Talk:Ares I/Archive 1

Updated Logo
I don't know the best way to edit pictures in Wikipedia articles, but I wanted to let someone know that the logo for the Ares launch vehicles has been updated. I have uploaded the current logo to my own site, so if someone can take this file, scale it and host it at Wikipedia, that would be good.

http://x-realms.net/forums/uploads/post-2-1154704984.jpg

Check my IP to verify authenticity of this image.

Crtitics aginst Ares_I design and ESAS
I think that more space in this article must be given to the TONS of critics (on dozens of space-websites and space-forums!) about the Ares_I design, the use of the expensive 5-segments-SRB, the possible alternatives to launch the CEV with ready available rockets like AtlasV and Ariane5 and the high risk of FAIL due to a "sum of delays" thanks to the one-and-half launch architecture: first the Ares_V with EDS and LSAM then, within 95 days max, the Ares_I with the CEV/SM.

Stop trying to plug for EELVs or the "Direct" launcher here. This entry is about the Ares I. I would welcome comments criticizing Ares I but only if they come from QUALIFIED, PROFESSIONAL, AEROSPACE ENGINEERS, not hobbyists and malcontents.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Crew Launch Vehicle --> Ares I

The result of discussion was Move

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~

Support GW_Simulations |User Page 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments on poll
OPPOSEThere is nothing wrong with were it is.--aceslead 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does it need to be moved?--aceslead 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Old poll, should have been closed months ago, done now. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Unclear
It is not particularly clear if this entry refers to a probably technology, a planned technology or a speculated technology etc

Could somebody do a quick write up to explain how hypothetical/real this vehicle is.

needs editing
The introduction to this article is extremely confusing...seems like it needs major reworking. 70.108.187.117 02:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Orion
According to forum.nasaspaceflight.com the CEV capsules will be named 'Orion'. User:Tom walker 17:59 27 July 2006
 * This hasn't been officially announced yet. I reverted it's insertion into the article, but it was inserted in such a way as to read that "Orion" was the preliminary name for the CEV. It wasn't. Altair was. If the name "Orion" goes into the article, the surrounding text needs to be rewritten to either do away with this preliminary name business, or make it clear that this name is not official, or do something that doesn't end up making the writing be non-factual. adavidw 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Test schedule
The AA tests which are listed in this article have indeed very little to do with Ares I and should be better listed in the Orion entry. Hektor 21:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Design Problem
1 This section should be merge with the critics section and the response by NASA to this critics should be included.

2 This section clearly denigrate the Ares 1 design in favor of the EELV with rumors not fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.66.14 (talk • contribs).


 * I've added a reference to the original source of the criticism. --StuffOfInterest 12:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a good thing. But that's a criticism, and belong in the criticism section of the article. And to be neutral you should also mention the response by the constellation project manager Jeff Hanley. You can find it here. I won't do it myself because I'm not really good to write in english and I make to much mistake to write article on wikipedia, and it wasn't me who deleted the text.--67.70.103.83 19:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've aded a comment with a reference about the response by Jeff Hanley so this section becames more neutral.


 * I have remove the first part of the design section because it was mostly a cut n paste from Keith Cowing's article. --69.159.182.212 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed a link
I removed the following:


 * Direct Launch Vehicle: Shuttle Derivative Universal Launch Solution

I removed this link because it doesn't discuss the Ares I vehicle except to generally say that they are opposed to it.

I considered moving it to the references section and using it to back up the criticism section but I couldn't find anything on the Direct Launch site that correlated to the criticisms levelled in that section. I didn't spend a lot of time looking at the Direct Launch site so if someone finds something that references a criticism of the Ares I, by all means create a reference link to the Direct Launch page that addresses the issue. (Please link to the page that addresses the issue, not just the landing page of Direct Launch).

Epolk 17:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

5 segment RSRM information in 'criticism' section
I would suggest editing this as there is comparatively detailed information about the choice of the 5-segment RSRM which does not seem to fit well in this section. Batoom 14:11, 24 November 2006

Question
What is klbm? CoolGuy 05:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Article rewrite
A number of people have commented that this article needs to be cleaned up, so I'm starting to rewrite it. Here is the outline I have come up with, but I would like to hear people's input on it. One comment that was the sections on Design Problems and Criticisms should be combined, however, I think it would be better to keep them separate. Not all, or even most, of the criticisms are design problems with Ares I. For example, the use of a five segment SRB isn't a design problem, as it is not an engineering problem which needs to be overcome, it is a design criticism. There are design problems, such as the lack of sufficient power to launch the current Orion crew capsule, most of those will be worked out as the rocket is further developed. Generally, these need to just be kept separate and distinct, so there is no confusion between design problems and criticisms of the Ares I rocket.
 * Ares I’s role in Project Constellation
 * Design
 * Design History
 * Design Problems
 * Development Schedule
 * Criticisms
 * See also
 * References

Please let me know if you have any thoughts. Grant 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the page as I discussed above. I kept large parts of the article intact, and just reorganized them.  However, more than half of the article was completely rewritten. Grant 06:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article reads very nicely; good effort. I think there is a (very minor) error on reference 4, where it's stated "On 4 January 2007, NASA announced that the Ares I had completed its system requirements review, the first such review completed for any manned spacecraft design since the Space Shuttle."


 * This, I believe is incorrect. The source restricts it to the first for any US design, which no doubt takes into account the Soviet (and later Russian Federation) Buran space shuttle program, which must have also undergone a similar review, as it had entered a fairly advanced stage of testing (including an unmanned launch and orbit) before it was finally axed outright in 2003.

Ares I Alternative
I feel that Ares IV should be removed from the size comparison image. Ares IV was an unofficial study by NASA, and is no longer being considered, and never was considered as an Ares I replacement. It has no place in that image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.81.176 (talk) 22:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The last section (the one with the Ares I in a sort-of modified STS configuration), needs to be made into a separate article. This was a rocket proposed by a group of independents was placed on the NASA Spaceflight webpage. Unless it has to do with the Ares I directly (such as a hypothetical Atlas V Heavy zero + first stage assembly (al a Titan IV style) with the Shuttle-derived J-2X powered second stage, the anything that deviates from the Ares I article should be made separate. Rwboa22 19:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Help on Shuttle ET as baseline for Ares I second stage
Can any contributors to this article help clear up the confusion at Space Shuttle external tank about the ET being the "baseline" for the Ares I second stage? Thanks! Sdsds 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unattributed "reports"
I follow this article and noticed that this line has popped up.

"Reports of growing political pressure from Congress to cancel the Shuttle-derived system and instead use existing Atlas/Delta vehicles began circulating in mid-2007."

