Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Template:Orbital launches by year

Members of Timeline of spaceflight working group,

Orbital launches by year template needs 17 more yearly templates to be created. I had decided to work on the same, this month. Anybody, interested to reduce the workload is WELCOME. All I need is an EXPERT REVIEW to be done once the template is created / or placed on the respective Spaceflight page (For eg, To check whether only Orbital launches are listed, Manned flights indicated in bold text, Uncatalogued launch failures listed in italics & Payloads deployed from other spacecraft in brackets). Also, Kindly update the below table in order to avoid duplication of work.

@WDGraham, Thanks ! for the Review of 1990. - Ninney (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Orbital launches by year

Year	Status	Review	Year	Status	Review	Year	Status	Review
{{Orbital launches in 1970}}	Erledigt	Erledigt	{{Orbital launches in 1972}}	Erledigt	Erledigt	{{Orbital launches in 1973}}	Erledigt	Erledigt
{{Orbital launches in 1974}}	Erledigt	Erledigt	{{Orbital launches in 1975}}	Erledigt	Erledigt	{{Orbital launches in 1976}}	Erledigt	Erledigt
{{Orbital launches in 1977}}	Erledigt	Erledigt	{{Orbital launches in 1978}}	Erledigt	Erledigt	{{Orbital launches in 1979}}	Erledigt	Erledigt
{{Orbital launches in 1983}}	Erledigt	Erledigt	{{Orbital launches in 1984}}	Erledigt	Erledigt	{{Orbital launches in 1985}}	Erledigt	Erledigt
{{Orbital launches in 1986}}	Erledigt	Erledigt	{{Orbital launches in 1987}}	Erledigt	Erledigt	{{Orbital launches in 1988}}	Erledigt	Erledigt
{{Orbital launches in 1989}}	Erledigt	Erledigt	{{Orbital launches in 1990}}	Erledigt	Erledigt

• I'm happy to handle the reviews. I'm also working on 1974 alongside the 1974 in spaceflight article. --W. D. Graham 19:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• @WDGraham, And I always insist you to let me do the foundation work so that you can focus on the Review work. This way I am free to work faster on the task & learn from the reviews. I am still eager to work on 1974 in spaceflight article. - Ninney (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate the sentiment, but while I've been doing a lot of review work recently - such as adding language tags which is boring as hell - I prefer to write stuff. --W. D. Graham 20:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ha Ha Ha ! You can only do the same (writing stuffs) after the backlogs are completed. Progress bar @ Wikipedia:TLS/S can only then be incremented. All the best ! - Ninney (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I found an old unfinished version of the 1989 template on my computer, so I finished it off and uploaded it. --W. D. Graham 23:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hooray ! May you seek more & find more - Ninney (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

 Erledigt ----W. D. Graham(editing from a public network) 22:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks WDGraham ! for all your reviews. Kindly update the progress bar at WP:TLS/S for Completing orbital launches from 65.5% to 80-90%; as per the work completed. - Ninney (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Naming of GPS SVN articles

I recently noticed that the articles on specific GPS constellation SVs use the USA spacecraft designations, e.g. USA-183 for GPS-SVN 53. While the USA spacecraft numbers are interesting, and well-suited to retention in a list (List of USA satellites), they are not used commonly at all. GPS satellites are primarily referred to by PRN, but because this is ambiguous because PRN slots are occupied by different SVs over time, the SVN numbers are what are used by the GPS community when referring to a particular spacecraft. I would suggest renaming all of the articles on GPS satellites to GPS SVN XX or something like that per WP:COMMONNAME. Objections? Issues? Discussion? siafu (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Each satellite has three names which are widely used in three different fields. When discussing the satellites in the contect of their place in the GPS system, then yes the PRNs and SVNs are typically used; however when discussing them in the context of launches their block numbers are tyically used, and when discussing them as satellites then their names are used - those names being he USA designations. While it is very field-depndant I would argue that the SVNs aren't actually names, and in any case due to the lack of a common name, we've defaulted to their "official" names. It also helps to avoid confusion between SVNs and SV numbers, which were introduced with the IIF series. --W. D. Graham 21:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The SVN #'s are just as official as any other names, and have the benefit over the USA spacecraft designations of actually being used, e.g. at the NGA, USCG Navigation Center, and the USNO. You will be hard-pressed to find any references to the USA #'s outside of wikipedia; this is not field-specific. siafu (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It also appears that nearly all of the articles named for USA satellite numbers were created by you last July; while the effort and work is appreciated, I think we've gone astray on this one, and I hope we can get some more discussion on the topic. siafu (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

One point of note: NORAD uses the SVN as the spacecraft name (e.g. NAVSTAR 64). Interesting case - I would need more time to think about which stance to take...... Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the "NAVSTAR" names used by NORAD correspond exactly to the SVNs. My view is that there are so many competing names available the best option is to use the "official" ones and put plenty of redirects in place for the rest. The articles are stable and fit nicely into a series of other spaceflight articles using USA/Kosmos/OPS designations. --W. D. Graham 09:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to suggest the USA numbers are "official" in a sense that the SVN numbers are not. Moreover, the claim that they are stable and fit well is irrelevant-- certainly they fit well in part because you made so many articles with the same naming scheme. We are, however, bound by policy to use the names for subjects that are in common use, and by this principle the SVN numbers have the much greater claim. siafu (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"Apollo Eleven"

