Talk:Glory (satellite)

Proposed merge
I propose that Glory (spacecraft) be merged into this page since the content on that page is an earlier version of the exact same mission and satellite with just a different launch vehicle. -MBK004 06:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed - however, given that this page has details of the mission which are accurate and up-to-date and Glory (spacecraft) contains only out-of-date, predictive information, I'd like to propose that it is deleted instead. Colds7ream (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

launch successes by category of mission?
A colleague remarks that "Satellites for monitoring climate change do seem to be extraordinarily accident prone." Is this statistically accurate? Midgley (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Change of tense
In light of the destruction of this satellite, one imagines that the present-tense verbs in the equipment descriptions should be changed to past tense. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * wp:be bold...go for it. --emerson7 17:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

planned/failed
The first sentence says this was a "planned" mission. It was more than planned, it was launched, it just failed to orbit (failed to orbit is from later in the paragraph.) Instead of saying "planned" should it says "failed"? Or we could just remove the word planned and call it a mission. What is the best way to word this? RJFJR (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we clarify how the material caused the failure
Can we clarify how the material caused the failure. Different quality aluminium caused the frangible bolt to fail - How : was it too strong to fragment ? What did the investigation of the first Taurus fairing failure in 2009 conclude ? and what did they do about it ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)