Is there a reference for this? Have we got any more detail? If true this could be very important. Plaasjaapie 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, is it just me, or does anybody else feel a bias in the criticism section? --72.77.141.163 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the criticism section feels like it's trying to sell another view point. Charles Oppermann (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Deeply ironic name
Does the name of the Ares I and V rockets strike anyone else as deeply ironic?

From the Ares article (emphasis added):

Though often referred to as the Olympian god of war, he is more accurately the god of savage war, or bloodlust, or slaughter personified. (Footnote: Rather than being a brave soldier, he is often depicted as somewhat cowardly. (...))

Among the Hellenes, Ares was always distrusted. (Footnote: "You are the most hateful to me of the gods who hold Olympus," Zeus tells him in the Iliad ( 5.890); "forever strife is dear to you and wars and slaughter".)

(...)

Ares' [stance] tended to be the unpredictable violence of war. His birthplace and true home was placed (...) among the barbarous and warlike (...).

Lets consider the US' current stature and esteem in the world...

And lets also consider the nature and state of the US space program...

Hm...

Maybe the name is fitting, after all. :rollseyes: ;-P 86.56.34.47 22:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Will this discussion somehow lead to improvement of the Ares I artiicle? (sdsds - talk) 12:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could be from the ICBM and other things (see Ares (disambiguation)). Does not really matter.  It is all speculation without a reference saying that's what NASA named it after. -Fnlayson 12:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If the name is disturbing (Ares is the Greek name of the Roman god Mars), than NASA should consider renaming the rocket "Nova." After all, the Ares I and Ares V are more powerful than the Saturn IB and Saturn V rockets and Wherner von Braun wanted to build the huge superbooster (with 13 million lbs. of thrust) for his Man-On-Mars program back in the 1960's and 1970's.  Rwboa22 08:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

2nd Stage Architecture
Changed "interstage" to "intertank". An interstage is the cylindrical section that is located at a separation joint and houses the engine bell prior to separation. The intertank is the cylindrical section that is located between the fuel tank and oxidizer tank. The intertank is the part that was removed and replaced by the common dome bulkhead, the interstage is still on the bottom of the 2nd stage. Jacksjb 20:10, June 25, 2007 (UTC)

Stage 1 reusable ??
It says the stage 1 booster is similar to the shuttle, but without the parachute and recovery hardware. Yet it is also stated to be re-usable. Is this consistent ? Eregli bob (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Another point on the 1st stage booster, coming from the shuttle it presumably has no thrust vectoring. Solid engines are considerably harder to vector that liquid. This would be a major design challenge which might be explored in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.99.35.23 (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ares 1 Criticisms
I am very unhappy with the facts of criticisms. There are not enough facts included in this section. I suggest we create a new article called Ares 1 Opposition and Criticisms.

Facts missing are that the SRB rockets are far more dangerous than Liquid fueled rockets.

No astronaut has ever died on liftoff during a liquid fueled only rocket. The Shuttle does not count as it uses SRB's and it's SRB's were the direct cause of the Challenger accident.

This article segment also does not include or address the immense pollution and environmental damage caused by continued SRB's use. They found Perchlorate rocket fuel in all the air, water, soil and food and this is not mentioned. The SRB's we use on the Shuttle have helped Global Warming to melt the Arctic Ocean. There should be 9 feet of ice at the North Pole. It is open liquid ocean nowadays.

This article also does not mention the all the Antitrust laws broken by NASA and ATK regarding the SRB's and the Launch Escape tower on top. It completely ignores the blatant Republican organized corruption that is going on at ATK in Utah and Members of the US Congress and NASA.

I too am becoming a Deletionist! I want to delete Ares 1 rocket because it is bad for Global Warming.

You know, NASA's Michael Griffin looks like a dunce who is stupid enough to be corrupt.

Supercool Dude (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your contention that SRB's are more dangerous than liquid fuel rockets was true up till the time of the Challenger disaster. The changes implemented since then has negated that argument as they have performed nearly faultlessly on just under 100 launches since 1988. This was the basis on which NASA made its decision to go with solids on the next generation Ares. It was only by good luck that disasters were averted during the launches of Gemini 6 and Soyuz T-10-1 both liquid fueled rockets Mstanaway (talk • contribs) 06:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The contribution of SRBs to alleged global warming is negligable. It would be fair to say that SRBs are less safe than liquid fuelled rockets, as they cannot be shut down once lit. This has not changed. Can I remind you that this is not a forum, and should only be used for discussing the article, not criticising the rocket yourself. If you want to do that, I suggest you go to a website like this one. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 09:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the criticisms, the following article from Aerospace America does a good job of documenting and addressing them: http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/Seitzen-Ares%20I_JUL2008.pdf Berzgt (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that "Performance shortfalls with Ares I have resulted in a series of reductions to the capabilities, size, weight, and even redundant safety systems of the Orion spacecraft which will fly atop the Ares I.[18][19][20]". The references state that NASA was fighting Orion spacecraft weight to "match" it with Ares I performance. Ares I, if you actually look at the mass-to-orbit numbers, is meeting its original design goals. The problem is, or was since these references are dated, Orion weight growth, or alternatively bad systems engineering in defining the original Ares I lifting requirements, not Ares I "performance shortfalls". - Ed Kyle, 16 February 2009 12.2.137.100 (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The critisisms section needs additional citations and reviewing to ensure it is of WP:NPOV and WP:V. 194.80.32.9 (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that the whole criticism section should probably go. One or two sentences that are verifiable and reliably sourced could be saved by working them in to the remainder of the article, but otherwise... You just know that something is probably wrong when there's a criticism section in an article... — V = I * R  (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why no II & III?
There is Ares I, and there are also Ares IV and Ares V. But why are there no Ares II and Ares III? What caused this jump in numerology of Ares spacecraft? If there is any known reason, it should be mentioned in the article.

Also, it seems that there is no joint article for all (and only) Ares spacecraft. --78.2.225.76 (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that NASA started the Ares series with Ares I, the crew launch vehicle, and then named the cargo launch vehicle Ares V to provide a connection to the Saturn V heavy lifter. For the Ares IV, my guess is that, since it is a mix between Ares I and V, NASA named it Ares I+V = Ares IV. But that's just a guess. Nat682 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In the original ESAS proposal, there were discussions of an Ares II/III. The # at the end referred to the number of RS-25 engines the design had.  Ares I had one, in the second stage.  Ares V had 5, attached to the bottom of a stretched Space Shuttle External Tank as the first stage.  There were II, III and IV designs, which the II and III used the SSET as/is, the IV using the stretched tank.  (these designs were called LV 25, 26, and 27, respectively, in the study)  It was when the issues of air-starting the RS-25 engine were realized, that the issues with Constellation began.  In short, the fight to keep Ares I killed the whole program.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.177.228 (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Did REALLY the NASA people say this?

