Talk:Artemis 1/Archive 1

Info
NASA's Space Launch System: Exploration Missions 1 and 2 and Beyond (August 2014)--Craigboy (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Launch contractor
We know who are the builders, but which company is the "launch contractor"? I would like to add it to the Infobox. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Artemis-1
Administrator Bridenstine confirmed that the name of the mission has changed to Artemis 1. I suggest to change the name of the article.--BugWarp (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You really should add the references and get a consensus on the talk pages before doing things like this. Since you do have a reference, that shouldn't be hard. But we get broken and ambiguous links when there is confusion about things like this. Encyclopedias don't have to be updated within 24 hours of a new event. Fcrary (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I didn't do the edit, just put the reference here at the talk.--BugWarp (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Looking at the edit history, it was KumotoBop not you. Fcrary (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"EM-1" vs "Artemis 1" in reference to past events
Prior to 2019, the first two missions in this program were known as EM-1 and EM-2. In 2019, the program was renamed to Artemis 1 and Artemis 2. However, references to the missions prior to 2019 should still refer to their names as they were known at the time, right? The article says (in the "Crewed Version" section) "This mission will be uncrewed, however NASA did initiate a study in 2017 to investigate a crewed version of the mission.[17] A crewed version of Artemis 1 would have been composed of a crew of two astronauts, and the flight time would be much shorter than the uncrewed version due to safety reasons. The study investigated a crewed mission  even with the possibility of further delays to the launch.[18] On 12 May 2017 NASA revealed that it will not be sending astronauts to space for Orion's Artemis 1 mission following a months-long feasibility study.[19]"  Except that in 2017, it was not a crewed version of Artemis 1, it was a crewed version of EM-1 that was studied. The reference 19 is even titled "NASA will not put a crew on EM-1, cites cost – not safety – as main reason".

I argue that pre-2019 references to what was then known as EM-1 should stay as "EM-1" and not be retroactively renamed to "Artemis 1". I've gone back and forth on this with User:Soumya-8974 who apparently thinks it's OK to do, and is now telling me to stop before we get into an edit war.

Wizardimps (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have invoked BOLD, revert, discussion cycle for status quo.
 * The reason for boldly changing the "EM-1" to "Artemis 1" is the phrases "as it was known then" or "as it is known now" violates the MOS:DATED, as it clearly says:
 * "Except on pages updated regularly (e.g. the 'Current events' portal), terms such as now, currently, to date, so far, soon, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 1990s, since 2010, and in August 1969."
 * —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 02:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a problem: "as it was known then" is pretty much the same as the recommended phrases. We could use "as it was known prior to 14 May 2019" and "since 14 May 2019," but I think "then" clearly refers to the date the name was changed. The terms to be avoided all refer to the date at which the words were written. That's the problem; the reader doesn't know when that was. Fcrary (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Wizardimps. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with Wizardimps. Retroactively changing names is just confusing. Fcrary (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Completed CS-1.jpg

Request of archiving the talk page
This talk page becomes excessive over time. I request to archive the outdated discussions by robots. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's really not that long currently.– Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 10:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Reviving the EM-1/Artemis 1 issue
There was a consensus that the Artemis 1 would be called EM-1 on the events before the introduction of the Artemis program. Here is my opinion about this in full form:

Since 2015, the objective of EM-1 remains almost the same, a test flight of the SLS, even after the introduction of the Artemis program and subsquent renaming. If you wear a fur of lion, will you become lion? You are still the homo sapiens.

