Talk:Interplanetary spaceflight

Venus orbiter misleading
The article contains a list showing what are implied to be the first spacecraft placed into orbit around each planet. But for Venus, shouldn't it show Venera 9? (sdsds - talk) 04:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already corrected this. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Interplanetary spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~chirata/deltav.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interplanetary spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160120152630/http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html to http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:D0V5X5Eib5AJ:www.tethers.com/papers/HASTOLAIAAPaper.pdf+space+propulsion+skyhook&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20160427114416/http://www.tethers.com/papers/HASTOLAIAAPaper.pdf on https://www.tethers.com/papers/HASTOLAIAAPaper.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

On-orbit tanker transfers: Presumably a composition error.
"SpaceX is currently developing a new spacecraft design that will, on all Earth-away launches, utilize the long-duration spacecraft (tanker or spaceship) to play a role briefly as the second stage of the launch vehicle to provide acceleration to orbital velocity. This approach is an unusual design approach launch vehicles designed prior to the 2010s."

My guess the second sentence was intended to be 'This approach is an unusual design compared to launch vehicles conceived prior to the 2010s.' or similar.

In light of the previous "Staging propellants" section which already describes the basic concept, may I suggest the following replacement for both sentences?:

'SpaceX is currently developing a system in which a reusable first stage vehicle would transport a manned interplanetary spacecraft to earth orbit, detach, return to its launch pad where a tanker spacecraft would be mounted atop it, then both fueled, then launched again to rendezvous with the waiting manned spacecraft. The tanker would then transfer its fuel to the manned spacecraft for use on its interplanetary voyage.'

I omitted the comment about this SpaceX system being relatively novel in part because I don't know how the concept evolved, and thus how much original inventiveness is attributable to SpaceX as opposed to others. And my sense is that it's not an appropriate subject to try to parse in the context of the Interplanetary spaceflight article anyway.

Comments and refinements eagerly welcome of course. If none after a few days I'll invoke the change. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Since no objections appeared I edited the article as described. But comments and refinements remain eagerly welcome of course. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Interplanetary spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223030553/http://ssi.org/?page_id=2 to http://ssi.org/?page_id=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311000832/http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~diedrich/cgi/search.cgi?solar+sail to http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~diedrich/cgi/search.cgi?solar+sail
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211195430/http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/2076326.html?page=1 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/2076326.html?page=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814163410/http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/2076326.html?page=6 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/2076326.html?page=6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040328165528/http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Board=sciastro to http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Board=sciastro&Number=44199

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Another "Economical Travel Technique": the Interplanetary Transport Network
The Interplanetary Transport Network could have use in robotic/AI satellite exploration and for shipping supplies to human colonies on the planets. It may even have some use for human exploration/settlement with "sleeper ships."

I'll leave it to folks who know more than I to add it to the main article. Phantom in ca (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Interplanetary mission into Interplanetary spaceflight
Obvious overlap with two concepts. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The article Interplanetary mission has no references at all and would be WP:OR and without valid sources for claims made in the Interplanetary mission article it should probably be deleted and made a redirect. Interplanetary spaceflight already mentions multiple of the missions while figures appear to be "close" and imprecise in the Interplanetary mission article. Example: for the Mariner 2 mission it claims: "in December 1962 when it collected data within 35,000 km (22,000 mi) of Venus." whereas the actual values are: "its closest distance of 34,773 km at 19:59:28 UT 14 December 1962." Terasail &#91;Talk&#93; 22:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

. I concur. A redirect of interplanetary mission to interplanetary spaceflight is the correct option. I am going to redirect the article now. I don't plan on merging any of the information. I wouldn't object to other editors adding in information, but only selectively - not a block copy. Desertarun (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended the lead
I will remove the 'lead too short' template in a week or so if nobody objects. Redwidgeon (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Since there have been no objections, I removed the lead-too-short template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwidgeon (talk • contribs) 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"SpaceX Mars propellant plant" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Mars_propellant_plant&redirect=no SpaceX Mars propellant plant] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 15:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Advocacy in "Reasons for interplanetary travel" section
The "Reasons for interplanetary travel" section reads like it was written by an enthusiast from a space colonization organization. It does not sound like a dispassionate overview of the relevant controversies. Specifics:

1) Where mention is made of the controversy "about whether human-crewed missions make a useful scientific contribution" to exploration of the Solar System, (a) a reference is given only for the pro-human-spaceflight view and (b) the controversy itself is presented in a straw-man form; the actual debate is not around whether humans can be "useful" in space (of course they can), but whether they are cost-effective in space.

2) The section cites science fiction as if it were an indicator of what is possible or desirable in actual space activities. This is inappropriate for an encyclopedia and the argument, such as it is, is poorly grounded: the author claims that SF has a "fairly good track record in predicting future technologies" but this is debatable given that many (perhaps most) SF speculations have not predicted actual technologies, e.g. telepathy, weather control, faster-than-light travel, time travel, force fields, antigravity, tractor beams, matter transporters, cities located aloft (or underground or undersea or in orbit), etc.

3) The public view of space priorities is mischaracterized: "Those who pay for such missions (primarily in the public sector) are more likely to be interested in benefits for themselves or for the human race as a whole [than in scientific knowledge]." No source is cited for this claim about public opinion. Looking into the question, I immediately see counterevidence: e.g., a 2023 Pew survey in 2023 finds that Americans' highest priorities for NASA are, in descending order, (1) asteroid monitoring, (2) climate change monitoring, and (3) "basic scientific research." Sending astronauts to the Moon or Mars is at the bottom of the list (each garnering about 1/4 as much support as "basic scientific research to increase knowledge of space"). Thus the US public, at least, is _not_ "more likely to be interested in [tangible] benefits" like spinoffs, or in human spaceflight, than in scientific knowledge return:  https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/07/20/americans-views-of-space-u-s-role-nasa-priorities-and-impact-of-private-companies/

I have not deleted any significant chunks of the existing text, but I have added some balancing text and references on the cost-effectiveness debate and the state of public opinion. The text could still use improvement. Right now it still emits a strong whiff of human spaceflight advocacy.

Specifically, I move that we delete the two science-fiction paragraphs, i.e. the text from "Other practical motives" to "peak oil." They lack references for their claims, e.g. that "some point out" (who?) that asteroid mining "may be the only way to provide rising standards of living" on Earth, and arguing from fantasy to reality doesn't belong in an encyclopedia in any case.

I also suggest deleting the last paragraph of the section, about the "vast majority" of humans perhaps someday living in space and "benefit[ing] from doing so." It is both vague (how would they "benefit"?) and one-sided; only a pro view is mentioned or referenced.

Sincere regards,

Larry Lgilman909 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)