space Museum, Weatherford, OK, US (44).jpg

The placards identify the right-side-up engine as a Rocketdyne LR105 sustainer for an Atlas rocket (though they don't say what sort of Atlas, or whether it was for a launch vehicle or an ICBM). They say nothing about the upside-down engine, which has no identifying placard. I'm not even sure it's a finished exhibit—it might have just been sitting there temporarily when you visited. I'm pretty sure that engine is from the Rocketdyne S-3D/LR79 family; the question is which one, and what sort of vehicle was it for? Possibilities include an S-3D/LR79 for a Thor, Delta, Juno II, or Jupiter missile, or an LR89 booster engine for an Atlas (though it has its own gas generator and turbopump, which would limit the possibilities there). --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Update Request for United Launch Alliance article

Hello! I'm a member of United Launch Alliance's communications team, and I'm seeking help to update the company's Wikipedia article. I have a WP:Conflict of Interest, so I won't be editing the article, and I've posted a disclosure on the article's talk page. Currently, the article's Launch vehicles section has a bulleted list followed by a subsection with some unsourced content and a generally poor quality overview of the ULA's vehicles. I've proposed improved wording at Talk:United_Launch_Alliance#Launch_Vehicles_Section_-_Update_Request, which one editor said was a "significant improvement" over the existing text. However, no changes have been made to the article yet. Can any WikiProject Spaceflight editors review the proposed text and update the article? Thank you. ULA christa (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed the text and updated the article. I have limited experience with COI policy, so any further reviews would be very welcome. A2soup (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the disclosure, ULA christa; you will find that you find support with this approach. The updates look good. Now, regarding the 100% reliance, it is true (and remarkable when compared with every other rocket company) and I think it should be stated in the article. Since it is remarkable, I think you should be able to find another reliable reference, other than Defense News -that only quotes an ULA statement. A quick search shows: [20], [21], [22], [23]. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Thanks for responding here. I'm glad you think the statement should be included in the article, and thanks for sharing some sources for updates. So we don't have discussions taking place in both spaces, do you mind adding your thoughts to Talk:United_Launch_Alliance#Launch_Vehicles_Section_-_Update_Request so other editors can review as well? I will leave a comment there, noting your comment at this WikiProject along with my own reply, and hopefully the article's text can be updated soon. ULA christa (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Time in Space section in infobox for astronauts currently in space

I recently edited the infoboxes for the most recently launched astronauts to reflect that days accumulated in space since they had launched, as it had previously stated "Currently in space." I got the idea after seeing it on the page for Serena Auñón-Chancellor, and thought the pages for Anne McClain and David Saint-Jacques should match. In my personal opinion, the ongoing total of days in space is a more appropriate piece of data for a "Time in space" field vs. just stating that the person is in space. I did not make the change for Oleg Kononenko, as I am unsure how to use the template to add the elapsed time from his previous missions to the current mission. However, my edits were changed back to reflect "Currently in space." I searched through WP:Spaceflight archives, and couldn't find any discussion/guidance on the community standard. I am just curious what the consensus is among WP:Spaceflight editors about this. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

My recommendation is to make a decently clear specific proposal on the appropriate infobox page; then announce that proposal is under consideration here, and also on the technology or some such place to announce such things. See whether you can build a consensus. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Category for the Lunar Gateway

I noticed that there are several articles related to the proposed Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway (LOPG), so I think it would be useful to have a LOPG category for such articles. I don't know the intricacies of how to create a category and its sub-categorization protocol. If someone could create it, I would appreciate it, and I would help categorizing the related articles accordingly. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It is easy to make new categories. Just put [[Category:new category name]] at the bottom of the page, then added a parent category to the resulting red link. I don't know if there is enough to warrant a new category on the LOPG though. I could not find other subjects related to it other than the Deep Space Transport. Are there other articles about it?--Cincotta1 (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No luck with my red link, as usual. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Related articles are Asteroid Redirect Mission, SLS rocket, Advanced Electric Propulsion System, Lockheed Martin Lunar Lander, and Deep Space Transport. The next likely articles will be the SLS launches: EM-3 through EM-13, as well as the Gateway's modules: PPE, ESPRIT, U.S. Utilization Module, International Partner Habitat, U.S. Habitat, Gateway Logistics Modules, Gateway Airlock Module. In addition, if Lockeed Martin gets its way, they will incorporate the Mars Base Camp to the Gateway's functions, and all the related Mars hardware. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I should have made clearer that the "new category name" was what ever name you wanted the category to be called. I fixed it now. I'll add the articles you listed to category:Lunary Orbital Platform-Gateway. Sorry for the confusion--Cincotta1 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm slow with instructions. Thank you! Rowan Forest (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 13

Newsletter • December 2018

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

• Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
• I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
  • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
• Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move in progress to change Lunar Roving Vehicle to lunar roving vehicle

A requested move to lower-case the name of the astronaut driven vehicle used for Moon exploration is at the link above. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Karman line--looking to avoid an edit war

I've just made an edit in the article Karman line. Someone has just reverted it. We've started discussing on the talk page, but it looks like it's going to get a bit contentious. The User who reverted me says it was clearer before my edit; I maintain that my edit actually corrected an error. I'm hoping others interested in this can have a look and tell us what they think. Uporządnicki (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

New here!

