Talk:3-axis stabilized spacecraft

Context
I am still not sure what this is. One thing that will help is to rewrite the lead so that it begins with "A 3 axis-stabilized spacrecraft is ..."

Also, do 3 axis-stabilized spacecrafts exist, or is it a conceptual design being considered for a new spacecraft? « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 20:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nowadays the vast majority of spacecraft are 3 axis stabilized. The others are spin stabilized


 * Ps: It seems to me that Wikipedia has surprisingly little information about spacecraft!


 * Stamcose (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Stamcose. Do you have a source which says that the majority of spacecraft are 3 axis-stabilized? We only need one and it can be a book, journal article, video program, or anything published (in some way).
 * Also, you're right that Wikipedia doesn't have very much information about spacecraft, and if you would like to write some more, I would love to read it! « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 23:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Trebbien
 * As reference I can just say that I have been working many years with Flight Dynamics operations of European spacecraft. 30 yers ago they were all spin stabilized. Presently it is only Cluster (soon terminated) and Ulysses (just died) that are spin-stabilized. At present time there is (to my knowledge) not a single spin-stabilized geostationary telecommunication spacecraft left! A 3 axis stabilized spacecraft is for example Envisat
 * Stamcose (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't take offense, but we cannot rely on editor expertise as a reference. This is because there have been editors before who, for example, have claimed to hold advanced degrees and actually didn't. (You can read about one case here.)
 * To be brief, if in your spare time you could find a reference, we would appreciate a citation in this article. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that the above discussion is very old. But I will note that reading the discussion did inform me as a Wikipedia reader a bit about the distinction between Spin-stabilized satellites and 3-axis stabilized spacecraft, and that, even without citations to good sources, it would appear that the spin-stabilization technique was much more common in early satellites than it is now.  That, alone, is useful to my evolving knowledge base, which just hasn't ever thought much about comparative approaches to spacecraft stability.  And the article does not do what the talk page does (see Comparative approaches to spacecraft stabilization, below).  N2e (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge?
Wild idea: Perhaps Wikipedia would be improved by merging spin-stabilized satellite spacecraft]]s and 3-axis stabilized spacecraft into a single article with a name yet to be determined. I'm not yet certain of the wisdom of this idea myself. But if one other editor thinks it might be a good idea, I will go to the trouble to formally propose a merge and invite a wider discussion. N2e (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Or maybe we could merge both of the (stubby and poorly-sourced) articles to an existing article: Flight dynamics (spacecraft)?  I will await other's input before proceeding. N2e (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Kolbasz (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Opposed Someone erroneously thinks "Flight dynamics" means "attitude control"; it does not. Please see the discussion at Talk:Flight dynamics (spacecraft). The discussion should be moved to that talk page to keep it in one place. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Above, I had suggested that I would propose a merge to get a wider discussion, once a second editor weighed in to support the idea of making any change at all. Well, within a single day, two editors have weighed in and started discussing, with apparently opposing ideas on the matter.  So I will NOT here propose anything, at least not now.  I will monitor, and weigh in if I have something useful to say, at the alternative discussion that JustinTime55 has helpfully pointed us to over at Talk:Flight dynamics (spacecraft).  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (outdent) It appears to me that there is agreement that the article should be merged, and the only disagreement was between two authors about which article is the best one to merge it into. Per discussion on Talk:Spin-stabilized satellite, both Kolbasz and JustinTime55 support the idea that merging into the Attitude control system article is okay, in lieu of merging it into Flight dynamics (spacecraft).  I am certainly okay with completing that merge into the Attitude control system article.  In short, in my view, consensus has been reached. N2e (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comparative approaches to spacecraft stabilization
The article currently (2011-03-30) makes no explicit distinction between spin-stabilized spacecrafts and 3-axis stabilized spacecraft, nor that the spin-stabilization technique was (apparently) much more common in early spacecraft than it is now. I believe these are both areas that could be improved. Does anyone know of any sources that would help improve these two deficiencies in both articles? I would be happy to help improve the articles if so. N2e (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE: the article formerly did make a distinction, thusly:
 * "One possibility to avoid this wobble is to make the spacecraft rotate around a principal axis, a so-called spin-stabilized satellite. An alternative to spin stabilization is to use an active attitude control system with attitude sensors to detect mispointing and attitude control actuators, mostly momentum wheels or thrusters, to compensate for the outer torques and to keep the spacecraft in the desired attitude. With such a control system the attitude of the spacecraft can be controlled at will and can be kept in an inertially fixed attitude; it can be turned in any way at any time. This type of attitude control is called 3 axis stabilization and most modern spacecraft use this kind of attitude control."
 * However, that text was challenged and removed after having no source found for over two years. N2e (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)