Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight

Main page   Discussion   Mitglieder   Assessment Popular pages   Open tasks   Recognized content     Awards   Portal Template:Wikipedia ad exists Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Toward a more welcoming Wikipedia (I just posted this in MilHist and would appreciate opening the discussion here as well) Hello, gang. Since Mil Hist is possibly the most organized and active WikiProject, and since it's one for which I do frequent work, I wanted to open up the conversation here. It has been my observation that Wikipedia is becoming an increasingly stagnant community. We still have our regular editors who have been here forever and are still diligently working, but new blood has dropped off, as has a lot of the conviviality that made WP a welcoming place back in the day. I'm fairly new here, despite my ancient first-edit date. I didn't really start editing in earnest until about two years ago. I floundered at first, figuring out the Wikipedia style. I'm a professional space historian with thousands of articles to my credit, but I hadn't done encyclopedias before. The review process was intimidating. I was fortunate to have been mentored and helped by a trio of great editors: @Kees08:, @Gog the Mild:, and @Balon Greyjoy: who very patiently made suggestions and improved articles I was working on (rather than just telling me what I did wrong; they let me learn by their example). They gave encouraging praise and pretty barnstars. Because of their support, I stuck with the project, and now I like to think I'm one of the more accomplished of the (scanty) new crop of Wikipedians. This is what I've managed thus far, most of it just in the last year. With the departure of Kees08, things have gotten a lot chillier for new Wikipedians, at least in the Spaceflight and Mil Hist communities. I've been working hard to recruit new contributors, either by bringing in external writers who are new to WP, or tapping existing editors who have been mostly at the fringes. But it's been tough. I just lost one today -- when I let him out into the wild and he attempted to GA one of his articles, the reception was demoralizing. It's not that the suggestions people made were necessarily bad, but they were framed in ways that were discouraging and highly critical, especially for someone new to the process. For example, here I nominated the new Wikipedian's article for GA for him since he's new, and it was summarily reversed, the article's assessment expressed in completely discouraging rather than encouraging tones. The subtext reads as "You submitted it wrong, and the article sucks anyway." Better phrasing might have been "Do you have connection to this article despite your name not being associated with it? Also, while the article has merit and I can see the author put significant work into it, it could use improvement in the following areas before it's ready for GA status (and if the editor be new, I'll be happy to offer advice and assistance.)" The second attempt can be found here, in which Balon offers a fine review. However, I don't think "this article needs a lot of work. I would currently put it at B or C class. It doesn't do a comprehensive job of discussing Crippen and his career;" was necessary. It dismisses the work done thus far, and was ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back. When I do reviews, I tend to start positive and end positive so as not to dispirit the editor. Most new Wikipedians aren't going to have the experience and skills that I do and thus have the interest or stamina to become regular editors unless we go the extra mile to help them adapt. We have to remember that not all of us are grizzled veterans. It doesn't hurt to be friendly, to praise what's good in an article while noting what can be improved. It doesn't help to be brusque or demeaning. It is important to remember that tone never carries well in a text-only medium. "Assuming good faith" is extra tough for newbies unfamiliar with the process. Now, you may be thinking at this point: "Why should we coddle new editors? They can sink or swim just like I did." I get where you're coming from if you're thinking that. After all, this is a volunteer gig for you, too. You've only got so much energy to spend, and your experienced comrades require less of it since they already know the ropes. But the consequence of that sentiment is what we are seeing: increased barrier to entry, greater attrition for existing editors, and a declining number of new editors to replace and augment the community. If we can't recruit and maintain new editors, we will eventually fall below the minimum needed to maintain Wikipedia. I'm already seeing this happen in Spaceflight. Even as a somewhat experienced editor, I have been adversely affected by the growing chilliness at Wikipedia: Despite doing a lot of reviews and producing dozens of solid articles, this last year I've gotten barely a notice for my work. Often, I don't even get a "thank you" for my reviews. I've done my best to be positive and improving for editors, giving out praise and awards (many of which I've made myself), but such overtures are often ignored. I recognize virtue is its own reward, but it's a bit dispiriting to put positive energy out into the community and get virtually none back. More than any other Project, Mil Hist has the potential to reverse this trend. What does Mil Hist do to welcome and encourage new Wikipedians? How does it keep current ones engaged? I know there's a "Best New Editor" and "Best Editor" although even those can be more negative than positive as they create clear "Winners" and "Losers." I've been trying to greet every new person who joins Spaceflight, and also to give out