 * Supporters of the Ares I claim that the vehicle is essential in ensuring the continued employment of the current STS workforce

Is out there a source for this?. Is really the Ares a Make work scheme and people at NASA have the chutzpa to say it openly?. Oh my G*d, if that´s true how low the NASA is falling.

I own a book titled "Halfway to Anywhere" where in fact it is said that ALL the NASA is a make-work scheme. Reading about the Ares makes me think that the authors are unfortunately spot on. Randroide (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's possible, but cynicism and sarcasm are no help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.157.146 (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a good way of looking at it. NASA should focus of saving expertise and skills.  However, launch operations will get leaner during the time between Shuttle and Ares I (2010-15). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The legend is that there was such a gap between Apollo and STS that there was little continuity in the workforce. Skilled workers moved on. This is the origin of the make-work sound bites. Ideally, next time, the new programme would be starting up as the old one was winding down so that valuable employees could transition to the new programm.. Unfortunately, the current launch system is considered unacceptably dangerous, and its expenses are hindering development of the next programme. If there were no gap, it would not be unusual to want the same skilled people to work on the new rocket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.217.52 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In truth, there are about 8000 people employed who operate STS. There is a "make-work" faction
 * about them -- however, you must understand these people are in place and can productively
 * operate a space vehicle program. If you let it lapse -- they go away and you start over << —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.139.190.35 (talk • contribs)

Citation problems with Ares I Contractor
I followed the citation link tagged onto this text: "NASA has announced that ATK Thiokol, the current builders of the Shuttle SRBs, will be the prime contractor for the Ares I first stage.[6] " The article that this note links to does not mention ATK Thiokol or say anything about who the prime contractors are. This needs to be cited or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.173.221 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Alphabet Soup
There are several acronyms used in this article without definition. For example, CEV, EELV and ESAS. I have no idea what these mean. Please don't assume that everybody already knows NASA or pseudo-NASA jargon. Rsduhamel (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Boeing built the S-IC stage at Michoud in the 1960s - Citation needed
I have added a reference for the disputed Michoud fact. There is a discrepancy in the nomenclature, but it would seem that Lockheed is describing the very same stage that is being questioned here. They make no mention of Boeing. As for the date, Michoud claims to have made, Saturn stages until the early 1970s. I suppose it is possible that Michoud didn't get into the Saturn business until 1970, only to shutdown before 1975, and the presence of the Citation-needed flag will have prevented a serious error.

But I hope my reference is enough to get the flag pulled. I will attempt to contact the flagger so this article will have one less flag!

It looks like CiudadanoGlobal flagged the Michoud fact in July 2008, and then bailed in August 2008!

''Goodbye

I'm thinking that it's a waste of time for me to contribute to Wikipedia. Huge amounts of time are wasted (for absolutely no compensation) making edits which are not always appreciated and are reverted for often trivial reasons. I have decided to refocus my efforts on specific technical writing projects which will likely pay more in the long run than Wikipedia (they could hardly pay less). Thanks.... CiudadanoGlobal (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)''

Sorry, CiudadanoGlobal. I hope your technical writing has made you a rich man!

I am going to pull the Citation-needed flag on the Michoud fact. Please put it back if my reference fails to answer the challenge.

Well, someone added a reference from Boeing that confirms that Boeing made S-ICs at Michoud. Unfortunately, the only date reference is 1973--Skylab! So, I'm not sure if even this second reference will satisfy CiudadanoGlobal's doubts! Fotoguzzi (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fratricide - Primary-source flag
I suppose until a secondary source analyzes the fratricide report, the slide with the parachute photoshopped into the fireball could be displayed as an illustration to the article.

I haven't scrutinized the article history, but I just added a reference and there seems to be another reference that I would take to be secondary sources. Could this be reviewed, and perhaps clarified if it is felt that the flag needs to remain? Fotoguzzi (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Orlando Sentinal reference is at least a secondary source. The "USAF 45th space wing" source is definately a primary source, though. Please see WP:PRIMARY.
 * As for the Orlando Sentinal... in this regard, I wouldn't really call them a reliable source. Simply parroting what "USAF 45th space wing" states in their report is not what I would call intelligent analysis. Now, if you could find either a corroborating report stating essentially the same thing as the USAF report (a NASA report discussing the USAF concerns, perhaps?), or a scientifically rigorous third part analysis, then there wouldn't be a source issue here.
 * Of greater overall concern is the fact that this materiel is within a criticism section, though. If you want it to be in the article, then you should work it in to the existing article somewhere. This specific materiel would seem to fit within the Development section, for example. The whole criticism section should be edited out though, for the reasons stated here: Criticism. — V = I * R  (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed all. Please add citations if you are able to do so. — V = I * R  (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source problems in the Exploration Systems Architecture Study section
I've added three Verify credibility tags to sources in the Ares I section. One of the sources is from Wikileaks, which as a wiki site fails the Reliability test. It is backed up with a second source that is a blog. These sources are fine as long as there's a Reliable source to back them up, but they can't stand on their own.

The third tag is for the NASASpaceFlight.com source(s), as that site is a blog. Again, if there is a reliable source available to back these up then their fine, but they shouldn't be used on their own.

If anyone is able to locate a reliable source which can be used to back these sources up then please do so. Note that the Exploration Systems Architecture Study section still needs a few sources added to it anyway, so if you are able to add any sourcing then I'm sure that it would be helpful. — V = I * R  (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

