Talk:Artemis program/Archive 2

"Orion" testing?
The section claimed "five tests of the Orion spacecraft." The references did not support this claim. The first three tests used "boilerplate" Orion CMs to test non-Orion hardware that never became part of Artemis. The next test was a true orbital test of the CM, not the spacecraft as we have used the term (CM+ESM) in this article forever. The last test was a boilerplate Orion used to test the launch abort system, not to test Orion. I removed the table and the first three tests, and rewrote the other two. Please check my work. -Arch dude (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On further thought, I'm not sure the "Orion testing" section should be in the "Artemis flights" section at all. We do not have sections for test flights of other Artemis components (or their predecessors) such as the ICPS. -Arch dude (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Starship HLS Moon landing.jpg

First sentence of overview
The Artemis program is organized around major numbered missions into space of increasing complexity scheduled more than a year apart. Something about the "numbered" rubs me the wrong way. I understand the idea because I'm familiar with artemis: there are many missions into space, but the important ones are Artemis 1 2 3 4 etc. I just don't think the word "numbered" would get that across to someone reading the page for the first time. Maybe I can propose another phrasing that you'd like? How about something like is organized around a mainline of major space missions of increasing complexity or The Artemis program is centered around a series of increasingly complex major missions into space, with the goal of landing humans on the Moon or The Artemis program aims to return humans to the Moon, as part of an increasingly complex series of major missions into space? I just don't think we need to immediately connect it to the numbering, or the schedule, or vaguely gesturing to the fact that there are far more missions than just the main numbered ones. :) Leijurv (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your objection and I will not revert any further edit you make in this regard. I am not very good at making up distinguishing names, and I was attempting to distinguish the major (i.e., SLS) missions from the "support" missions. Maybe just "major" and "support". I do think we need something, because all of the Artemis program references seem to revolve around the "Artemis" missions. -Arch dude (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "SLS missions" for now. -Arch dude (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems all right to me. Makes sense to differentiate the SLS+Orion missions from the rest (well, at least, for as long as the artemis program has the major missions as being the SLS+Orion ones :) haha) Leijurv (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A change along those lines seems reasonable. But I think "is organized around a line of major space missions of increasing complexity..." would be more readable. I'm not sure what you intended to convey by using "mainline" rather than "line". Fcrary (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, I looked up "mainline" and it's not a word. I suppose I was thinking of Main line (railway). I just meant to convey the same concept as in a railway that this is the central focus, and all the other missions are to support the main Artemis missions. Leijurv (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "mainline" is a real word, even if you had trouble finding it in a dictionary. But with text saying "organized around" major missions, I think it's clear that there are other, less major missions. So I think just saying that Artemis is "organized around a line of major space missions" is the clearest way to describe it. Fcrary (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I am new to the Artemis talk page and to Wiki editing, but I'd like to see if anyone objected to making  a couple of changes to the initial paragraph. The first sentence states "The Artemis program is a United States-led international human spaceflight program." Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the Artemis is a NASA led program? To me it's good to give credit where it's due, and it's generally known that NASA is the U.S. space program. It really is NASA, not the US government that is leading the program. I also cleaned up a couple of sentences in the "Overview" paragraph. It's a great article just hoping to make it a little better. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Capstone Update
Successful launch of Capstone this morning from New Zealand has occurred Eth132489 (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticism Section Concerns WP:WEIGHT
Hi folks, I am concerned that the "Criticism" section violates WP:WEIGHT by devoting excessive attention to the opinion of Robert Zubrin. Do people have thoughts on whether this section could be trimmed? TallNapoleon (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the concern. The section has three paragraphs, each describing the criticisms from a different person. Zubrin is one of them, as are Mark Whittington and Buzz Aldrin. The paragraph on Zubrin's criticism may be a sentence or two longer, but I don't really see that as undue weight. Fcrary (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Clean up the article
Could somebody here help clean up the with me in 2 days? We couldn't let this article be this bad once the Artemis 1 mission launches. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Almost... we literally just missed the death trap. Welp... time for me to step up for the job. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Addition of the Gateway
Should we add a section below the "Supporting programs" sections about the Gateway. It does provide support for the Artemis program, and is largely related to the program in many ways, therefore I find it fitting if we add the Gateway program. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)