The usage of Apollo Eleven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Apollo Eleven -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that Reconnaissance satellite, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Articles should be merged

A new article Orbiting skyhooks and an older but far shorter article Skyhook (structure) need to be merged as they are basically about the same topic. I don't know enough about the subject to do the merge myself, so I'm passing the buck here. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The merge discussion is progressing, with two editors having weighed in to date (including me). However, it is not clear which title of the article ought to stay and go into the future:Orbiting skyhooks or Skyhook (structure). Could definitely use comment by a few additional editors, especially someone more familiar than I with spaceflight article naming conventions. N2e (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

Turksat 1-A & Türksat 1A

Turksat 1-A redirects to the article Turksat (satellite) but there is an article by the name Türksat 1A, so do we need to delete the redirect ? - Ninney (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There would be no reason to delete the redirect. I've simply changed it to point to "Türksat 1A". — Huntster (t @ c) 04:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved Thanks! - Ninney (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tianzhou (a.k.a. future Chinese space station logistics spacecraft)

Is it time to start an article on the planned Chinese cargo capsule? It's been discussed for a few years now, and isn't a Shenzhou variant. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As someone who have followed the Chinese space program very closely I have several news sources, unfortunately (as with all news on Chinese spaceflight) it's all over the place and almost every one of them are in Chinese. I may be able to start one depending on getting spare time to do so. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ion thruster

In the second paragraph article: "Ion thrusters' exhaust velocity are often in the range of 15–50 kilometres per second (1,500–5,100 s), and will have a specific thrust usually below a newton per tonne. Thruster efficiency may reach 60–80%."

But Input power: 1 to 7 kilowatts Exhaust velocity: 20 to 50 kilometers per second Thrust: 20 to 250 millinewtons Efficiency: 60 to 80 percent. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Number of first stage engines of the Titan GLV etc

There is a discussion at Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles and Talk:LR-87#Affected articles that is within the scope of this Wikiproject. Please discuss it there. Andrewa (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

New article Jack Kinzler

Just an FYI that I've created an article about NASA's "Mr. Fix It" Jack Kinzler, who recently died. He was responsible for the sunshade that saved Skylab, the Lunar Flag Assembly, the Lunar plaque, and the six-iron head that Alan Shepard used to invent the sport of lunar golf. Get in there and edit! --JohnPomeranz (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Cubesats and micro-payloads in "year of spaceflight" articles

The recent surge of large number of cubesats launches since late 2013 has caused problems with listing them in individual "year of spaceflight" articles. Here are a selection of them:

• Many of these satellites are transported to the ISS by logistics spacecrafts and are either deployed from the Japanese Experiment Module's experiment airlock or manually deployed during EVAs, and the numbers are rising quickly (34 were launched on the last Cygnus, and at least some are planned on the next Dragon/Cygnus/HTV). Should we find a way to individually mark them as being deployed from the ISS?

• Many of these cubesats seems (or will be) launched in clusters, often copies of the same cubesat design (e.g. the 28 Flock-1 imaging cubesats deployed from the ISS lately). In these cases can one shorten the list item for these cubesats into one single group to save space? (e.g. compare this shortened version of the Flock-1 listing with this one)

• What constitutes a "satellite"? To be launched on the next Dragon spacecraft is a cubesat called KickSat that will deploy into LEO ~200 "Sprites" that are little more than circuit boards with solar array and sensors attached. So would we need 200+ listings for that? If not, where should the line be drawn?

Comments are welcome. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As for the last: I think the sane answer is "no". The term subsatellite has been applied for one orbital spacecraft deployed by another (e.g. in the last 3 Apollo lunar flights). I think it makes sense to draw the line at multiple subsatellites deployed by a single satellite, which is what that sounds like. I certainly don't think it's Wikipedia's job to catalog every object launched into space; other agencies do that.

(And I realize this is a bit off-topic, but please forgive, this begs the rhetorical question: Why, in heaven's name, are they planning to do things like this given the existing problem with space debris?) JustinTime55 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it makes intuitive sense to bundle constellations into one article, particularly when dealing with large numbers of small or otherwise individually uninteresting spacecraft. siafu (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

In response to Siafu, we currently assume spacecraft are notable enough to warrant their own articles if there is sufficient material to produce an article about them beyond a basic stub. This policy has served us reasonably well and trying to revise it is likely to reopen a can of worms which would best remain shut. In principle a few years down the line if somebody were to do enough research on the individual satellites they probably could create articles on each of the Flock-1 satellites, maybe even some of the Sprites. The chances of this are slim, but with things like CubeSats we have been continuing to list them in TLS articles and OLBY templtes, etc, for completeness. I would be strongly opposed to any blanket proposal, anything which would leave us without somewhere to put information on satellites launched for a particular mission (as opposed to constellation) and anything which would make our coverage of these mission uneven.

In principle I agree that a line should be drawn - the problem is finding the right place to draw it. In the templates I've written I excluded things such as "Romb" subsatellites deployed from Soviet calibration spacecraft, film capsules and (mercifully) the Westford Needles. That said there are some notable subsatellites (the Apollo ones probably should have articles). So my suggestion would be excluding something along the lines of "Multiple identical subsatellites deployed from a single parent satellite as part of its primary mission" from the lists and templates.