PS.: See Reliable sources/Noticeboard for discussion related to NASAspaceflight.com. — V = I * R  (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the Wikileaks page just points to the report file on different servers. At least it is not a user editable page.  The appendices document is marked for 'internal NASA use only' so I doubt if it will be available through a reliable source type publisher/site.  I don't think the nasaspaceflight articles are blogs.  That site probably does not meet reliable sources requirements however.  The selenianboondocks.com page does look like a blog.  I'll see what I can do about the non-wikileaks tags.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but the problem is that wiki sites are declared unreliable by WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS (including Wikipedia itself by the way, and Wikipedia's sister sites)... If it's reliable information, then someone (ie.: the NYT, or similar) should have picked it up and independently verified the information. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that wikileaks is wrong, but as WP:V eloquently states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" — V = I * R  (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the polices here so give me some credit. I know WP:RS prohibits wiki sites, blogs, etc.  My point was wikileaks is only hosting the report appendix file, not publishing it.  Whatever, I'm done, got to go.. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, i'm not trying to lay blame or anything... I was simply trying to point out a source issue here. — V = I * R  (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue with NASASpaceFlight.com has been addressed (see NASAspaceflight.com), so I've removed the tags from those references. — V = I * R  (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting test
As a test in order to see how the magic word functions, I've changed most of the dates in the article (through the Exploration Systems Architecture Study section, so far) to use the undefined magic word. Comments, criticism, thoughts, etc.. would be welcome. — V = I * R  (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Advantage?
What is the advantage of this? --G W … 14:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it sort of depends. The idea to try this came about, for me, as I was reading through some of the date linking\delinking debates on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and the ArbCom decision. It started because I was looking for guidance on what format I should use anyway (if you haven't noticed, I've been copy editing and adding a bunch of references recently, which almost always include dates). During my reading I ended up coming across a mention of the magic word somewhere. Basically, the advantage is that it should prevent potentially controversial edits of dates simply to change the date to that editor's favored format. Yes, it's "more characters", but the standardization should balance that "cost". The use of the magic word template should also reduce potential ambiguity as well (For example: figuring out if 2009-12-11 represents 11 December 2009 or 12 November 2009, which #dateformat (correctly) renders as 2009-12-11) Note that I don't have any particularly strong feelings about date formats or the linking issue (although, I do agree that using linking for formatting is a kludge), I'd just like to have some sort of guideline to rely on when it comes to this issue. Obviously, with the ArbCom restriction on mass delinking in place, I'm not looking for an immediate and widespread solution. I figure that now is a good time to discuss the issue, however (at least for our limited corner of Wikipedia, which is basically the Wikiproject spaceflight community... I sould probably point to this discussion on the project page as well) Anyway, this is turning into an essay, so I'll quit here. — V = I * R  (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the dates in this article are in the wrong format. Since NASA is part of the United States government, dates should be in the format Month dd, yyyy. This should be the format displayed to readers who are not logged in, or who have not selected any date format. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, the dates should be in the "standard" American format... but, not everyone agrees that there is a standard American format, or what exactly that format is. Is there an ANSI date format standard, or a NASA date standard (there may be, and I'm just not aware of it, so I'm actually asking a question here)? Even if there is, is there a reason we should force that on someone who may want to see another date format? Regardless, there is a format field in the #dateformat magic word template. — V = I * R  (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