Hello, all. I am a professional space historian and science fiction author. My focus is on the early automatic space program, and this is where I have started. So far, I've created four pages and substantially modified Explorer 9. Projects on my list are a SOLRAD master page and a big update to Pioneer 1 (on which I may be the world's foremost authority!)

Anyway, I'm looking to connect with my fellow editors so Wikipedia can be more of a fun and social activity. Please drop me a line. I give out presents. :)

Also:

1) How do I align my

This user is a member of
WikiProject Spaceflight.

badge? |align=right doesn't work.

2) Is it possible to change the capitalization of a satellite page name? I'd like to make all the SOLRADs all-capitals.

3) Where does one request a review? Is that the peer-review, or do we have a project-specific process? For instance, I will likely be revamping several articles substantially, at which point, a review is in order (do people review their own work?)

Sorry for the newbie questions. Wikipedia has changed a lot since I was last an active editor (2005!)

Thank you!

--Neopeius (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not know the answer to (1), I keep all my userboxes in a table. You can see the source for it on my user page, but there may be an easier way.

(2) It is possible to move articles by clicking 'move' at the top of the page, but I recommend starting a new section on this page first to discuss any moves that might be controversial. See wp:move.

(3) There are several mechanisms for reviewing articles. You can ask on this page if you need another set of eyes to look at a page. A-class and B-class quality assessments can be posted on wp:WikiProject Spaceflight/Open tasks and wp:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment. As you mentioned, wp:peer review is also an option. The highest quality articles may also be assessed at wp:GA and wp:FA, but you may want to read the criteria at those pages and read some examples before submitting any of your own. Welcome to Wikipedia--Cincotta1 (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This project's assessment department has been (mostly) just me lately, although Balon Greyjoy (or others) may be willing to review as well. If you ask for a review and hear nothing, feel free to ping me and I will try to make time. Speaking of, looks like I am behind on that... Anyways, welcome back! Kees08 (Talk) 06:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the great replies! With regard to move, I cannot determine whether or not, if you change the name, the references also change. In other words, if I change Solrad_7a to SOLRAD_7A, do I also have to find every place SOLRAD is mentioned? Thanks again. --Neopeius (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

By default, moving a page leaves a redirect at the original name to prevent links from being broken; all incoming links remain the same but are redirected to the new title. That is, if an article linked 'Solrad 7' before the move, the capitalization in that article would not change, but the link will bounce users to new 'SOLRAD 7' article when clicked on after the move. Later, if you decide the old usage should be replaced, you can find all articles that call the redirect by clicking on 'What links here' under tools on the left hand side of the screen.--Cincotta1 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Just figured that out by clicking Move. :) But I didn't find that information in wp:move (which may be just bad reading comprehension). Thank you! I'm starting to get the hang of this. Famous last words. --Neopeius (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Earth and the Moon from Chang'e 5 T1.jpg

File:Earth and the Moon from Chang'e 5 T1.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion on WikiCommons Commons:File:Earth and the Moon from Chang'e 5 T1.jpg. It needs to be reuploaded to English Wikipedia under a fair-use claim, if we want to use it to illustrate the capability that Chang'e 5-T1 displayed in its mission. -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Solrad 1 is a Good Article!

I just got my first GA! :) Thanks, everyone, for helping me get there. I am honored and happy to be part of the community.

--Neopeius (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! I am sure it is the first of many. Kees08 (Talk) 21:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Facilities Request for United Launch Alliance article

Hi again! I'm with United Launch Alliance's communications team, and I'm seeking help to update ULA's Wikipedia article. I proposed some changes to the "Facilities" section at Talk:United_Launch_Alliance#Facilities_-_Update_Request last month, but so far no one has replied. I received a response here when I posted about the "Launch Vehicles" section back in November, so I'm hoping WikiProject Spaceflight editors might be able to help once again. Thank you. ULA christa (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kepler_(spacecraft)#Requested_move_1_February_2019

Hi, there's a discussion regarding the naming of the Kepler (spacecraft) article if anyone would like to comment. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Duplicated lists on lunar missions