The "year in spaceflight" articles were always intended to be comprehensive lists, so all individual missions should always be listed. I would see each of the Flock satellites as having its own mission (they're not part of the ISS' mission), while I would see the Sprites as part of the KickSat mission. --W. D. Graham 19:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem, of course, being that we don't currently assume that spacecraft are notable enough in their own right to warrant their own articles, and frequently wrap them together in articles on constellations, like COSMIC and Iridium for example. It's not opening up a can of worms to simply acknowledge that. We could also, for the purposes of the list, use a table with collapsible sub-cells, showing something like "Flock constellation" when collapsed and listing the SVs when expanded. siafu (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That is simply not the case. Articles such as those are the exception rather than the rule, where they do exist they are often eventually spun out into articles, and the purpose of pages such as the Iridium one is to cover the constellation as a whole rather than the satellites themselves. We do see all individual spacecraft as notable; we tend to treat them much like individual ships: a typical communications satellite is an engineering project on the same scale and order of cost as a typical naval vessel while smaller spacecraft break new ground in science - c.f. research vessels - so it is a good analogy. You have an article on the ship itself, an article on the class of ship - such as the type of satellite, bus, etc - and an article on the fleet it belongs to. For Iridium most of the individual satellites don't currently have articles; Eutelsat is perhaps a better example:

• Hot Bird 13D is an individual satellite.
• Eurostar is the class (bus) of satellite.
• Hot Bird is the fleet it belongs to.

I am yet to see any convincing argument that our current system for individual articles doesn't work. --W. D. Graham 21:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Galactic Penguin's post starting this discussion is a convincing argument for how the system can fail us. It seems that in all these discussions, you plead bureaucratic objections to the proposals-- "we can't group satellites together because that's just not how it's done", essentially. Not only can we do so if we choose, but we do, and there are numerous examples, like GRACE and GRAIL. We don't need a hard and fast rule as to when to have one over the other since we aren't drones, and it's not at all unreasonable to suggest grouping large constellations of small satellites-- KickSat being an extreme example. We are not likely to, nor should we, produce 200 individual stubs covering every picosat involved. Again, as for the list, we can certainly leverage the technology to have it both ways-- a collapsible sublist will include every little entry without overwhelming the reader with hordes of near-identical entries. Also, for the record, I'm a working spacecraft engineer (working on COSMIC-2), so I'm familiar with the engineering challenges involved in building, launching, and operating spacecraft-- so let's leave that aside. siafu (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I very much disagree with the 'each satellite has its own mission' assertion. For instance, there were three round balls launched with CASSIOPE called POPACS 1, 2, and 3. The mission is POPACS. it has 3 satellites. Each one by itself would be worthless. They only give information when their orbits are compared with one other. Likewise constellations of satellites have a mission. Each one performs just PART of the mission. In many cases individual satellites are just not noteworthy. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

To me, it does not make sense to distinguish individual satellites if they all are the same hardware, they're flown at the same time, and the only real difference is in where they happen to be positioned. For the 'year in spaceflight' articles, they should be listed on a single line, with a notation as to how many there were, to avoid clutter and adding to navigation difficulties. The individual lines for each Flock-1 satellite in the 2014 in spaceflight article is nonesense. No one gives a hairy rodent's behind to any particular one of those satellites. Comm and positioning satellites are the same way. --14:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.154.0 (talk)

