Talk:Intuitive Machines Nova-C/archive/archive 1

Intuitive Machines Nova-C Talk page Archive 1. August 8, 2023 - February 13, 2024.

To visit the Intuitive Machines Nova-C current Talk page, please see: To visit the Intuitive Machines Nova-C current Talk page archive index, please see:
 * Intuitive Machines Nova-C current Talk-page.
 * Intuitive Machines Nova-C current Talk page Archive index.

Title and scope - Article seems to be a list of Intuitive machines lunar missions (Closed)

 * This section is closed; feel free to re-open it or start a new section.

Article is more about the missions than the Nova-C lander. Big overlap with Intuitive Machines. Maybe the list of missions should be moved to the company article ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has been improved to address these concerns. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The section above was closed as "Done."

Could list the launch vehicle selected for each mission.
Intuitive Machines says IM-1 will launch on Falcon 9. This article says IM-3 will launch on Falcon 9, but isn't clear what will launch IM-2. - Rod57 (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It would seem that NASA is trying to convert outer space from a purely government domain into a government/ private enterprise domain. That being the case, my best guess is that Intuitive Machines likes to assume the business strategy of waiting until the last minute before declaring its exact purposes, (which happens to be the general business strategy of most private enterprises.)
 * So, intuitive Machines may simply be waiting to see if SpaceX is good at putting their money where their mouth is, in delivering Intuitive Machines' lunar lander to a lunar orbit in the weeks ahead as promised. Once Intuitive Machines has received their goods from SpaceX as contracted, only then will they enter the next possible phase of their contract with SpaceX to deliver again, most probably with the IM-2 lander. Just a hunch.
 * But now that outer space is being privatized, gone are the days when getting such long range, far future, information from NASA about launches several years in the future. Remember Kennedy's promise to get a man to the moon in only 8 years? Now that man had guts to make such a prediction so far out in the future, let alone to be right about it!
 * My best guess is that the private enterprises that are currently producing space vehicles and space products will only be giving us firm predictions that are weeks or months in advance and the firm predictions of private enterprise will no longer be years in advance, as NASA's predictions once were.
 * Having just said all of the above, I finally decided to check for myself to see if I could find anything online about IM-2's launch vehicle. If you get a chance, please check out reference number 12 which does say that SpaceX will be delivering IM-2 to a lunar orbit on a Falcon 9.  (I just added that reference per your suggestion.)
 * Lighthumormonger (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Mention of ISRU in Overview section

 * This section is closed; feel free to re-open it or start a new section.

The article currently mentions ISRU in the Overview section. Perhaps this would be better in a new section titled "Potential use of propellants produced in-situ," as there is currently no ISRU propellant produced at any lunar lander destination. Thoughts? (sdsds - talk) 01:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The ISRU reference has been replaced by a more general reference to the Artemis program. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 00:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The section above was closed as "Done."

Proposal: rename to "Intuitive Machines Nova-C" (Closed)
By convention, titles of articles that describe a type of vehicle are of the form " ." See e.g. Boeing 747, Ford Mustang or essentially any other such article. Also, now that the flight article for the IM-1 mission has been given the name Odysseus the italics for "Nova-C" are unconventional. See Naming conventions (aircraft). (sdsds - talk) 21:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Some spacecraft articles already follow this convention due to their otherwise generic names, such as Boeing Starliner, SpaceX Dragon 2, and SpaceX Starship. I am all for consistency, so I support this naming convention for non-government spacecraft. -  ZLEA  T \ C 23:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: I also support the move proposal. The proposed move will help to make the Wikipedia naming convention used for Spacex vehicles (Spacex being a non-governmental manufacturer) more uniformly applied. Lighthumormonger (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Moving the Nova-C article before Feb. 14 (Closed)
Hi again ,

Since you first proposed this a week ago, there have been no editors objecting to your proposal to move the Nova-C article as you proposed above, and there have been three editors who support it. As far as I can tell, nobody would have any problems if either one of us moved it right now. If you would like, I could move it now or you could move it now. What do you think about one of us moving it today? If you feel it would be OK, do you want to do the move yourself or would you prefer that I did it? Thanks, Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, the move should take place before launch. 7 days of discussion is a fairly standard minimum to allow for comment. Either of us could close the discussion, and either of us could do the move. (sdsds - talk) 23:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Since you were the one who first proposed the move, I would think it would be well and good if you did the move. Still, if you might prefer that I do it, that would be fine with me too. I will leave that decision, as to who you would prefer to move the article, in your good hands. Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

OK , I guess since it's been two hours with no reply I'll take that as an "OK Lighthumormonger, you can do it." I will do it and take whatever flack may come my way. If there is a next time maybe you could do it then. I just hope you might be able to back me up if I might need it. First I'm going to close this discussion, then I'm going to move the article. Here goes… Lighthumormonger (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Need source for additional landers contract (Closed)

 * This section is closed; feel free to re-open it or start a new section.

The currently-linked reference for this describes only JPSS and other communications-related work, not landers. Is there a source for the multi-lander contract award? (sdsds - talk) 01:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi ,
 * Thank you for taking the time to read that article more carefully than I did! I have removed it now, as apparently you are right that this second contract was not for landers, but for "orbital services." I have since removed all reference to that contract from the article.
 * Lighthumormonger (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The section above was closed as "Done."

Line vs. series
There's a subtle distinction between the terms "line" and "series." TL;DR - article lede would be better if it used series.

A (product) line includes a variety of products offered by a single supplier. That's not the case for Nova-C. A (production) line implies work items moving from station to station for assembly. We don't have sources supporting linear production (as opposed to series or batch production) of Nova-C.

Discussion? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 22:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Resolved by and edit to, "a class of lunar landers." (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Intuitive Machines press kit for the IM-1 lander
Hi ,

In case you might be interested, I've just linked to Intuitive Machines press kit for the IM-1 Odysseus lander. To see the link in the article, you can visit Intuitive_Machines_Nova-C, then click on the final ref at the end of the "IM-1 mission" paragraph. This should take you to a cite titled: "IM-1 Mission Summary (pg 8)."

To access the press kit directly from here you can simply click on this link:

IM-1 Mission Summary (pg 8).

Cheers,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Citing a telecon
What are the wikipedia syntax/style guidelines for citing a media briefing telecon like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcukbOmiU-c ? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 21:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Check out WP:Youtube. The copyright question that they talk about there seems to me to be regarding YouTube presentations that have inserted within them, presentations of others of unknown copyright status.  As far as I can tell, so long as the Youtube presentation in question does not have any segments in it that appear to be likely to have their own copyrights (such as a segment from a major news channel), then it's probably OK.  Anyhow, that's my best guess.
 * Lighthumormonger (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: Regarding the Youtube segment that you listed just above, I can't imagine why a government presentation on YouTube would have any issues with copyrights or what not.