For this opinion, I have revived the issue. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Do we have a problem with this? The consensus was to use "EM-1" or "EM-1 (renamed Artemis I in 2019)" or something similar, for things which happened before it was renamed. I don't that consensus has changed. There have been a few drive-by edits, but I haven't noticed anyone systematically changing EM-1 to Artemis I. Fcrary (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"Artemis I" vs "Artemis 1"
NASA has started using Roman numerals in the name of this program, Artemis I. Do this warrant a name change? Mattise135 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed in college that foreign students do not know Roman numerals. I think Arabic numbers is much more common and better for Wikipedia. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Arabic numerals are probably better for most purposes. But if it's part of the name and Roman, I think we're stuck with Roman. We have articles on the "Saturn V" and "Atlas IV Heavy". On the other hand, if the source is using both Arabic and Roman inconsistently, which NASA seems to be doing with Artemis, I think we can pick. I'd say stick with Arabic until and unless NASA consistently switches to Roman. Fcrary (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See also Gemini 12. Seems that NASA was using roman at that time (see patch) although we use arabic.Hektor (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We use arabic numerals for Gemini per WP:COMMONNAME policy. (The missions were commonly referred to in the press with arabics, even at the time.) I think it's too early now in the Artemis life cycle to see if that applies here; we should go with NASA's terminology if they're using the Romans. I agree with the updates you just made to Artemis 2, and went ahead and made that entire article consistent.
 * "Foreign students do not know" or "better for Wikipedia" don't trump accuracy and COMMONNAME. Once we establish consensus, all Artemis articles should be updated, and probably moved JustinTime55 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have a consensus change every hour and my current consensus is to use Roman numerals on the Artemis missions. Why do some users not want to rename any articles of Wikipedia? To make them stable? They are work in progress forever. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Change for the sake of change? When NASA sources use inconsistent numerals (Roman vs Arabic) it is preferable to use the unambiguous and clear style of Arabic. An important precedent was on the Apollo Program, and the way we number those flights in Wikipedia are in Arabic. So short of a formal NASA announcement regarding the numerals, I see no reason to move the related Artemis pages. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, although I'm seeing Roman rather than Arabic numerals in recent presentations. But I'd like to see a few more consecutive uses before I say it's a consistent change. I think there's an important aspect of the line about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia not a newspaper. It doesn't have to be hurredly updated with the latest events. Getting the information right is more important than getting the getting it out quickly. We can afford to wait a few weeks. Fcrary (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologize to my previous comment, I had another consensus change. My new consensus is that until the mission is flown as "Artemis I", it will be called "Artemis 1" for maintaining status quo. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you take the twitter of Mark Kirasich for instance here he is very consistent in employing roman numerals since early October. Hektor (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I realize this discussion is old, but I wanted to chime in with my perspective as someone who works for NASA to add that even though NASA does not publicly acknowledge that Artemis mission naming convention is to use roman numerals, it actually is explicitly stated in the Artemis brand book (NASA publication NP-2019-07-2735-HQ) that Artemis missions are to only use roman numerals. This is also why the entirety of the NASA website now refers to the missions with roman numerals. Additionally, roman numerals are used in all internal NASA documentation. The brand book also acknowledges that naming was not consistent for the Apollo program (which used both arabic and roman numerals) and states that does not apply to Artemis.


 * The brand book is not public domain at the moment (I have access to it because I work on Artemis. It can possibly be obtained for public domain by contacting public-inquiries@hq.nasa.gov or by filing a FOIA request with NASA HQ), but the relevant passage is: "MISSION NAMING CONVENTION. While Apollo mission patches used numbers and roman numerals throughout the program, Artemis mission names will use a roman numeral convention. For branding purposes the roman numerals are art directed to match the stylized Artemis typography. Below are naming conventions for Artemis I, II, and III. NOTE: Art files for missions I-XI are available."