There are two articles (lists) listing the same lunar probes/missions. This is a massive duplication that makes updates and corrections difficult. We need only one such list. Any comment against or in favor of maintaining two identical lists? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• List of missions to the Moon
• List of lunar probes

Looks like the only difference is the crewed Apollo missions. A draft of an article could fill that hole, and we could have that and List of lunar probes. What do you think? Kees08 (Talk) 00:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Russianspaceweb.com

Is Russianspaceweb.com equivalent to Gunter's Space Page and Encyclopedia Astronautica? Where it is edited by one person, but is still generally perceived to be reliable? I assume it is a Russian version of that. I try to avoid Gunter's and Astronautix since they are not the best source, so I was wondering if I should add Russianspaceweb.com to my "Try to avoid it, but use it if you have to" list of references. Kees08 (Talk) 00:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Anatoly Zak is pretty reputable. I think lumping him with Gunter's and Mark Wade's is appropriate. I've definitely found inaccuracies in Astronautix' work (which seems to be lying fallow these days). The problem with Zak is I don't see external references, so we don't know where this stuff came from. Long story short, I'd use him where there's nothing else, but I wouldn't give an F.A. (or even a G.A., perhaps) on the basis of his work. --Neopeius (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Anatoly Zak is also a reporter, and I have found him reliable regarding the Russian space program. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to Encyclopedia Astronautica, RussianSpaceWeb is kept well up-to-date, and I concur with Rowan Forest that Zak's work can safely be cited as a WP:RS for the Russian space program, both current and historical. — JFG ^talk 01:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds like it is of reasonable quality. Kees08 (Talk) 05:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Space_elevator#Request_for_comment if anyone is interested. Kees08 (Talk) 19:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Enhanced spaceflight template

Hi folks.

For spacecraft like Solrad 8, which are included in the Explorers Program and the Solrad program, is there any way to include BOTH programs at the bottom of their Infobox?

Thanks! --Neopeius (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Another set of parameters has been added to the infobox template to add a second program. Kees08 (Talk) 22:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I am grateful for the enhancements to the template. It would be further improved if there was a line between the name of the program and the missions. Currently, the primary program has that format, but the secondary ones are on the same line as the missions, and it looks kind of weird. Can this be fixed? :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There were some technical limitations. We tried to make it like you described but it was not going very well. Primefac could potentially give it another go if they have time. Kees08 (Talk) 02:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for trying! :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Neopeius and Kees08:, I think I fixed the display issue, let me know if you see anything wrong elsewhere. I'm not super happy with the full-width horizontal line, but afaik there's absolutely no way to *not* have that and avoid getting into weird table nonsense that would probably break other things. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks great! Thank you so much. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Updating the Active Members page

Hi folks. Would it be cricket to prune people off the Active page if they haven't done anything in, say, 5 or more years? Some other arbitrary number? It'd be nice to be able to see, at a glance, who's still on the team. Thanks in advance for your input! :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally do not have a problem with it. I did it (without asking I think), and picked an arbitrary date like maybe five years without making any edits at all. Feel free to go through it and pick any reasonable arbitrary time (like five years). Kees08 (Talk) 06:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm moving members to inactive so we can have a clearer understanding of who's still live on the project. :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Moon travel template up for deletion

The Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 6#Template:People who flew to the Moon without landing {{People who flew to the Moon without landing}} template is up for deletion, and in regards to the nomination I created a combo template in user space for all of the people who traveled to the Moon. Please comment at the first link above if you feel so inclined. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

When does a stub-class article move up from a stub?

I've been editing the Lunar lander page and have added quite a bit to it. There is still tons to do, but I'm not sure if it qualifies for its "stub" rating. Does anyone else agree? What's the process for moving it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstachowsky (talk • contribs) 15:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, welcome to WP: SF! We're always happy to have dedicated new team members. As luck would have it, we were just discussing what the various classifications mean, and this is our general consensus:

Stub -- Placeholder

Start -- Functional, bare-bones article

B -- Reviewed, qualified article

(C -- Either "Ready for B-Review" or insufficiently cited, otherwise B--class article)

GA -- Reviewed by Project

FA -- Reviewed by Wikipedia FA team

I have reviewed the article and promoted it to Start class, leaving notes on the Talk page. The prose is good. It needs significant work on references. Good luck! --Neopeius (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look and update/fix things when I get time. --Mstachowsky

Awards

Hello! Now that this WikiProject is starting to warm up, I'd like to make a set of project-specific awards like the ones Military History has. Everyone likes having customized barnstars, after all!

To that end, I've made awards:

The Vanstar, for conspicuous achievement in the field of uncrewed spaceflight: Template:Vanstar.