dateformat does not in fact work that way

 * Case in point:
 * (For example: figuring out if 2009-12-11 represents 11 December 2009 or 12 November 2009, which #dateformat (correctly) renders as 2009-12-11 )
 * may work for you, but it becomes
 * (For example: figuring out if 2009-12-11 represents 11 December 2009 or 12 November 2009, which #dateformat (correctly) renders as 2009-12-11 )
 * for 99.999% of the readership. One could hardly suppose that that is "correct" rendering. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have some sort of source to justify the "99.99% of the readership" statement? I assume that you're referring to un-logged in users, and that such an exaggerated figure is being used for effect. Without any sort of real sourcing for the number though, it doesn't have any actual impact. So, again assuming that you're talking about IP users, assuming that they see an ISO style format (is that actually the default date display?), what is the real problem with that? If they log in, and they adjust the date format to their own liking, then there is no problem. If ISO formatted dates are generally an issue (which I'm not convinced that they are) then the default for "99.99% of users" could very easily be changed by someone at The Office. I don't see how this really impacts a choice for editors to use the magic word for dates. At the very least, if the Wikipedia guideline coalesced around using #dateformat, then at least the presentation of dates would be homogenous (even if that presentation were "ugly"). — V = I * R  (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We've been through this debate for more than a year, and a clear majority in the community do not believe the concept of date autoformatting is desirable. Now I see the edit-mode text is unnecessarily cluttered with this template; not so good for the "anyone can edit" brand, is it? The 99.99% is probably an under-estimate of the proportion of readers who do not see the formatting (given that most users do not choose a date preference), and who thus suffer the inconsistencies and wrong global choices that arise when smoke and mirrors are used to cover up the underlying format from WPians. The md,y format would normally be used in this US-related article, unless there were clear consensus by regulars here to use international format. A few US-related articles do use international, but in any case where there is controversy about it, I think style-guide editors, including me, would side with the adoption of the US format. Tony   (talk)  10:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So then, the logical conclusion is to use 2009-12-11 for US centric articles (which will render as: 2009-12-11). That way, for IP readers it displays in the "correct" format for this US centric article (assuming that the mdy format really is somehow "the most correct").
 * The point that "We've been through this debate for more than a year" doesn't advance the debate itself anywhere. If you're personally tired of the debate, simply don't participate.
 * As to the point that "a clear majority in the community do not believe the concept of date autoformatting is desirable", I see no evidence of that, anywhere. Do you have or know of statistics to back that assertion up, or are you using a crystal ball to come up with this statement? There's plenty of debate about using linking to auto-format dates, and there's not even consensus about that (as evidenced by the need for an ArbCom remedy to prevent mass editing around the issue).
 * Finally, The assertion that the "the edit-mode text is unnecessarily cluttered" may be your view, but I don't see an obvious reason why your view should be everyone else's concern. I don't expect you to be concerned about my personal preferences. Regardless, we're supposed to write for the convenience of the readers, so the fact that improving the presentation may inconvenience editors is of very little consequence (as an example of the reasons why, extending the logic that "the edit-mode text is unnecessarily cluttered" to it's ultimate extreme could lead to removal of heading formatting). — V = I * R  (talk) 11:19, August 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * "I see no evidence of that, anywhere". Please read through the various RfCs (listed here)—especially the !voting comments.  HWV258  03:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tony1 pointed that out below. I didn't directly respond to it in my lengthy reply below, but my initial thought is that I don't trust the results to be meaningful to the formatting question in isolation. If the question were framed differently in order to specifically exclude the linking aspect, then the answer would very likely be extremely different. — V = I * R  (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This RfC dealt with date auto-formatting in isolation to date linking.  HWV258  04:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you read through the !votes, it is clear that a good number of them are replying directly about link formatting, as in: "Oppose We need less links on pages. Linked dates clog up pages with blue, reducing readability. They also make pages look less professional. We do not have a linked autoformatting system to 'convert' between US/UK spelling, why should we have it for a dating system that is completely mutually understandable? Autoformatting has been a constraint for Wikipedia for years, and should be gotten rid of as soon as possible. Arsenikk (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)". Worse then that, I find may of the oppose !votes along the line s of "a solution in search of a problem" (which appears to be a huge portion of the oppose votes) to frankly be insulting and irrelevant. A don't see what I should give any weight to the opinion of a "voter" who clearly doesn't care about my opinion or the issues which I'm attempting to work on. If the main interest of another party is to attempt to prevent me from accomplishing something, then I'm simply going to move past them and keep working... I'm sure that there are some support votes which could be dismissed as well, but in balance the result that I draw from that RfC is at least a marginal consensus to use (non-link) autoformatting. — V = I * R  (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say it, but date auto-formatting is a "solution in search of a problem" (and I'm a programmer with over twenty years experience). Actually, I'll have to amend that statement to point out that it never was a solution (see points elsewhere on this page). The whole date debacle demonstrated (conclusively) how dangerous it is for programmers to create software without (at least functional) specifications drafted by the editing community. With respect, the approach of "...then I'm simply going to move past them and keep working..." is part of the problem at WP. We demand the most exacting collaboration in order to implement semantic change to articles, and yet programmers can operate on little more than a whim in order to enact sweeping changes that have very long-termed impacts on editors and articles. Incidentally, this is a point I've put (in person) to the guy who first implemented date auto-formatting. (My point wasn't denied—especially when examples of the problems were presented).  HWV258  06:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * well then, there's obviously little for you and I to continue to discuss... Incidentally, I have decades of programming experience myself. I don't see what relevance that had to anything, but since you mentioned it I assume that it's somehow important to you. It seems obvious what your intent here is, now, so I'll just agree to disagree with you and leave it at that. — V = I * R  (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to extrapolate to point out that the programming experience I've had has led me to an inescapable conclusion: that software written without effective specification is rarely worthwhile. Date linking and date formatting has demonstrated that without question. Thanks for leaving it at that.  HWV258  07:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe HWV is a professional programmer (correct me if I'm wrong). Disagreeing, I hope, doesn't mean that we'll see cumbersome templates starting to crop up everywhere around simple, plain dates. Nowhere have you addressed the "what is the problem in the first place" issue. Tony   (talk)  09:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting Tony1
No, the obvious thing to do is to keep it simple and just key in the date in US format, period. Please don't fuss with something so simple. I don't want to continue circle treading after a year of it. You know what the community decided. Tony  (talk)  07:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I seem to have stepped on your toes somehow... It seems obvious from your comments at Talk:Ares I that you have some past history with this subject. I don't, as my only exposure to this subject so far has been this conversation, reading through some of the recent ArbCom decision, and what is available on the MOS page. I'm assuming that maybe you were a participant in the debate leading to the ArbCom decision?
 * Anyway, the only thing that I'm looking for is some guidance on what to do. You're recent comment to the effect of "just let people do whatever they like" is exactly the attitude that is causing problems when it comes to this subject. Articles should use consistent styles within themselves, consistent across the class of articles which they are a member of, and they should comply with Wikipedia style as much as possible. Anarchy is not an acceptable state of affairs for an Encyclopedia. If it bothers you that my attitude differs from yours in some fashion, or you disagree with the way that I edit something, then we should talk. I don't see how your apparent "just go away" attitude is constructive at all, though. — V = I * R  (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post, Ohm, and I am indeed glad to hear that your position is more flexible than I thought.
 * Let me say now that in checking your contribs the other day, I noted what fine gnoming work you do—more than just nips and tucks: some edits that show an admirable talent for language and logic. My only query was with a couple of items you linked that WP:LINK might consider "common terms", but I guess you're aware of those issues, and a few are no big deal. (I would be pleased to receive your feedback on a stub tutorial page on linking skills that I've been playing with; some of the feedback was so negative I almost stopped, but some users seem to like it. It's probably a little wordy at the moment.)
 * The date-linking saga was long and painful, and you may be aware that all but a very few instances of the old "Dynamic dates" (sadly piggybacking on the wikilinking system) are soon to have their syntax removed by bot. I can link you to that bot development if you wish—it's being handled by other people. As for what was called "Son of autoformatting", it popped up late in the day, just before the launching of Ryan Posthlethwaite's RfC on the concept of date-autoformatting (DA). The result was roughtly 60/40 against the concept, even though the proponents were putting forward SoA as a black-text, link-free alternative. The link to the two arguments (< 500 words by prescription) is here. I think the pound-sign/formatdate template you're experimenting with is in fact SoA. It was put together by the very good User:Werdna, but most people believe it's inappropriate for use on WP, despite the massive improvement in that it's no longer a dilutionary agent for the high-value links in the vicinity. In addition, it does double the trouble of keying in dates, typically. It turns out now that no one in particular seems to mind reading mdy or dmy formats, as long as consistent within each article. During the large-scale treatment of DA and date formats, many users were employing a script to correct wrong global choices of format (I corrected the NASA article to US format, for example, and one of the 9/11 articles, if you please); amd to iron out inconsistent formats that were creeping in all the time when, say, a UK editor added a date inadvertently in dmy format to an article on an article like ... Roman Catholic Church, which happens to use mdy from way back.
 * So, it seems that keeping it simple and transparent, so that WPians see what non-logged-in readers see, helps maintenance, makes for easy editing, and is about as controversial as the travelling/traveling, colour/color difference (which is not at all, and is happily accepted via WP:ENGVAR, one of the great successes of wiki-policy, I think).
 * Please let me know your thoughts. Tony   (talk)  02:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that no one has ever managed to define a template that can handle all the types of dates encountered on WP. The date-linking debate demonstrated that issues such as: date ranges, ISO, AD/BC, Gregorian/Julian, user/page preferences etc. cause troubles when attempting to construct parsers and templates. In the absence of significant work, it turns out that it is far simpler to use the plain-text entry of dates (within MOSNUM guidelines).  HWV258  02:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved these comments back here in order to prevent the conversation from becoming fragmented. There are a few links leading to this section of this talk page, and I don't think that spreading the conversation out among two or three talk pages is going to be helpful at all. Anyway... there's a bunch to digest here, so I'm reading at the moment. — V = I * R  (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts now