 * For now, I updated the pages to replace "also known as Artemis I" to "officially Artemis I" which is consistent with the Gemini mission pages, however I believe that the entirety of the article should use roman numerals as NASA does not acknowledge arabic numbers when referring to Artemis missions (unlike with Gemini and Apollo, which used both). Spaceguy5 (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but I think technically we shouldn't say "officially Artemis I'' until NP-2019-07-2735-HQ is publicly available and something we can reference. At this point, I'd be fine with changing everything to roman numerals, but leaving out the statement that it's "official." But, as I said, I don't have strong feelings about it, so I'll go with whatever the consensus is. Fcrary (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I am adding the Roman numeral equivalent on the "Names list" parameter. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

History of SLS versus history here
Just putting the question out there: regarding this first SLS that will launch this mission, how much of the history should go on Space Launch System and how much should go on Artemis 1? I've moved in one table (original edit, removal, addition to this page) per StarshipSLS's request here: Talk:Space_Launch_System. Leijurv (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Prank Picture
I genuinely laughed at your prank picture once I pulled it up and looked at the differences, but please do not do that again. Perhaps for WP:APRILFOOLS. (referring to and  and ). Leijurv (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry. I won't do that again. But it was quite funny, though. Just a simple forgery made using the Internet and Adobe Photoshop. Overwatchfan123 (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"NET launch date"
Re "...NET launch date" (the lead): Why not just "...earliest launch date"?