One more thing - no information is lost by listing the satellites on a single line with the notation of how many were launched. Let me repeat that - NO INFORMATION IS LOST by listing the satellites on a single line. You just clutter the article by listing each on a separate line. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

````

Nothing is lost except for orbit data, decay information, satellite names, individual mission outcomes and consistency of style without the need for arbitrary discrimination? --W. D. Graham 09:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A solution might be to use drop down lists that can be shown or hide for smaller payloads - this can make the list less cluttered while keeping all the data on the list. I don't know if it is doable with the Wiki lexicon though.... Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I did some experimenting, and it seems that it is possible, see this example. siafu (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about the listing on the 'xxxx in spacelfight' articles, whether to list each copy of the satellite on a different line, or all together on one line. The orbit data, decay info, etc. are not listed there anyway. If someone is interested, they can find the appropriate article. So, I repeat -- no information is lost. --02:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.154.0 (talk)

Oh - and advocating that each of the individual satellites should be listed is like advocating that each person should have their own article in wikipedia because of the potential that they may someday be notable. That's against wiki policy and rather foolish. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there further consensus needed on this topic? Also, at which point do we employ collapsing? For example, GRAIL and GRACE both sensibly can be put in one line each as constellations, but TerraSAR-X and Tandem-X, since they were launched so far apart in time, might be best left separate. Does anyone care, or should I just make a sandbox version? siafu (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Years in Spaceflight

I've noticed that some articles on years in Spaceflight (for example: 1961 in spaceflight) have been divided into separate articles based on months. Why do we do that ? Is it not better to keep it a single Article like 2012 in spaceflight, 2013 in spaceflight or 2014 in spaceflight? Zince34' 09:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The articles for those years got so large they started to cause problems; some wouldn't save properly and in some cases they even hit the parser limits. --W. D. Graham 20:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Rfd for redirects to Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

There is discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_2#Gravitational_observatory regarding redirects to Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Redirects

Can we nominate the below redirects for RFD ? Note, their is no trivial edit history pertaining to the satellites. Please suggest, if their are any alternate ways.

• 01. AMC-2 --> USS Magpie (AMc-2)

There is no article by the name AMC-2 or Americom-2 & is currently redirected to an article on a ship, USS Magpie (AMc-2). Refer {{SES World Skies}}.

• 02. Iridium 77 -> Livestock (rapper)

There is no article by the name Iridium 77 & is currently redirected to an article on an alternative hip hop artist from Guelph, Ontario.

- Ninney (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel AMC-2 should be made a disambiguation page. Zince34' 10:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

AMC-2 should, in fact, be a disambiguation page. - The Bushranger <sub>One ping only</sub> 10:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Iridium 77

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.

Discussion closed for Iridium 77. Thanks! Zince34', The Bushranger & FoCuSandLeArN. Please also do participate in the redirect discussion of Iridium 77 here.

---

Iridium-77, well, should be nominated. Zince34' 10:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I realized Iridium-77 should redirect to the element. Zince34' 11:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to create an article about Iridium-77, so we should probably wait for some more time. Zince34' 11:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Go Ahead for the article on Iridium-77. Thanks ! - Ninney (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think you'll be interested in this submission. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2014 (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.

AMC-2

• Hoping for more opinions on AMC-2. - Ninney (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's an incorrect capitalisation of a little-used alternative designation for an obscure ship. I'd say do what we've already done with most of the AMC series; make AMC-2 about the satellite and put a hatnote in place just in case anyone happens to be looking for the ship. WP:NATURAL/WP:DIFFCAPS alone would be enough to justify putting the article about the satellite at AMC-2. --W. D. Graham 11:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Disambiguate as I stated earlier. It is a name for the ship, the satellite, as well as a spectrometer aboard the ISS (For more, see STS-134). Zince34' 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  I think you'll find that's AMS-2. It isn't an alternative name for the ship; the ship is AMc-2, with a lowercase "c", which does make a difference. That said I would not be opposed to disambiguating anyway, as long as that disambiguation takes the form of a hatnote, as used with the other AMC satellites which already have articles. --W. D. Graham 17:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Agree with WDGraham. Just use AMC-2 for the satellite. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree; AMC-2 should be for the satellite, with a hatnote mentioning the ship. AMc-2 should be reserved for the ship, also with a hatnote. siafu (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Note This Draft might be interesting. I apologize anyway, for AMS-2. I was in a hurry, that's why. Zince34' 07:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Now there is another discussion at Talk:Iridium 77 (satellite) Zince34' 11:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Rocket engine naming

A discussion is underway at WT:ROCKETRY#Article naming that may interest the project. - The Bushranger <sub>One ping only</sub> 01:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yury or Yuri

While looking at the list of astronauts by first flight I noticed that there are two varieties of the spelling of the given name Yury. In the list are 7 Yury’s and 5 Yuri’s their Russian name are all spelled Ю́рий. I was wondering if some are wrong translated? Pindanl (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yuri would probably be a wee bit closer to the Russian pronunciation. The translations are basically phonetic. The name of the Russian mathematian, Tchebychev, gets translated with about 6 different spellings. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Mockup Inspiration

The Space Shuttle Orbiter mockup refered to as Inspiration is not located in Florida and never has been. It is located in Downey currently in the City of Downey Public Works Yard. It is constructed of plywood and plastic with no steel used in its structural fabrication. The mockup was not abandoned but donated to the City by the Boeing Company when they left the property. There never was an OV designation assigned to this mockup.

@108.185.42.205:: What makes you open a new section here ? Zince34 (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