 * OK, I've been reading a bunch of this commentary, and have a few thoughts that I'd like to capture here.
 * One observation that I have is that there seems to be a great deal of polarization which has occurred on this issue. For whatever reason (likely the length of the debate), this particular issue seems to have become over-politicized, and some of the participants have obviously allowed their views to become overly rigid. This whole thing, up to and including the ArbCom, seems to be a sad failure of Wikipedia's consensus driven process.
 * More directly relevant here, to put it bluntly I can honestly say that I really don't care about some of these issues. I can see how, in the wider picture, they could be or may become relevant, but issues like Gregorian dates, BC dates, Julian dates, etc... just don't impact me, personally. Since everyone always seems to mention them, I can easily envision their relevance, but the solution to such issues seems obvious. As with all markup, where the markup is limited or fails you simply don't markup and/or you work around the limitations in whatever fashion is available. In this case, in the event of a Julian date (which is certainly possible with NASA articles) or a Gregorian/"Ancient" date (much less likely in a NASA article) simply skip it, problem resolved...
 * I do understand and partially agree with the specific "#dateformat:" magic word criticism that it is too long. I think that should be changed, and would support such a proposal if it is ever made. However, again, that issue is easy enough to work around (using copy/paste is a trivial work around). I can understand that there may be an issue with the formatting that the MW presents to IP users as well, but... how is that my problem? I'm mostly content to leave such issues to the MediaWiki folks, and those of you willing to bring such issues to their attention. In the mean time, I'm simply going to get on with the task of using the tools which are presented to me in order to improve articles which I work on. One additional observation which I would like to mention on this point though is that at least they are seeing a consistent presentation, regardless of the fact that it may be ugly.
 * I do agree with the stance that using the wikitext linking system to markup and autoformat dates was ridiculous. Linking is supposed to be meaningful, which date links are clearly not. I do fully support "date delinking", for whatever my personal stance on that issue is worth. I don't see that issue as being exactly the same as this issue, however. The formatting aspect itself still very much needs to be addressed.
 * Within a single article dates should all use the same format for the same reason that spelling should be consistent throughout an article. If you run across different spellings within a single article it's simply jarring, and the same issue comes about with dates. Once that issue begins what invariably occurs is that people come along and begin changing single instances in an ad hoc manner, making the overall situation even worse. That sort of back and forth, "low level edit war" style editing is what can start real edit wars, once a couple of editors dig their heels in and insist on their personal preference. If you look through the history of this article you'll notice that the ad hoc style changes had been ongoing for a while.
 * Ultimately, as I said in my original reply to Tony1, I just want something to standardize the vast majority of this article around. I don't care what format people use in order to enter dates into the text. I don't care if people entering dates leave them "raw", use "link dates", use the magic word with another format, or anything else. As with all other types of formatting, adjusting format is a maintenance task. using magic words or any templates should not be mandatory, and I would never suggest such a thing. Where someone is willing to take the time and standardize an article with the magic word or template though, as that can only help an article. Of course, if the criticism is something along the lines of "markup is bad!", then there's really nothing left to discuss, but that doesn't seem to be the issue. — V = I * R  (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, date auto-formatting went to ArbCom? Cool. My summary of the discussion at the time I stopped following it is, "We as a community don't want user preferences to determine how dates are displayed or how words are spelled or anything else much about the appearance of our writing. We are control freaks and we want to decide these things at the time we (or our bots) edit the page, not at the time the user views the page." Tony, did I get that about right? (sdsds - talk) 04:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct (except for the "control freaks" part). The issue is that no suitable system for controlling the formatting of dates (based on syntax surrounding dates) has ever been proposed/developed (and probably never will be). Note that date auto-formatting didn't go to ArbCom; instead, what went to ArbCom involved the behavioural issues to do with the date formatting/linking "debate".  HWV258  04:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "...once a couple of editors dig their heels in and insist on their personal preference"—this hasn't become an issue as there are agreed guidelines: the article will inherit the date format of the country to which the article pertains (see here), however if there is nothing country-centric about the article, then the date format tends to be based on the preference of the first dominant editor, and should only be changed for a very good reason (see here).  HWV258  05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ranges

 * Yes to both Sd and HWV. I think the plain and simple won out, and I can see why. Ohm, just one point that came up during the long debate: date ranges are so common on WP, and formatting them in accordance with the guidelines really does make a difference. Currently, no template, either the old one or this dateformat one, can manage that, and indeed much redudancy is required. Really, human care is required. In addition, you mention edit-wars; but disagreement about which format should be used in an article is surprisingly rare—no one cares much, because every English-speaker is exposed to both and can understand them with great ease when the month is spelled out (less so, I think, the ISO format).
 * May 3 – June 18, 1980 (rather than May 3, 1980 – June 18, 1980).
 * October 3–6, 2001 (rather than the long repetitive version).
 * Please note the en dashes, and that they should be spaced or unspaced according to whether there is or isn't an internal space in either or both elements. WP:MOSDASH is good on this.
 * MilHist articles are particularly at issue, where every battle and war involves date ranges. Tony   (talk)  05:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony. Yea, I understand what you're getting at. This is hardly the first area where there are clear exceptions to the "rules", though. Where the guidance gets in the way, exceptions are carved out all the time. In quite a few areas there are even exceptions with very little or no written guidance to back them up, since consensus is clear. It's easy enough to see that using currently available formatting functions on date ranges may be unsatisfactory, so fine... don't. I don't see any reason that should prevent the use of formatting functionality where it does work effectively. — V = I * R  (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But should you have to insert a date range or something other than a normal full date, how would you go about formatting it so the article is internally consistent? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With the current tools available, either you wouldn't, or you would do something such as: May 3, 1980 – June 18, 1980, producing: May 3, 1980 – June 18, 1980 — V = I * R  (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "either you wouldn't" And that's the point some of the editors are trying to make. We'd have an article with some formatted dates and some that aren't. As to the second point, your example is a normal date range; what about other possible combinations, such as July 3–5, 2009; 5/6 August 1987; 4 March – 17 October 2001? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I concede that it can be an issue. What I don't understand is extrapolating that to justify doing nothing at all. This has the appearance of being a straw man argument, which seems to be a somewhat common tactic on all sides, which is probably another reason why the underlying issue remains in dispute. — V = I * R  (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any proposal for autoformatting (or any presentation automation proposal, for that matter) must either cover every possible case, (e.g. date ranges, AD/CE/BC/BCE, Gregorian and Julian calendars, etc.) or it must peacefully coexist with hard-coded text for the cases it can't handle. Since the #dateformat system does not handle all cases, and since there is no way to mix #dateformat dates with hardcoded dates without presenting inconsistent formats to users who set a date preference, the system fails for Wikipedia articles. All Wikipedia articles either contain dates that #dateformat can't handle well, or may contain such dates in the future. An editor who wanted to add a date range to an article that presently does not contain date ranges would have to remove the #dateformat syntax from all the dates in the article, which is an undue burden on that editor. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't concede the assertion that there is no way to mix #dateformat dates with hardcoded dates at all (see above for a partial example). However, I'm perfectly willing to set that aside for the moment and address the rest of the point. Part of the reason that formatting fails for date ranges is because date ranges largely define their own format. For example, writing August 7-10, 2009</tt> is a perfectly valid date range format, while <tt>2009/8/7-10</tt> is clearly not. This is why date range formatting is a separate area, not a directly relevant argument against using <tt>#daterange:</tt>. — V = I * R  (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Efficacy