--Mortense (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just common parlance among spaceflight to use the acronym "NET". Leijurv (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Green Run
This article does not yet contain information on the core stage green run testing that ran from Fall 2020 to March 2021. Furthermore, the NET launch date is now February 2022 per NASASpaceflight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.127.6 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Green Run had to be repeated, because one Module has been detected as defect. After exchanging this module, a new Green Run started fall 2021. The new NET launch date will be published after the successful whet dress rehearsal (cryogenic proof test). Actually, we don't have even any official NET launch date, but it will never be in February (with much luck in April 2022) --80.146.191.220 (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Chronology
Where does the information in the Chronology table come from? The wiki code shows it as " " which I thought is supposed to embed an article of that name, but I can't find that article or even any of the text in the table in any other article. Wizardimps (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comes from here. Hektor (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The perigee raise manœuvre altitude is incorrect in that video. It can't be 1100+ mi when the TLI, which is the next step, is only 373 mi. I can't find any better information on its altitude though. It must be between 301 and 373 mi, or maybe a bit lower. 82.2.179.33 (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this more, it could be launched into an elliptical orbit, so I take back what I said about it being incorrect 82.2.179.33 (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry, I meant where is the wiki code for that section. I can’t locate that article. —- Wizardimps (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It'll be in the template domain. Check template:EM1 chronology.--Cincotta1 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Launch slips table
I merged the launch slips table with the SLS page in this edit. My reasons were: 1. This table has way too many entries that aren't sourced, or are a misreading of the sources. For example, there was only one slip to August 2022 but this table had one to "august 2022" then another to "late august 2022". This is wrong, that's the same date. There is only one launch window in August and it starts on the 23rd, this never changed from April to this month. On top of generally unsourced entries of course. 2. This table duplicates the table on the SLS page, it's just better if they're the same table. Perhaps there is some template wizardry to put the same table in both, but that seems very frustrating with respect to all the references used. It was also very difficult to put the table into a footnote on SLS so I'm not sure if a template could work. I think that linking to it is good enough, it works the same way as if it were a footnote (you have to click it to see it, so it doesn't matter if that click takes you to the same article or a different article, all that matters is clicking the link pulls up the table). So that's my reasoning for that edit! Leijurv (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * What you did seems fine to me. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * See here ^, if you want to make the footnoted table link more prominent or link it in more places that's fine. If you know how to use templates to make the same table show up both here and in the SLS article, that would be even better. But the big table in the body of the article isn't desirable, due to the reasons mentioned ^. Leijurv (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Placement of route animation
I have been looking at this page with great interest as the launch date approaches. I find the animations of the route it will take to be riveting. Please consider moving them much higher in the article, so more people see them. Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Assuming the thing doesn't blow up on Monday
We need to have a massive rewrite to focus on the mission that starts in 20 minutes (the countdown). Same with all the Constellation/Ares/Orion articles. It's pretty much the same program and should be listed as such. Notwisconsin (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, though we have 2 more days, not 20 minutes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Even in the unlikely case the rocket was launched and blow up in the process, there is no deadline Cambalachero (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thankfully the new issues were caught before a launch, which most assuredly WOULD have caused an explosion.
 * There is no deadline is just an excuse for lazyness. All of our later efforts to the article won't matter anymore. What matters is now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Delay
Friday is the next possible launch date 🙁 115.96.106.182 (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the launch attempt should be a subsection of "Delays" rather than "Preparation". Cambalachero (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Cambalachero yes i agree that it is confusing to find the launch delays in the preperation section, and not the delays section itself. RuboGubo (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cambalachero I agree. 115.96.106.182 (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I renamed the section to "Initial delays" to avoid confusion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * On second thought, the launch attempt is fine where it is. "Delays", or "Initial delays", is about the delays of the project as a whole. Today's delay is only because of concerns about the details of the implementation; which is a completely different reason for delays. Let's not mix apples and oranges. Cambalachero (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Landing in San Diego
My understanding was that the landing was close to Hawai, not San Diego. Hektor (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the first stage booster. --mfb (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary Section
I understand why you reverted my edit, but I fail to see why the entire history of the space policy of the United States should be on the page of a single mission. 64.189.206.188 (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The history of the space policy gives helpful background information to the reader considering this, as well as why the mission was first designed, and its delays in development. Other missions have some smaller background sections (such as Apollo 5), but considering that this mission took a long time to develop and come to fruition, at least some of the information should be included. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with, but I think it needs to be more proportionate to the article focus. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 03:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Mission duration inconsistency
One section of the article states this is a 42 day mission. However the list of significant mission milestones indicates a 25 day mission duration. The NASA press kit states 42 days. Why not stick with source material? 2001:569:BE98:D700:6503:6F9A:A09F:24F6 (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This may have been a consequence of the partial reversion: Mission duration changes based on the window. I'll see if I can update the timeline to match the press kit. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 18:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, the timeline should match now. Had to delete the altitude because the image was not consistent with the times given in the text of the press kit. If that's a bit too WP:SYNTH-y for anyone, let me know if you have a better idea how to approach it. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 19:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Name
If it’s officially Artemis I, and will be followed by Artemis II, why aren’t we naming the articles this way? EuroAgurbash (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's more because this mission is used to be called "Artemis 1", and since this is in practice used interchangeably and the Apollo's mission names use numerals, we opt to do the same here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, scrubbed. 7 more days... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * More like 4, actually... —MEisSCAMMER (scam) 15:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * MEisSCAMMER Better be quick then, we are running out of time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, so I've outlined a checklist, in decreasing importance:
 * Clean up payload section
 * Write more about the mission plan
 * Talk more about its significance (if it failed, yada yada, if it succeed, yada yada)
 * Corruption stuff?
 * Merch and stuff on the launch vehicle (stickers, moon tree, etc.)
 * CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @CactiStaccingCrane Could you elaborate on what you mean by "corruption stuff"? Sub31k (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the cost overrun and schedule overruns. It's not very high in the list and I'm just gonna add one or two more sentence about it at the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think contractor underperformance should be considered corruption. It's a strong word to throw around; unless there's some strong sourcing that there was indeed corruption going on, I don't think program delays or higher costs should be presented as corruption. Sub31k (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed References
Can you explain why you made edit? I don't want to revert without understanding your reasoning, but from my perspective, you stripped a lot of refs from the article for essentially no reason? – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 17:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Jadebenn Ah, that's because per Manual_of_Style/Lead_section, we shouldn't have unnecessary citations. This is because these information are cited in the article usually more comprehensively than the lead-cited counterparts. I kept a few ref in there that the information is not mentioned in the article, such as Artemis 1's old EM-1 and Roman numeral naming. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That makes sense! I forgot about that aspect of the MOS. Thank you for clearing that up. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 17:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