See Space Shuttle Inspiration. I've distinguished the subject of this article from the replica located at the Astronaut Hall of Fame. They are two completely different objects. I've also done some cleaning, but it needs quite a bit more work. I'd like to write a separate article on the HoF vehicle, but there just isn't any information out there that I can find. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

'year' parameter in Infobox year in spaceflight

{{Infobox year in spaceflight}} now has a |year= parameter, for improved data granularity, and an emits an hCalendar microformat. The parameter would allow us to add "previous" and next" links, for instance, if people thought that desirable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

For assessment purposes, how should we assess "Comparison of..." articles?

WikiProject Spaceflight has a decently large number of "Comparison of ..." articles. These seem to differ a bit from pure "List of ..." articles in that the comparison articles attempt to marshal quite a bit of data, generally in sortable columns, that are (conceivably) sourced so that the reader can both compare some metric or the other in the various items in the comparison table, whereas List articles may merely be some sort of a bulleted list with links to related Wiki articles.

Examples include Comparison of orbital launch systems, Comparison of orbital rocket engines, Comparison of space station cargo vehicles, Comparison of orbital launchers families, etc. Some of these comparison articles are incomplete and/or rather poorly sourced, and so are of rather low quality on the project assessment scale; others are more complete and/or better sourced.

Our assessment of these articles is uneven. For example, in the four articles listed above, two are assessed as Lists (which require no importance assessment), while one is assessed as a Stub article of Low importance, and the other is unassessed.

My question is, for purposes of standardization across the Spaceflight Wikiproject, should we think of these articles in the ordinary Stub/Start/C/B/GA scale of article quality, each with an importance criteria assigned? Or ought we just assess them all as List, where no importance assessment need even be made?

Will appreciate input from others in the project with interest in general article improvement of spaceflight-related articles. Thanks. N2e (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say assess them as lists, as I can't see them ever really being able to progress in terms of quality in the same way that lists can't. There again I think they should actually be turned into lists, so feel free to treat my view with a pinch of salt. --W. D. Graham 18:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Skyhooks

I have been attempting to write an article on Skyhooks on the Skyhook (structure) page, and have been running into non-stop vandalism from a specific wiki editor. I have attempted to engage this editor in rational discussion but to no avail. You can see it all on the Talk page for the article. Now this editor has locked the article. It is an issue that needs to be resolved and I would appreciate your investigating the issue. The article in dispute is as follows: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.145.35 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

<removed inappropriate copypasta of article, folks can look at the history if they're interested> — Huntster (t @ c) 04:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Your preferred version of the article was removed because it appears to pay no heed to reality, amongst other things, to put it bluntly. I for one support the reversions, and you need to follow the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, in which you go to the talk page and find consensus for your proposed changes, rather than edit war to have them included. Remember, while WP:BOLD is encouraged, if someone disputes them, you do not have a right to those edits remaining in the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If it pays no heed to reality then why is it included in this NASA report?

And don't forget this one.

And these. Other scientists and engineers, as well as NASA, Lockheed Martin, and former astronaut Bruce McCandless II have also investigated, validated, and added to the concept.

And here is another one.

class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.145.35 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Same drama, different page. User Skyhook1 (aka 72.199.145.35 and 192.34.40.26): Several updated references in the current version explain that the tether material required (for both: orbiting skyhook and space elevators) must have a tensile strength only the theoretical limit of carbon nanotubes fiber might provide in the future.

You are indulging in WP:original research when you don't source your assays, when you do it often fails verification, and you indulge in WP:synthesis when you state that TORAY T1000GB fibers can and "will" be used for a skyhook orbiting Earth, but provide no reference stating so. Then you even include SpaceX when there is no relation whatsoever and were told so by 2 editors. I personally explained WP:verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources several times for at least one month. You don't need to keep demanding "freedom of speech" but understand WP:what Wikipedia is not. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

And Cheers to you. Try reading the references, hopefully the words won't be too big for you. I am not going to restate our disagreements here, if anyone is interested they will go to the Skyhook (structure) Talk page. You have also made it very clear that your mind is 100% closed and that you have no understanding of even the simplest of engineering concepts so what is the point? I still find it amazing that wikipedia would allow a self-proclaimed biologist from England and a police dispatcher from Tenn. to speak for them regarding space science issues. I guess you two are both smarter than all the folks at NASA and Lockheed who have worked on this. Wow! Maybe you should both apply to work at NASA, Lockheed, or SpaceX, then you could really turn around the space program for us all. Well, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance when you go for your interview you can always try to baffle them with bull. And if that doesn't work for you, you can always go back to reading comic books, playing tough guy on the internet, and eating donuts. So all is not lost even for someone like you. In any case it is obvious that we are not going to settle our disagreement without an adult third party who is knowledgeable about space science. So why don't you try acting like an adult and wait for the results - or does that make you so nervous that you can't remain silent? Tsk, tsk, children can be such a burden. Well if you want to keep on trading insults you know where to contact me. It will pass the time while we wait and I do find you amusing. Sweet dreams little one, don't let mummy forget to tuck you in, and no reading comics under the covers with a flashlight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.145.35 (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________