merit awards for contributions. Are there folks who do that on this project? Who is actively maintaining the community, making editors feel valued and appreciated, maintaining the espirit d'corps? I'm going to be bringing on more apprentice editors this year. I'm hoping that, if all of us work together, we can make a community that welcomes and retains these and other new editors so that Wikipedia does not ossify. I welcome, encourage, and look forward to your thoughts. Please let me know if my experience mirrors yours or if I'm missing something. Thank you for listening. :) --Neopeius (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC) I hope we can work on this. For better or for worse, Wikipedia is a very egalitarian community, and everyone has their say. It's great that everyone can get an input, but it's also difficult when EVERYONE can get an input. I think the problem is that Wikipedia is popular enough that we don't feel like we need to treat new editors like we need their help, but Wikipedia definitely still needs their contributions. I don't think this issue is limited to WP:SPACEFLIGHT, but that's the area we can most directly impact. I think it will require a mind shift that provides more critical feedback instead of straight criticism. As mentioned above, that is something I have to work on as well, and I hope to encourage future editors. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC) I've been inactive, but might pick up on editing soon. OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Welcome back, @OkayKenji:! We'll love to have you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC) I'm new and am jumping in here at Spaceflight. There hasn't been much of a welcoming committee but I've been enjoying myself. I'm just working through learning on my own. I've been making mistakes and picking myself back up when I get knocked down. I was very proud the first time an edit didn't get reverted. I am learning to slow down and be patient. I am learning to read related articles before making changes and to make arguments using policy instead of opinion. There is lots and lots and lots to learn. I agree, it isn't easy to break in as a Wikipedia editor. JaredHWood💬 04:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC) A mentoring program here at the Wikiproject might be nice. N2e has been helping me out here and there and that has been helpful. Sign me up if anyone wants to create a pilot program for something like that. JaredHWood💬 04:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC) @Jared.h.wood: Sorry I missed this! Were you interested in mentoring or being mentored? We've definitely done this informally, with Kees08 and, to some extent, Balon Greyjoy mentoring me. --Neopeius (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC) @Neopeius: I'd appreciate some constructive feedback on some of the edits I've been making. I know about mistakes I am making when they get reverted, but I wonder what mistakes I am making that are getting missed. If you're willing and have some time to give guidance, I'll take it. I'm even willing to execute some homework assignments to learn some of the important policies and guidelines. Jared.h.wood → JHelzer💬 14:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC) I'd be delighted,@JHelzer:. Are you amenable to using discord? I send you the link to the WP Discord server on your Talk Page. --Neopeius (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Request for comment Just started a discussion over at Talk:SpaceX floating spaceport, about what might be a good scope for a new article created earlier today. If the topic is of interest, consider dropping by to discuss. N2e (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Merge plan for Spacecraft propulsion I have created a plan to fulfill the merge request for In-space propulsion technologies into Spacecraft propulsion. Input from WikiProject Spaceflight editors would be much appreciated. There is a dedicated section for discussion of the merge plan. Please comment there. Once discussion begins, I will wait for it to quiet down before executing the merge. JaredHWood💬 17:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Main merge complete. JaredHWood💬 04:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks very much, @Jared.h.wood:!! --Neopeius (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Can Everyday Astronaut be considered a reliable source? Tim Dodd is not a journalist working with editorial oversight. He is also not just some guy with a website. Providing accurate and educational information about spaceflight is his business. Do his articles count as WP:RS? As for me; I do not consider Tim's site to be WP:QUESTIONABLE, but it would be WP:RSSELF. RSSELF states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. This describes Everyday Astronaut to me, but I am biased because I really, really want to use this article (Starship SN8 12.5 kilometer hop) for citation. What does this community say? JaredHWood💬 16:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Tim Dodd has evolved a lot over time, in fact he really is not just some guy with a website anymore, the Everyday Astronaut brand now has quite a few people behind it (similar to nasaspaceflight). I believe he is a reliable source even if he doesn't meet the WP:RSSELF requirements but I may be as biased as you :) josecurioso ❯❯❯ Tell me! 17:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work Hi all I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated. Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened. Hope its helpful John Cummings (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC) @John Cummings: Goodness! Looks very cool. I imagine this will be better than my makeshift system. :) Thanks very much. --Neopeius (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Neopeius thanks very much, please let me know if you have any suggestions for improvements in both the tool and the documentation, also if you look in the wikicode you'll see I've tried to add comments to make it easier to customise. I'm thinking there might be a couple of useful versions of this for different kinds of user. John Cummings (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC) @John Cummings: I use it all the time now. I only wish there were a way to delete User pages when I was done with them. --Neopeius (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC) @Neopeius: sure, you can add {{db-u1}} to the pages to get them deleted. John Cummings (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC) File:Inspiration4 Patch Art.png Template:Il has been nominated for deletion on Commons. It seems likely it will be deleted as it seems to require a fair-use rationale, which Commons does not accept. It needs to be re-uploaded to English Wikipedia, with NFURs added for the capsule article and the mission article. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC) A textlogo [1] that does not meet the threshold of originality, and is thusly public domain, can be uploaded to Commons to replace the mission patch, for use on various other language Wikipedias, without any of us needing to know the language in question to write an appropriate NFUR for other languages. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC) File:Inspiration4 Patch Art.png graphic image mission patch File:Inspiration4 Patch Art.png graphic image mission patch File:Inspiration4.png fabric mission patch File:Inspiration4.png has also been tagged for deletion. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC) commons:file:Inspiration4.png has been deleted from COMMONS due to lacking a license. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Textlogo versions have been uploaded to COMMONS, File:Inspiration4 icon.png and File:Inspiration4 Logo.png. File:Inspiration4 icon.png File:Inspiration4 Logo.png File:Inspiration4 icon.svg These can be used until such a time as the mission patch is uploaded to English Wikiedia under a fair-use rationale. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC) I think these text logos are worse than not showing a logo. --mfb (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Spaceflight Banner Hello! Is it just me, or did we used to have a different banner for this project? Is there a copy of it anywhere? --03:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC) This one? User:Soumya-8974 added it in November 2020. --mfb (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC) I mean, is there a copy of the old one anywhere? :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC) @Neopeius: This is the banner before it was changed by Soumya-8974 – Special:PermanentLink/892086007. It can be restored from this, although it would be nice if links to the newsletter could be kept. Terasail[✉] 13:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks, @Terasail: -- quite frankly, I've never liked this new one. The letters are so muddy against the planet. I won't revert it without consensus though... :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Scope of template Satellite and spacecraft instruments Hi! I have opened a discussion on Template talk:Satellite and spacecraft instruments about the scope of that template. It would be far too large to include all Earth observing instruments, and indeed most listed instruments observe other planets, except there are a few Earth observing instruments. Inclusion criteria are unclear. I think we need some guidelines here. --Gerrit CUTEDH 10:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks! I have responded (in short, it seems a useless template). --Neopeius (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Timeline of spaceflight Hello, gang. I have been making a push to get all of the Timeline of Spaceflight articles up to snuff. After all, they are classified highest priority, and they serve as good hubs for the project. While folks have done a good job of keeping the modern timeline articles up to date, pre-2009 has pretty much lain fallow for a decade. So far, I have brought Spaceflight before 1951, 1951 in spaceflight, and 1952 in spaceflight to FLC status (I haven't nominated 1952 yet, but it's ready). 1953 in spaceflight is almost there, and I've made substantial progress on on 1954 in spaceflight. I've updated the working group page, too. I've gotten a few eyes on the first article and none on the second. If my spaceflight brethren could peek in and give reviews, that'd be great. I would love to be able to have High priority FLCs in the next Downlink :) Thanks! --Neopeius (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC) @Neopeius: Sure I can add a section about them to the next Downlink, linking to each one, if you want anything in particular said just ping me or add it yourself, I will create the February page now. Terasail[✉] 13:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC) @Terasail: Sorry for the confusion. I just meant I'm looking forward to our project having some FLs in the tally of articles :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Ah, thats fine. @Neopeius: If you ever want FLC / FA nominations listed on the newsletter just ping me and I can add a section for it, I don't really understand the process but its good to try to get more spaceflight pages featured. Terasail[✉] 14:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC) @Terasail: Would you like to learn? :) The more folks we have in the project who can do high level reviews, the more articles we can get to GA and FA status. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Not sure, I will definitely be following FLC/FAC more closely in the future and attempt to understand it better, but I do best with minor article updates, and with Templates/Scripts which is why my mainspace edit % is so low. Terasail[✉] 14:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC) That's valuable too! --Neopeius (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC) "Commercial astronaut" Currently Hayley Arceneaux and Jared Isaacman have been categorized into Category:Commercial astronauts. To me this appears wrong, since they are on a single flight jaunt, and not some permanent space employee. I acknowledge that Isaacman is the person who funded the mission, and is listed as "commander". with Arceneaux listed as "medical officer". Should these two be reclassified into one of the other categories? Category:Space tourists or Category:Spaceflight participants, for example? -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC) They're going into space. Valentina Tereshkova was on a single flight jaunt, too. :) I say they're astronauts. --Neopeius (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Tereskhova was a uniformed member of the cosmonaut corps, and was trained in the operation of the Vostok, like other cosmonauts. Isaacman and Arceneaux are going on an autonomously operated SpaceX Dragon 2. They're more like Richard Garriot or Mark Shuttleworth who are classified as space tourists, even though they went into space. And not like Yi So-yeon, who was doing experiments in space, and had full cosmonaut training, and government support. Though a case could be made for them to be similar to Christa McAuliffe, being spaceflight participants. The question though is not if they are "astronauts", but if they are "commercial astronauts", which is where they are currently categorized. They are unlike the others currently so categorized, employees of space companies. Do you mean we should recategorize them into Category:Astronauts (or rather Category:American astronauts) instead of Commercial astronauts ? -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC) How about Konstantin Feoktistov? Isaacman and Arcenaux are the only crew of this flight. They are presumably being trained for it. If they were just passengers, I could see them being tourists. A case could be made for Arcenaux being a participant (essentially filling the role of payload specialist). --Neopeius (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Feoktistov seems to be a Soviet Deke Slayton, cosmonaut corps medically sidelined. We've already had a candidate space tourist medically sidelined, Enomoto. So, that leaves Isaacman, as a tourist, commercial astronaut, astronaut, spaceflight participant, or soemthing else. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Wait and see what reliable sources call them. JHelzer💬 05:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC) It is currently in commercial astronaut, so the wait-and-see, would delete this category as being unsupported. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Sources for orbital elements in the info-boxes of crewed missions ? Hi everyone, I have a question regarding the apogee and perigee indicated in the info-boxes of crewed missions (missions linked in List_of_human_spaceflights). Some do not have sources, so I wonder where the info does come from. Some others have sources that link to obscure websites. Taking for example the crewed missions to the ISS, it reveals an obvious mismatch with the known altitude of the Station. (Click attached homemade graph) ISS missions apogee according to their articles How can the apogee be so low compared to the ISS ? Maybe I am missing something ? Most recent missions do not have these elements in their info-boxes. I think it would be a reasonable solution if you think, like me, that a lot of those could be inaccurate. First time posting in a wikipedia Project. I did not know where to post this, and stumbled upon this page which seems to be the perfect place to post something like this ? --LazyAssed Contender (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC) I've always been a bit confused myself about the need for the orbital elements in the Apollo article infoboxes, and feel they are of limited utility. The one-in-a-thousand (generously) editor who wants to know the selenocentric orbital parameters of, say, Apollo 14, probably knows that they changed several times and can find better, more specific sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Flights to the ISS never launch to the ISS orbit directly. Most of the time you would not end up in the same place as the ISS, and if you do then it's too risky to approach it using a big and relatively imprecise upper stage rocket engine. The typical rocket launch goes to an orbit below and behind the ISS, from there you "catch up" and then raise your orbit at the right time. I don't know what exactly is plotted in the graph, but it's probably the initial orbit for the lower Soyuz mission and a later orbit for the missions that match the ISS height. --mfb (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Yes, I thought it would mean something like this ; except these are articles about the missions, so we might want orbital parameters of the mission itself ? And the mission is the ISS. So I propose to remove orbital parameters of missions to MIR and to the ISS. It it an acceptable change ? It seems too big a decision for someone new here. --LazyAssed Contender (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Just referencing the ISS would work I guess. The ISS orbit when docking would be an option, too. The