EM-1 original launch date in lead
@Jarrod Baniqued I am not so sure if it is fitting to include the original EM-1 launch date in the lead of the article. Yes, the mission has been substantially delayed. However, I feel the December 17 2017 date is rather decontextualised as is: foe example, stripped of the context that the original EM-1 was a less ambitious flight. It also seems a little imprudent to put so much weight on a tentative launch date prediction made more than 5 years in advance. Sub31k (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that is a fair consideration of something I overlooked. I’ve changed my mind on the comment. You’re right Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

However, I would like to wait for a second opinion. I’m not going to take any unilateral decision on this until there’s some form of consensus. The 2017 date stays up for the time being. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I added that info to the lede a day or two ago, in response to some other feedback that it was noteworthy enough to be mentioned. I'll defer to whatever the consensus is on keeping it or not. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 00:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Sub31k (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be best to remove the date. I’ve added a mention of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 in the History section to bolster it, it already has plenty of content on the delays. I think the intro should be constrained to discussing the present facts around the mission itself because intros should have as little valence as possible Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I would highly recommend harmonizing some of the content in the History section with the SLS Wikipedia article. That’s why I added in the “congressional mandate” note Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

There’s been no major action in a few hours, I think I’ll remove the 2017 mention and add back in note 2 Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

But not yet, I’m still going to wait for a response now Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