Huntster After thinking about it for a bit and considering your background, I don't consider you qualified to make the rules regarding the appropriateness of my placing my version of the article on skyhooks here where it is easy for all the other editors to read and form their own opinion. From my perspective there appears to be a pattern of behavior here where the established editors attempt to control everything by controlling the information and making rude comments. Then there is the fact that BI removed my version of the article from the Skyhook (structure) Talk page which only adds fuel to the thought that the two of you have something to hide. If I am incorrect about that then maybe the two of you should start taking responsibility for how you come across in your messages. So here it is again. Obviously you can remove it again but that will at least let me know that you are reading this and that you do have something to hide. If not, hopefully someone with an aerospace, engineering, or physics background will be willing to look into it and checkout the supporting peer reviewed references and validate the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.145.35 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 22 April 2014‎ (UTC)

<removed copy/paste article again>

You don't have to consider me qualified in the field of skyhooks; I'm telling you as an administrator on this site that it isn't appropriate to copy and paste an article onto any talk page, end of story. I really don't understand the "something to hide" comments, either. Regardless, if you want feedback on your material, which is absolutely encouraged, then on the article talk page lay out the points you'd like to see changed and invite comment on those. This is not the appropriate place. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

And Hunster beat me to it. Copying nad pasting an article anywhere is called copyright violation. - The Bushranger <sub>One ping only</sub> 06:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

And after reading the above, blocked the IP 24 hours for personal attacks. - The Bushranger <sub>One ping only</sub> 06:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Micro-Imaging Dust Analysis System (MIDAS)

Hello, space technology experts. This old Afc draft was never submitted to be in the encyclopedia, likely because it lacks reliable sources. Is this a notable topic that should saved from deletion as a stale draft, or is this information covered in another article somewhere? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• The references section needs to be puffed out a bit and there are a few issues with the tone it takes, but it is certainally salvagable and probably worth saving. There are plenty of precedents for giving spacecraft instruments their own articles - including two other instruments aboard Rosetta (although admittedly both of these articles are in bad shape). I'm not sure whether I'll have time but if I get a chance to look at cleaning it up over the weekend I will. --W. D. Graham 21:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. I have postponed its deletion for six months to give time for references to be found. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I added 3 more references and inline citations. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, BatteryIncluded! It would be good to have some news sources to go along with the govt ones. Is this useful: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/20/rosetta-comet-space-probe-european-space-agency/4661123/ ? or this: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rosetta-00c.html ? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 Erledigt. I added those and a few more. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have moved it to Micro-Imaging Dust Analysis System (MIDAS) and added an item to the Midas (disambiguation) page. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Space Shuttle launches.

At Comparison of orbital launchers families, the number of total space shuttle launches have been listed as 135. But OV-101 flew a number of Approach and Landing Tests which is not included in the total. Zince34' 07:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So did OV-101 went orbital in those tests? ;) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Galactic Penguin SST: Well, there is a seperate column for launches that reached space other than the total launches. Anyway STS 51-L did not go orbital either, did it ? Zince34' 09:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It was intended to, though, which is the difference - there were 135 launches. The A&LTs aren't launches, and thus aren't included in that total - and as they're not included in the tally in sources, to include them would be WP:OR. - The Bushranger <sub>One ping only</sub> 13:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Lunar coords and quad cat}}

Template:Lunar coords and quad cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for merger. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Move of Lynx (spacecraft)

Someone has proposed a move of Lynx (spacecraft), here: Talk:Lynx_(spacecraft)#Requested_move_28_April_2014. Thought it might have some relevance to broader project-wide discussions I've seen recently so am bringing it up here. N2e (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A subsidiary discussion has come up there, where it's suggested that the article is an advertisement for XCOR... -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In a SEO sense, where the commercial entity is gaining a lot of high value links from Wikipedia. I've been removing some of the primary sources and replacing them with government or industry news sources, so that situation is improving.

N2e is correct in noting the project-wide implications. Wikipedia treats spacecraft by using the name only eg Skylab or Apollo (spacecraft). There's only been one Skylab, but obviously there are other Apollo entities out there, from the god on down to the perfume brand. Aircraft are treated differently by including the manufacturer name eg. Beechcraft Lightning, English Electric Lightning and Lockheed P-38 Lightning.

Our difficulty comes with such as the Lynx or Dream Chaser. An expanding field, and while obviously they aren't traditional aircraft, seeing as how they are launched into space by rocket propulsion, a feature not found on a regular Cessna, they do have wings.

Rather than wrangle over the same things each time a new spaceplane concept is launched, and instead of having two editing camps fight a turf war ("Hey, we got the North American X-15, not to mention the North American DC-3, so this is our corner.") we could establish criteria to prevent any future conflict and distraction.

Lots of spacecraft have wings - the Space Shuttle and the SpaceShipOne for example - but the vast majority of aircraft do not come anywhere near the Kármán line of 100 kilometres. Undoubtedly there are other criteria.

I trust that there is enough good will in the fraternity of aerospace editors to sort this out, rather than have border raids from one armed camp or another, such as the current proposed move of Lynx (spacecraft) to XCOR Lynx, a discussion which has reached AN/I once already. --Pete (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The ANI discussion is archived at ANI Archive 837 -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Modified Template:Launching

Be aware I modified the {{Launching}} template with the intent of generating "details" text in past tense when a launch had failed. (The event motivating this was a Proton failure.) I hope there are no unintended side effects of my change, but since template syntax is a bit opaque there may well be. Feel free to revert the change if you see problems! (sdsds - talk) 05:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Taurus rocket to Minotaur-C - what to do with the article?