The Pegastar, for outstanding achievement in the field of uncrewed spaceflight: Template:Pegastar.

The Glennstar, for conspicuous achievement in the field of crewed spaceflight: Template:Glennstar.

The ISSstar, for outstanding achievement in the field of crewed spaceflight: Template:Glennstar.

The WP SPFLT Achievement Patch for appreciable contribution to WikiProject Spaceflight (I envision this as a one-time): Template:SPFLTdevice

The WP SPFLT Distinguished Service Medal for outstanding continued service in WikiProject Spaceflight: Template:SPFLTDistSrv

Could someone make a separate award page as they have on MilHist? Of course, if you folks absolutely hate the idea of specialized awards, then I'll just make my own larder and hand them out personally. :) And if you want better ones than these, please feel free to improve upon them or even make alternatives/replacements.

Here is the image for the star base if you want to make any awards of your own (I cropped all of mine to 443x443 pixels when I was done):

--Neopeius (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight Star Base

Defining astronaut vs passenger

There is a brewing disagreement in the spaceflight PR community regarding the "title" to be given to commercial passengers (not crew) reaching outer space. The disagreement will eventually spill into Wikipedia, so I am bringing this issue up for early consideration by the WP Project Spaceflight. While NASA calls them "spaceflight participants", and the mass media call them "space tourists", commercial spaceflight companies already offer them the title of "Astronaut" or "Private Astronaut" and will even give them astronaut wings and astronaut diplomas to their passengers.

Astronauts —including commercial astronauts— are truly professionals that train for the job for many years to make it a career, while passengers do not. Although the WP article Space tourism#Terminology mentions the issue with neutrality, it is time to define a consensus and agree upon a standard terminology for the future related Wikipedia entries, as such commercial passenger flights have started to take place. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

As usual, we should go by the majority of sources. The term "space tourist" seems to remain the most widely used as of today. If/when "spaceflight participant" or "private astronaut" ever catches on, we'll follow suit. — JFG ^talk 05:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

For the context, see Soon, hundreds of tourists will go to space. What should we call them? at Ars Technical. My main concern is with the upcoming Commercial Press Releases calling a paying passenger an "astronaut". A passenger in a cruise ship is not called a Sailor or Aquanaut; and a passenger on a jetliner is never called an Aviator or Aeronaut. What will this WP Project do when editors start quoting commercial companies calling their paying passengers "Astronauts" (private or not)? Will we simply transcribe their exaggerated WP:PEACOCK term or specify they are passengers under the care of a real astronaut? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No, we'll go by what third-party sources call them, not the press releases. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• 'Mission specialist' has substantial use, for a scientist, engineer or other specialist who was though not a pilot. NASA defined this as a subset of a broader 'astronaut', i.e. specialists were also astronauts.

Note that there's another variation between NASA and the USAF as to the requisite altitude needed to qualify as an astronaut. See the X-15 for more. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that astronauts require different training related to their assigned functions. Not all astronauts are pilots, but no tourist magically becomes a trained astronaut by staring out the window. Anyway, I agree with Huntster's passive solution to use reliable third party sources and not the commercial press releases that will push such terminology. -Rowan Forest (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sources will tell, yet if someone pays their way to ride along they are not career-path trained astronauts. I'd personally go with 'space tourist', and if I had a few billion and could toss around fifty million or so I'd be up there with them (but I would not call myself an astronaut). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'd agree that third-party sources would probably do a lot of the work in giving us less exaggerated terms, but I think that the NASA/FSA standard of "spaceflight participant" is, although clunky, somewhat useful for distinguishing those crew members who aren't trained astronauts, but are involved with the mission in a professional albeit self-funded capacity (i.e. I think Tumlinson and Surayev are correct in objecting to the word "tourist" as connoting a more passive role than is actually the case). Future missions may have more passive participants who are only there to observe, and we can deal with appropriate wording when we are fortunate enough to get to that stage in spaceflight development, but for now, I think it's a valid objection that, self-funded or not, they are involved with the work onboard the craft (even if it is unrelated to piloting or maintaining the craft). — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 18:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Abbreviation

If WP Science fiction is WP SF, what are we? Thanks! --Neopeius (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the redirects to the project's main page using the 'what links here' tool. The shortest redirect was wp:HSF. Not sure how that came to be, 'human spaceflight' maybe. Other short redirects to this project include wp:USPACE and wp:SPACEFLIGHT. All of the other ones require 'wikiproject' to be typed out. If a more intuitive abbr. is available, I can help make a redirect.--Cincotta1 (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

HSF would be Human Spaceflight. SPFLT seems the shortest unambiguous one. Neopeius (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

wp:SPFLT should now be a redirect to the project's main page.--Cincotta1 (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)