 * Sorry, I must be missing something: how does it "work effectively" to improve the article, for (i) our readers, or (ii) WP's editors? Tony   (talk)  09:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For this article, can we agree expressing dates using e.g. 29 April 2005 has done no harm? Anonymous IP readers see these presented in a very friendly way, right? And the burden placed upon editors is trivially small, right? (In part because expressing dates this way just isn't that difficult, and in part because a volunteer maintainer will fix dates other editors hard-code.) So for this article, it improves the article for some readers without harming other readers or editors, right? That's working effectively, right? Right! (sdsds - talk) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a fairly well expressed outline of my own views, as well. — V = I * R  (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sdsds, how can your comments be taken seriously when you praise a format that cannot accomodate date ranges, even after that deficiency has been pointed out? --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See directly above. You may be assuming an issue exists that doesn't actually exist, or is a different problem. — V = I * R  (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jc3s5h, for this article, why is the date range argument pertinent? The editors of this article do not need to express date ranges, and/or they are satisfied with the kinds of date ranges that can be expressed using #dateformat syntax. If some future editor of this article felt the need to express a date range in a way that #dateformat doesn't support, then the burden would fall upon that editor to develop a consensus among this articles' other editors about how to handle that need. Right? This article need not conform to WP:MOSDATE, which is a guideline but not policy, and which does not reflect the consensus view of the editors of this article. (sdsds - talk) 03:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sdsds, harm versus good: here, since at the moment there are no date ranges or other clear dangers, the harm is limited to the likelihood that newbies will be baffled when they venture into edit mode, and that any editor (1) has to type probably twice the number of characters, (2) is more likely to make an error, and (3) has to know that this article needs this template around every date. In addition, WPians won't readily see errors in date format that our readers will see. The benefit? I can see none, frankly, and I'm still trying to get Ohms to express exactly what it is. Tony   (talk)  08:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems easiest to address each point by point, so... 1) I concede that the current magic is annoying. This is a technical issue though, which could (and I think should) be fixed. 2) errors are constant, and they will continue to be constant... these sorts of errors are simply not worth agonizing over. The only way to eliminate the "errors prone"-ness is to do something drastic like remove all text formatting functionality. All of this hemming and hawing over potential errors seems lame to me (which is to say that mentioning this issue is totally unconvincing to those of us on "my" side of this issue). Finally there's: 3) I don't see why. That a new editor, or even experienced editors, either don't know of, don't understand, or actively refuse to use a tool which is provided is inconsequential. Someone will likely come along at some point and use the tools which are available. "Wikipedia is not finished. Not even close. In fact, we're barely getting started." There is no deadline. So, what's the problem? I respect your opinion and your position, truly I do, I just... I guess I just don't understand it, even after all of this. I'm still thinking "I just don't get it" while reading through most of this discussion. I'm sure it's frustrating for you, since I know that it's frustrating for me, but I'm equally sure that if we just keep talking we'll find some middle ground somewhere. — V = I * R  (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why care?

 * "...where the markup is limited or fails you simply don't markup...—the problem with that approach is that you risk getting a mixture of date formats within the one article. For example, if one type of date is in plain-text and another in a coded format, then based on user/page preferences, you will get a combination of (say) mdy and dmy dates in an article. One thing that came out of the debate (fairly early on) is that you either code all dates on a page, or you code none. The trouble with coding all dates is that (as previously mentioned) no one has been able to define (let alone syntactically code) all date formats used on WP. For the time being at least, the only other choice is therefore: to code none. <font style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial" size="2"> HWV258  05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm back to "so what"? Why should I care? This seems to be an intentional attempt to (artificially) widen the scope of the debate, with the express purpose of muddying the waters. This is a fairly well known debate tactic, and I find it slightly dishonest. I will concede that there will be situations where problems occur. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are intentionally written to take care of this sort of issue already though. Where there's a real issue in following policy, guidance, or convention, you simply ignore it. End of problem. — V = I * R  (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. I have to admit that I'm disinclined to revisit these issues (they were covered in great depth over the previous year). I will state that the "so what?" approach is (thankfully) new. <font style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial" size="2"> HWV258  06:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I readily admit that stating "so what?" is a somewhat impolite method to express my feelings. I'm not attempting to be dismissive or anything, I just couldn't think of a better way to express the thought. After searching around for a while I did discover the essay: Don't edit war over the colour of templates, and Sayre's Law, which both state the position which I was attempting to communicate.
 * Looking back, I can see how starting this discussion was at least borderline WP:POINTy behavior, so I apologize about that. This issue really seems to be over-polarized, and I can state for myself that the only reason I thought to seek wider commentary was a nebulous fear of somehow running afoul of the Arbitration Committee... — V = I * R  (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not nearly as bad as what went on before the case, as both sides are engaging in civil, constructive conversation. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget that Ohm is an excellent wikignome indeed. That makes it more worth arguing him around! Tony   (talk)  13:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

General use of #dateformat
Ohm's law's experimentation is not limited to this article; see this diff. Therefore this discussion must move to a different arena. I am not sure if it should go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) or some forum for followup issues to the recent arbitration. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Way ahead of you &rarr; User talk:Tony1 — V = I * R  (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Schedule
The current article says that as of August 2009, the first manned launch is scheuled for 2013. However the citation for this is dated 2006. I am going to change this in light of the Augustine Commission finding that 2018 was likely to be the date of the first manned launch.86.151.162.66 (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then change it to "as of 2006" then. The final Augustine report has not been released and decisions from it have not been made.  -Fnlayson (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But the 2013 date is ridiculous, and widely accepted (and sourced) as impossible. Somebody put in a more credible source if possible, but the news reports on the Augustine panels are clearly better than the 2006 fantasy. Wwheaton (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not totally. It shows the old schedule and that the schedule has been delayed.  I corrected the date and moved the sentence to a better location. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding sources and supporting statements would be better then trying to step on related materiel, anyway. I pulled the dates from the Constellation program page, so perhaps Talk:Constellation program would be an appropriate venue for discussion about this as well. — V = I * R  (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Schedule details seems to have been removed from Constellation program a while back. I think Ares I details belong in this article.  -Fnlayson (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree one bit... oh, and I fixed the links above, by the way. That was boneheaded of me! Anyway, I ws simply attempting to point out that I more or less copy/pasted the new information from Constellation program last night from somewhere. I dont' think that this is really an issue any more though. It looks as though you guys have done a good job adding and copy editing information in that section, this morning. — V = I * R  (talk) 22:35, August 15, 2009 (UTC)