With the decision by Orbital Sciences to market the next upgrade of the Taurus rocket as the Minotaur-C rocket, what should we do to the Taurus (rocket) article? Moving it, re-naming it or marking it as "retired" and open a new Minotaur-C article (which I strongly disagrees with due to the two being almost the same except for upgraded avionics)? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose adding a Minotaur-C section to the Taurus article, above the OBV section. Then in the Minotaur article put a {{Main}} link to that new section, after the Minotaur VI section. (sdsds - talk) 05:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Support redesigning the Taurus article. The article should be about both the variants, and there should be sections for both. Should look like the Variants section in the PSLV article. Zince34' 05:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say move it to Minotaur-C; use the current name rather than former one, but it is clearly the same rocket. --W. D. Graham 21:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

There is a discussion at Talk:List of Progress flights in which you might be interested. AtHuLYaTHul1 (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comments for balancing bias in Soviet space program

I'm soliciting comments for changes to the article "Soviet space program" to present a more balanced perspective on the value of the long list of "firsts".[6]

Leptus Froggi (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Distance travelled in STS articles

Some of distances in space shuttle articles are wrong because of assumption that distance was given in international (or statute) miles while these are nautical miles probably. I described it in my post at Talk:STS-42. Same error in STS-45 and many more probably. It looks Encyclopedia Astronautica has correct values. Pikador (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Spaceflight At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Titan V

The article Titan V has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. (sdsds - talk) 04:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've redirected it to Titan (rocket family). If more information ever materialises it can be covered there. --W. D. Graham 20:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree (sdsds - talk) 07:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Laika (dog)"

The usage of Laika (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dogs#Requested_moves -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Space_Shuttle_main_engine#Requested_move3

All input welcome. Thank you. <sup>walk</sup> victor falk <sup>talk</sup> 08:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

AFC needs subject specialist help with assessing a Draft article

AFC needs assistance to evaluate Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source for inclusion in mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Naming Particular Space Shuttle in Opening Paragraph(s)

Every satellite/probe that has been launched aboard a Space Shuttle and has its own page on Wikipedia mentions which Shuttle it was launched from in its opening paragraph(s) with the exception of Magellan and Hubble (See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). I would assume that the formatting should be the same across these articles. Therefore, either the launch Shuttle name should be added to Magellan and Hubble or the other 9 articles should have the name removed from the lead paragraphs. Thoughts? -Martinman (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this is already under discussion at Talk:Hubble Space Telescope. --W. D. Graham 18:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Low-Density Supersonic Decelerator

I just started it and am making a bit of a pig's ear out of it. Could someone please have a look-see. Also, someone added some strange "see alsos" that I'm not sure about. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

American Islander

I think it's time for an article to be created for SpaceX's recovery ship, American Islander. There is information available at MarineTraffic.com, but some help finding more information to make a proper article would be appreciated. --Kitch <sup>(Talk : Contrib)</sup> 13:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Purported Sputnik signal

Could someone familiar with Sputnik-1, and/or early Russian satellites in general, please check out the stalled discussion at commons:File talk:Possible PDM signal labeled as Sputnik by NASA.ogg and comment there? Thanks. Note that this potentially affects many Wikipedia articles (in different languages), since they link to that file. - dcljr (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Haven't had time to analyse the signal, but if it is Sputnik then it can't possibly have been recorded by NASA, as NASA was not formed until after Sputnik had decayed from orbit. --W. D. Graham 22:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the NASA-related claim about that file (according to its current filename) is that they "labeled" the signal as belonging to Sputnik, not that they originally recorded it. - dcljr (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thinking of retiring from WP

I just wanted to give you guys a heads up that I'm considering leaving Wikipedia. Over the last few months I've grown tired of the increasing sensationalisation and trivialisation of spaceflight topics. The current discussion at Talk:Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 has highlighted the growing trend to regard fictional and cancelled missions and concepts that will never fly (such as UFOs and the recent ISX Enterprise news story) as notable while real and significant missions such as OCO-2 are deemed non-notable.

The OCO-2 discussion is also showing something else that I have grown frustrated with; a small number of users trying to railroad through a move/merger against wider practices and guidelines, with minimal discussion before a hasty, allegedly "binding", vote and ignoring the concerns raised by those who oppose the proposal.

I'm not on my way yet, but I'm seriously considering heading that way so I thought I had better let you know. --W. D. Graham 17:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't let it get you down. I'm frustrated by that same discussion, but if it comes to it, I'll simply unwatchlist it. I would suggest the same strategy. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Convention for units of Isp

With this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fregat&curid=8534779&diff=616376277&oldid=598858432 a new user seems to be implying it is more proper to use SI-specific units for specific impulse (Isp), rather than the more common units-independent convention of "seconds." Does WikiProject Spaceflight have an established opinion on the matter? (sdsds - talk) 07:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Both units are SI, it's just a matter of which baseline we use. Seconds are the most commonly used units, but they are baselined against weight, wheras newton-seconds per kilogram is baselined agains mass and therefore doesn't vary with altitude. I'd be very much in favour of adopting Ns/kg as standard with seconds as a conversion. Thrust should definately be given in terms of newtons and not kilograms, but I'd suggest giving kg and lb as conversions. --W. D. Graham 18:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've mocked up a {{Convert}}-style template at User:WDGraham/ConvertISP (e.g. 2300 Ns/kg (235 sec), 2043 Newton-seconds per kilogram (208.3 seconds)). If we want to proceed with something like this I'll write the final version in Lua, but it should give an idea of what we could do with it for now. --W. D. Graham 19:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the consistency a convert-style template provides would be great! My sense is that editors will mainly have a value from source material that expressed it in seconds. To make wikipedia articles appear consistent would they want a template that took seconds as its input parameter, but still generated output with Ns/kg given first? Similarly editors might want a thrust conversion template that took lbf as its input but generated output with newtons given first.... (sdsds - talk) 05:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This is just a prototype; I was planning to put that in the final version anyway. {{convert|3000|lbf|N|disp=flip}} can be used for thrust. --W. D. Graham 06:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, excellent! By the way I happened to notice this: {{convert|360|isp}} generates "360 seconds (3.5 km/s)". Is that a conversion to effective exhaust velocity? Can/should that be deprecated? Is there a way to tell if it is being used anywhere? (sdsds - talk) 14:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe European sources generally use specific impulse as a synonym for exhaust velocity and use m/s as the unit. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be undocumented. I'm not sure what it is. --W. D. Graham 16:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this again, in the RS-68 infobox. I would like to first establish this is not consistent with the standards of WikiProject Spaceflight (or Rocketry), and then look at fixing them all. Might it be possible to edit the convert template such that all pages which use this {{convert||isp}} functionality are automatically added to a category "pages using deprecated isp conversion" or some such? Then they would be easy to find and fix.... (sdsds - talk) 03:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Seconds are the most commonly used units, but they are baselined against weight, wheras newton-seconds per kilogram is baselined agains mass and therefore doesn't vary with altitude. Oh this is so wrong. NONE of the units ever vary with gravity.

All the 'weight' units are referenced to g<sub>0</sub> by everyone, always, everywhere; the idea of a vacuum Isp that varies with altitude makes grown engineers and scientists shudder and cry.

There's nothing 'righter' about Ns/kg than m/s they're both correct SI; and actually m/s is more useful, because it's numerically the same, and dimensionally correct to use in the rocket equation.

Frankly Ns/kg is an abomination that should probably just die. But our opinions as editors shouldn't matter; and that's why we shouldn't go through and make large scale imposition of non widely used units like Ns/kg.

In my opinion you should simply stick to whatever the source uses as the primary unit to quote from and convert to another unit- either m/s or seconds depending on whether the original source was SI or imperial; because m/s and seconds are the ones that are by far in most frequent use. That seems to be the most NPOV thing to do, and that's how convert is currently set up.GliderMaven (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those insights. I agree that in addition to consistency (which seems particularly important in infoboxes) we certainly want to remain NPOV. Thanks also to Mmeijeri for the suggestion that European sources might report Isp as a velocity. (Personally I hadn't seen that. Does e.g. the ESA website do that anywhere?) I feel like m/s takes us down a slippery slope, though. Would we also provide ft/s? Lb-sec/slug? I don't think we have impartial data on what units (other than seconds) are most frequently used in reliable sources, nor do we know much about what our readers would expect and find useful! (sdsds - talk) 20:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Convert

I maintain {{convert}} and while I understand basic physics, I have no grasp of the topic of this discussion. Nevertheless, following a request at my talk, I am providing some information on the current situation.

GliderMaven provided definitions for related units for {{convert}} (for the record, the initial discussions were here (December 2013), but there's nothing of interest there now). The official definitions are here, reproduced in slightly different form below.

Unitcode	Symbol	Name	Default	Scale	Extra	Link
isp	s	second	km/s	9.80665	-	Specific impulse
kNs/kg	kN-s/kg	kN-s/kg	isp	1000	-	Specific impulse
Ns/kg	N-s/kg	N-s/kg	isp	1	-	Specific impulse
si tsfc	g/(kN·s)	g/(kN·s)	tsfc	1/101972/9.80665	invert	Thrust specific fuel consumption
tsfc	lb/(lbf·h)	lb/(lbf·h)	si tsfc	1/9.80665/3600	invert	Thrust specific fuel consumption

Unit isp is used at Ariane 5 and Space Shuttle and several others (over 170 converts in articles). Unit tsfc is used at Rolls-Royce Olympus and a few others; "si tsfc" is used at Eurojet EJ200 and a couple of others. Here are some examples:

• {{convert|275|isp}} → 275 seconds (2.70 km/s)
• {{convert|275|-|295|isp}} → 275–295 seconds (2.70–2.89 km/s)
• {{convert|0.81|tsfc}} → 0.81 lb/(lbf⋅h) (23 g/(kN⋅s))
• {{convert|21|si tsfc}} → 21 g/(kN⋅s) (0.74 lb/(lbf⋅h))
• {{convert|2510|Ns/kg|isp}} → 2,510 N‑s/kg (256 s)
• {{convert|450|isp|ft/s}} → 450 seconds (14,000 ft/s)
• {{convert|1.2|tsfc|m/s}} → 1.2 lb/(lbf⋅h) (29,000 m/s)

Is this of any use? Are any variations wanted? If anyone wants to experiment, the procedure for adding units is a bit complex and the simplest might be to provide the information and I'll add the unit. Or, see Module:Convert/extra (specifically the documentation at the top). That includes a link to Template:Convert/unit sandbox where I have put an extract from the speed definitions. That can be edited, then "purge" clicked on the talk page, then the wanted unit can be pasted into Module:Convert/extra. Changing an existing unit should not be done without a heap of discussion first. For example, if some change to "isp" were wanted, you might make "isp2" or "ispx" and use that for experimenting. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

RFA: Sentinel Mission articles

As many members are probably aware, the Chelyabinsk event last year was the second large NEO impact on Earth since the start of the 20th century, the first one being the vastly larger 1908 Tunguska event in basically the same region of Russia. Planetary scientists are in agreement that its not a matter of 'if' the Earth will experience such potentially catastrophic impacts again, but only 'when'. There have been a number of proposals to establish an asteroid deflection capability, which remain unfunded to the point that even substantive asteroid detection programs are not being undertaken by world governments.

That situation changed somewhat just two years ago when the B612 Foundation, a U.S. non-profit (NGO), decided it was imprudent to wait for government action while the clock was ticking down. In 2012 they committed to launching their own asteroid surveying mission, called Sentinel, at a cost of $450M funded by public donations. Its executives and technical members are blue chip planetary and asteroid scientists, former NASA astronauts and space industry executives. They're working with a leading prime contractor, Ball Aerospace, for a 2017-2018 launch into a Venusian orbit where the first broad, and effective, survey of NEOs can be undertaken.

The importance of effective asteroid survey missions and deflection capabilities can't be understated. While commercial/military satellites and space science probes provide an immediate benefit to those organizations sponsoring them, the possibility likelihood of future catastrophic impacts similar to the Tunguska event makes the launch of asteroid-surveying space observatories a very wise undertaking, IMHO, even if such impacts are rare. However they are not that rare: only several months ago a new study based on the infrasound signatures of such meteors provided a new estimate that puts monster impacts on Earth at once per century, not once per millennium as originally thought. Essentially, some have said, people are living 'on borrowed time'.

In that spirit I invite project editors to contribute to the B612 Foundation page, and its companion article Sentinel (space telescope), and if possible to also have them translated to other wiki languages as well. Best, HarryZilber (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)