initial orbit would be more interesting in the scope of the rocket launch, not the crewed mission. --mfb (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Request for comment There is currently a debate on deleting an article about the Vacuum to Antimatter-Rocket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vacuum_to_Antimatter-Rocket I have suggested keeping it because: I believe it's the only spacecraft proposal on using Schwinger pair production for uncrewed interstellar travel. JBIS is one of the most prestigious journals on interstellar tavel: https://www.jbis.org.uk/paper/2011.64.378 Centauri Dreams (https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2016/08/02/the-evolution-of-antimatter-propulsion/) is written by Paul Gilster, an expert on interstellar travel: https://www.planetary.org/profiles/paul-gilster Space.com and Interesting Engineering and reliable secondary sources as far as I'm concerned. Cheers. ExoEditor 03:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Technically, a request for comment like this should never contain your own opinions on the subject. It's supposed to be exclusively a matter of calling other editors' attention to a discussion about deleting an article. That guideline is supposed to prevent people from recruiting others favor their own position. The delete side makes good arguments. I gave it my best shot for saving some of the content. Good luck. JHelzer💬 15:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC) List of...launches page creation and formatting Starting with List of Electron launches (Which I split away from Electron (rocket) pages) there seems to be increase in articles which split the list of launches from their respective launch vehicle pages. What should (or should there be) a criteria when a split becomes necessary? When I split the List of Electron launches my intent in was because of Rocket Lab's claim that they will have frequent launches and that would cause the article to become too long. In hindsight this is probably WP:CRYSTAL. Recently I noticed that there are similar pages or drafts being created: Current drafts Draft:List of Delta 4 Medium launches (currently part of Delta IV, List of Thor and Delta launches (2000–2009), and List of Thor and Delta launches (2010–2019)) Draft:List of Delta 4 Heavy launches (currently part of Delta IV Heavy) Draft:List of Antares launches (currently part of Antares (rocket)) Draft:List of Atlas LV3A launches (not currently anywhere in the encyclopedia) Draft:List of Minotaur launches (currently part of Minotaur (rocket family)) New articles List of Vega launches (originally in Vega (rocket) List of Delta 4-M launches (not anywhere else in the encyclopedia) Previous created articles This section is an excerpt from Lists of rocket launches § Lists of rocket launches by rocket.[edit] List of Antares launches List of Ariane launches List of Atlas launches List of Black Brant launches List of Delta IV Heavy launches List of Delta IV Medium launches List of Electron rocket launches List of failed Thor and Delta launches List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches List of H-I and H-II launches List of Launch Services Program launches List of Long March launches List of Minotaur launches List of Proton launches List of PSLV launches List of R-7 launches List of Starship launches List of Thor and Delta launches List of Titan launches List of V-2 test launches List of Vega Launches List of Zenit launches The new pages do add new info in some cases (I like some of the new graphs in particular like "by orbit" - maybe other list of pages can add them too). But also some of the lists have the formatting changed from the original which I found confusing. I don't think infoboxes are needed as readers can go to the main page about the rocket to learn more about it. And the heading "About the <rocket name>" doesn't seem like an encyclopedic tone, but other then that the pages seem fine. So, at what point should the list of launches be split out (or how many launches of a particular launch vehicle warrant a dedicated list of launches article)? What info should we have on those pages? OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 02:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC) I would say in most cases about 10 launches (including planned) should merit its own article. If a rocket is very notable, however, like Starship (List of Starship flights), it could work with less. N828335 (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC) I added the list of V-2 launches to Spaceflight before 1951. Thanks very much. :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC) All of those articles, except for List of Delta 4-M launches, List of Atlas LV3A launches, and soon to be submitted List of Atlas LV3B launches. List of Delta 4-M launches has no other article to move the information too. List of Atlas LV3A launches is notable because it had the first launch ever(according to Space Launch Schedule and Space Launch Now) and also has no other place to move the information too. List of Atlas LV3B launches is notable because Atlas LV3B was the 3rd rocket ever to launch humans to space. Can somebody please review all of the draft articles? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.238.109 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC) @OkayKenji: @N828335: @OkayKenji: @N828335: Hey, I will get to this soon, probably the weekend. OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 14:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Is Space.com reliable? A discussion is being held here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Space.com and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Space.com_reliable?