No response, it’s been an hour, I’ll go ahead with my plans Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Huh? Chill out, it's not even an hour before launch yet. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Last-minute checkouts
Compared to the Good article criteria, Artemis 1 as of revision Special:Permalink/1108284838 is: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Ok, but can be better
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * References are listed below.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Ok, but there's overreliance on primary sources (NASA)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Many sentences are still uncited.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran through Earwig, no significant problem
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Norminal coverage.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Passed after cleanup by Jadebenn and Sub31k
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Ok, more consensus is needed
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Not applicable, launch is imminent
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * No fair-use image is used, all images are properly credited to NASA.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Captions are short, relevant to the sections.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The History Section
I strongly disagree with the changes you made in and have reverted them once again. This is an article about Artemis I, not the Artemis program, and not about SLS and Orion. There is absolutely no reason that there should be whole paragraphs devoted to George H. W. Bush's Space Exploration Initiative, George W. Bush's Vision for Space Exploration (both of which preceded this mission by decades), or the Congressional vote on developing SLS. In addition, you have restored incorrect claims regarding the manifesting of EM-1 on EUS and the outcome of the alternative launcher study. Thus, I have reverted your changes and restored this portion of the article to be closer to its longstanding state prior to your rewrite about a week ago. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 18:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I somewhat agree that the first paragraph should be removed, however later paragraphs are very important and should not be removed as it contains relevant content. Feel free to correct the claims in these paragraphs, but don't just jank them like that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This rocket launch, Artemis 1, is the first orbital launch to deep space of a rocket from a program that the American taxpayers have been paying ~$4-$5 billion dollars per year for for over a decade, for both the SLS launch vehicle plus the Orion capsule. And of course, Orion funding goes back much further, in the second half of the 1990s.  That broader historical context is an important part of this rocket's first flight.  It is a very expensive rocket to fly, whether once, or even 4x/yr like the Space Shuttle in its best years.  That is a part of knowledge that should be explicated in the encyclopedia of human knowledge: Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Jadebenn, do you agree with N2e's argument? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I take issue with the way you have presented some of these facts. Firstly, in respect to "Orion funding goes back much further" Orion MPCV is descended from the CEV, which has vague roots in the OSP. But the funding for early OSP was meagre and for a project (ISS return vehicle) totally different from what Orion is today. Secondly, regarding program costs. The SLS - Orion vehicle is not, from my view, especially expensive relative to past vehicles, especially considering that the vehicle was under development until recently, and that aspects, such as the EUS and the Advanced Boosters, remain under development. The Space Shuttle budget comprised 4 319 million dollars in 2005, which, corrected for inflation, today exceeds 6 000 million. Today's program, summing up all Human Exploration programs items, totals 4 538 million dollars.https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/updated_fy_2021_spend_plan_june_2021.pdf
 * But that's not very important, IMO, compared to the fact that Artemis I is not equivalent to the SLS + MPCV program, nor does it have the same history. A comprehensive history of the rocket and spacecraft does not belong in the article for this mission; it should ideally go to an article about the program as a whole. We can link that as a main article to make it accessible. I suggest taking Apollo 4 as an example: that FA does not spill very much ink talking about the program, because Apollo program does that instead.
 * I thusly believe that the History section should be kept lean, as in its present state. The article is telling readers about Artemis I, not the entire history of SLS and Orion. Sub31k (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur with Sub31k. I'm not saying the article in its current state cannot be improved, but it's important to remember to limit the scope to the topic at hand when doing so. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 14:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with your reasoning too. I will port back some of the good citations into the article, but otherwise keep the content intact. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I support not putting in all of the extensive background history of those programs that were recently removed, as Sub31k et al have noted. But a summary of the many years of US taxpayer paid funding of this program (SLS ~11 yrs; Orion even longer) for, now in 2022, the first test flight of this system, is absolutely relevant and encyclopedically useful. (This is true, even if the annual expenses have been less than the Shuttle (say, 4.5 billion/yr in current dollars rather than the Space Shuttle's 6 billion in current dollars.  The details of Shuttle vs. this LV+capsule aren't needed of course; but the magnitude of multiple billions of dollars per year, for a decade plus, are relevant to this first flight.) N2e (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If I have time later today, I'll write up a new draft of the section patterned off of the Apollo 4 article and combining some of the information from both iterations of the article. Then we can discuss what further changes should be made from there. Does that sound good to y'all? – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 16:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I would absolutely help you out on that one :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Of course, development costs for the vehicle are paid out across later flights, too; it'd do well to have a picture of costs that also elucidates that the 20+ billion costs are not solely for Artemis I. Sub31k (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the initial revert as this revision devoted too much time to background. While patterning off the Background and Delays section of Apollo 4 would get us to a reasonable place, even better would be to try and follow WP:DUE - devote roughly proportional time to background as is done in our cited WP:RS covering this launch. Leijurv (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a new revision now, so I'm curious what you'd see as the primary topics to cover. Any insights? – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 23:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I sort of bit off more than I could chew in such a small amount of time, but I managed to restore some info and move around the sections a bit, as well as tighten some of the writing. Not as many content changes as I was originally planning, but I guess we can go at those piece-by-piece. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 01:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * We need a copyeditor to whip up the prose. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @CactiStaccingCrane. I take issue with your edit . Firstly, given the source you have given for 15+ delays makes no mention of such a number, nor can it - it is from 2011. I don't see how this wouldn't be SYNTH. Secondly, EUS being used for EM-1 is not sourced, nor does it appear to be true. Thirdly, the change also presents Bridenstine's testimony to the Senate about NASA plans as his own personal proposal. Finally, the description of how the commercial HLV EM-1 would work has been duplicated. I have hencely reverted the edit. Sub31k (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the delay counts, and addressed your issues at . Sorry if I've been too rushed with my edits. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Sorry if I come across a little too aggressive. Hoping to keep the article well-sourced, though. As a matter of curiosity, have you a source on EM-1 on EUS? Sub31k (talk) Sub31k (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's ok, at least now we get an even better version of the article! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

5th of Sep launch window edits
The article was edited after the 2nd scrub to include 5th of Sep launch window.

This is not possible. Per NASA there has to be 72 hours between the 2nd and 3rd attempts.

The section #Launch_windows that is relying on one source, needs clarification that those are not planned dates/windows, but mere "opportunities", per NASA, which were last updated over two weeks ago.