Sub page to develop the Lead
Please note that I created a sub-page at Talk:Ares I/Lead in order to assist in developing the article Lead. It's currently intentionally broken up into single sentences grouped into sections based on which paragraph the sentence is to be in, within the actual article. However, this is intended to be a general use scratchpad in order to allow us to collaborate more easily on the article lead (since you need to edit the whole article in order to edit the lead, it can sometimes be problematic). I definitely do not want to be the only person editing the scratchpad, so please jump in and contribute something. — V = I * R  (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the Ares name origin part should come later in the Lead like it was before. Keep those 2 sentences together and move to later in the lead.  The order of the everything else seems fine to me.  This order will describe what it is first, which is important for the Lead. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that we need a couple more sentences, and some light copy editing of the existing ones, as well. I'm in the middle of something else now, but I planned on doing more significant work on this in a little bit. — V = I * R  (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I copied and rearranged the text in a new section on that subpage sorta like I described above. Add/rework as needed.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article should include a well-sourced description of the uniqueness of the Ares I design, i.e. that there has never been a human spaceflight launched by a first stage that was powered solely by solid rocket propulsion. (sdsds - talk) 06:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Covering why NASA selected the Ares I design
This article should not attempt to include material about why NASA selected Ares I as the CLV for Constellation. Doing so will generate dischord among editors and not benefit readers. (Some views on this include allegations of unlawful misconduct by living persons, and getting into that wouldn't help the intended audience for this article.) (sdsds - talk) 06:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

--- I'm not sure how limiting information aids the reader. If it can be documented why NASA selected the Ares I design, that would seem appropriate for an article about the Ares I. (fotoguzzi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.209.166 (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wehrner von Braun Reference - Not in context?
In the "Testing and Analysis" section: "Wernher von Braun said that no human should ride on a solid rocket as they were just too dangerous." His statement is over 30 years old, isn't about the Ares testing and analysis, or the specific concerns for the early abort scenario. There are safety concerns about SRB failure, however, I don't feel this particular statement is suitable to the context, or adds meaningful information to the topic. -- Peat (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the early 1970s to the sentence, but agree that it is not that relevant now to Ares. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Exploration Systems Architecture Study citations
I removed two citation needed flags in this section because they refer to information gleaned from the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, which is already cited to NASA's website in the first paragraph. Do we really need to repeat the citation (in the same section) at every presentation of fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.122 (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The NASA ESAS report (ref. 6) does not support the specifics of those statements (launch pads & launch failure rates). That's why I readded the cite tags.  Besides, just removing those tags does not follow policy guidelines (WP:Verifiability & WP:CITE).  -Fnlayson (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But the statements you subsequently deleted were not the statements that were flagged. Citations should go at the end of the statement that needs citation, not the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.122 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the part about the launch pads costs, which was uncited and tagged. These details may be in the report's appendix, which was not officially released. I'll check on that and other sources... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mass
What a mass of rocket? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbs12 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Titan IV's high failure rate?
The Titan IV had 22 successful launches and only 2 launch failures. Wondering where the above information came from which is mentioned in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.66.192 (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Re Ares I Launch Costs
The reference does not say 138 M per launch. It says it could get as low as 176 M per launch. The 138M is a marginal cost, i.e. The additional cost per rocket launched. There is a high fixed cost ~770 M per year that must be amortized across all the launches in year. One could not achieve 138 M cost unless you shot up an infinite number of rockets per year. Even the 176 M is extremely doubtful. A more realistic figure, which assumes 6 flights per year is about 260 M dollars. And this assumes the cost estimates are correct, that itself is doubtful. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference cited for that part mentions both $176 million and $138 million as marginal costs. 176M is the typical number and 138M is the low end number.  Probably optimistic either way.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And I had missed the $176M number yesterday. That's the better one to be listing. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Launch abort system
Why is there no mention of the Launch abort system used with the Ares I? Thekennedy (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Update?
It is time to make this article say Ares 1 WAS and not IS! This program was canceled under Obama's budget cuts. It will NOT be resurrected by NASA nor Wikipedians. I used to belong to NASA Spaceflight Forums, but I was banned because I objected to the Ares 1 rocket. I now belong to Space.com forums. Deletionists supporting Ares 1 erased my writings. I post little here these days as other deletionists erase everything I wrote. Each launch of the Space Shuttle releases 150 tons of Hydrocloric Acid that eats the Ozone layer and adds to Global Warming. I have become quite active against GW and lend a hand when I can, cause we Wikipedians care. Supercool Dude (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You probably know this, but just as a reminder to others: Wikipedia strives to say in its articles what can be defended by references to highly reliable sources.  It's probably possible to find sources that assert the Ares I project has been canceled.  Citing them would be a good way to start introducing recent events into the article.  But finding reliable sources that assert it has been canceled will be difficult, because the President's budget is only a proposal to Congress for FY2011. (sdsds - talk) 01:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ares currently is funded for the rest of fiscal year 2010, so was does not apply yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably closing it out, termination costs etc, are likely to consume a good bit of the current funding. As with the space shuttle, when we cross that invisible irreversible line from "is" to "was" seems a bit ambiguous.  We'll have to see what Congress does with it before we know the dust has settled for sure.  Meanwhile, the sentence in the lead section, declaring President Obama's proposed cancellation in the FY 2011 NASA budget, seems enough.  Wwheaton (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with the sentiment that the sentence describing the proposed cancellation is enough. I would however suggest a tiny change to the first sentence. Rather than describing Ares I as the crew launch vehicle being developed by NASA, I propose describing it as a CLV being developed by NASA. Both sentences are "true"; yet the change might leave readers with a better understanding of the situation. (sdsds - talk) 04:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be suggesting that 'the' is not correct. What other crew launched vehicles are being developed by NASA under Constellation?  NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program is the only other thing I can think of, but it is separate. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We agree that the first sentence as it stands now is truthful. We should ask ourselves, though, if a different (but also truthful) first sentence would be more helpful to our readers.  I assert the first sentence (indeed, the entire lead) could be improved in a number of ways.  Making the first sentence less definite (by using the indefinite article) would be one such improvement.  (sdsds - talk) 06:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the recently passed Continuing Resolution, Ares I and Constellation are still on the books until Congress passes an omnibus spending bill. This article should be changed from 'WAS' to 'IS'.  And as a further note, the text should never have been changed in the first place.  Just because the President says we are canceling something doesn't make it so until Congress passes a bill canceling the Ares I and the President signs it, which most likely will come in April, but until then this article is in error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.128.150 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality questions in the Exploration Systems Architecture Study section
Hi all,

In the Exploration Systems Architecture Study section, second to last paragraph, no opposing viewpoints are presented alongside the criticisms. In keeping with the NPOV policy, I am adding a few words and references supporting other viewpoints.

In the last sentence of the same section, I like the use of “apparent flaws” since it remains neutral. In the same sentence the modifiers “faulty” and “unfairly” strike me as unbalanced. I am removing them in keeping with the NPOV policy. I welcome any discussion about these changes! Jbowman15 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Jbowman15, 1 Feb 2012