IMO:


 * all 5 Sep dates needs removing
 * any dates are best left as to be announced until they are announced
 * aforementioned section to 1) use the primary source and 2) its wording/clarification

I'd edit that but thought it best to at least check here first. — zmm ~talk~ 17:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. Should wait until the presser and the coverage it spawns. Sub31k (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That section is now completely removed. I'll find out who removed it, and thank them! :) — zmm ~talk~ 08:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Launch date is NET 19 September, not 20
The first opportunity in the official document https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/artemis_i_mission_availability_aug2022.pdf is 19 September, not 20 2001:1C02:322:AB00:8D07:3788:4F0E:1474 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * NASA continuously updates that table, and it was last updated ~3 weeks ago, nevertheless 19 is for short missions, and Artemis 1 is going to be a long mission (>28 days). (See cell shading legend in PDF.) — zmm ~talk~ 07:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, correction: The launch opportunities count in the document doesn't match the number of highlighted days, meaning they're not the same. Again, I'd rather just wait for an official release instead of an ambiguous document or a single speculative news article and its related tweet as references. In short: best remove the dates for now. — zmm ~talk~ 07:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, remove or change to 19, because it’s no earlier then 19 2001:1C02:322:AB00:8D07:3788:4F0E:1474 (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've corroborated 19th (NPR and TWP) and updated it. — zmm ~talk~ 08:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Landing site
Sorry to come back on this. Jonathan McDowell seems to consider the landing is NE of Hawaii (CM-002 splashdown NE of Hawaii). See here Is he wrong ? Hektor (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Could be an error. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20205005150/downloads/AAS20649_Artemis1_Trajectory_Design_Optimization.pdf states CM splashdown near San Diego. Sub31k (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Cubesats
I understand that some Cubesats are already dead since their non rechargeable battery is depleted. Is this confirmed somewhere and also which ones ? Hektor (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The cubesat batteries are rechargable. See https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/08/23/cubesats-on-artemis-1-to-pursue-bold-missions-in-deep-space/. Sub31k (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks because this article Stowaways on NASA’s massive Moon rocket promise big science in small packages, was alarming. Hektor (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ignore that last reply of mine; it's silly. Some of the cubesats indeed cannot be recharged. But none are dead yet. Some have substantially depleted charge, though. Sub31k (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, all the batteries are technically rechargeable. The problem is that some can't be plugged in to recharge while attached to the launch vehicle. Fcrary (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Now NET 23 September
Date targeted is now NET 23 September per conference of today. And it is a short mission landing mid October, so the trajectory and flight schedule detail have to be edited. Hektor (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What is this NET bullshit?
What genius decided to use New Earth Time (I assume that's what NET stands for)??? I can't find any evidence in the citation links that NASA is using this obscure, alternative naming system invented by a New Zealander in 1999 and never caught on, which is intended to be used for times of day, not dates. This inhibits understandability. We should go back to using Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) and Eastern Time (local at launch site), per Wikiproject Spaceflight consensus established long ago. And when there is only a date with no time, it is not proper to add a time code like NET or UTC. ''Please stop talking in code and say "23 September", not "NET 23 September". Just because you consider it more cosmopolitan is no excuse for making the Wikipedia incomprehensible.'' JustinTime55 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about NET in the infobox, it is No Earlier Than and not New Earth Time or something. Artem.G (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now by looking at the wiki code; sorry about my tirade. But that just proves how obscure and confusing this is. It looks like someone here just invented the abbreviation. AFAIK, it's not used down in the article text. It doesn't appear on the NET disambiguation page. Is there evidence the abbreviation is significantly used off-wiki? (I didn't see it on any of the NASA pages.) If so, we should add it to the NET dab page; if not, I think we should stop using it, except possibly only in the infobox for the sake of brevity. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I added that wiki code instead of the bare "NET", which allows a hover-over on desktop, because NET is indeed not common outside of space flight. That being said, you'll find the acronym used by NASA and other space flight related bodies. More recently for Artemis here, albeit expanded, but again, the acronym is used and that's why I added the hover-over tooltip, which should help with the jargon, if not, I wouldn't mind if it's spelled out in full. Hope that helps at least answer your concern—it wasn't invented by any Wikipedian.


 * PS I found it on Wiktionary too.


 * PPS the currently used "planned" =/= "no earlier than", just my 2 cents. — zmm ~talk~ 23:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)