Talk:Large Ultraviolet Optical Infrared Surveyor

LUVOIR as an umbrella term
Sorry I didn't source that edit. Here are the sources: It could be phrased differently. I think the important thing to make clear to a reader is that they are all design studies for what will eventually become one launched instrument. (It's not like the competition between the Thirty Meter Telescope, Giant Magellan Telescope and Extremely Large Telescope, all of which are under construction.) Your "competing proposals" description does this well, but the ATLAST team consistently describe ATLAST as a LUVOIR candidate, so I thought describing LUVOIR as the umbrella made the most sense. HDST is a design study by AURA, ATLAST is a proposal to the 2020 decadal surey by a bunch of NASA divisions (GSFD, MSFC, JPL, STSci), and LUVIOR is a proposal for a NASA mission. 23.83.37.241 (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC) 23.83.37.241 (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Corresponding presentation (easier to digest) "What is ATLAST? Mission concept study for a large UV-Optical-Infrared space telescope (“LUVOIR”)", "“ATLAST”, “LUVOIR”, “HDST” are all mostly interchangeable"
 * Corresponding presentation (easier to digest) "What is ATLAST? Mission concept study for a large UV-Optical-Infrared space telescope (“LUVOIR”)", "“ATLAST”, “LUVOIR”, “HDST” are all mostly interchangeable"
 * Corresponding presentation (easier to digest) "What is ATLAST? Mission concept study for a large UV-Optical-Infrared space telescope (“LUVOIR”)", "“ATLAST”, “LUVOIR”, “HDST” are all mostly interchangeable"


 * You are right. Thank you for your time and patience collecting all these sources to clarify the terminology. I think tomorrow I will have quiet time to update/correct all the related articles. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I added the first reference above to the article since you were quite right to revert in the absence of citations. I'm not sure my phrasing is exactly correct, either, but it's a lot closer to the truth. 23.83.37.241 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Do all/both proposals include unfolding a segmented mirror
Do all proposals include unfolding a segmented mirror like JWST ? Looking at the final report (Aug 2019) : L'-A (15m) folds to fit in 8m fairing, L'-B (8m) folds to fit in 5m fairing. Are there any proposals for a cheaper (less risky?) unfolded mirror to take advantage of 8m fairings eg in Starship or SLS block 2 ? - Rod57 (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ATLAST Advanced Technology Large-Aperture Space Telescope, now called LUVOIR-B, had an 8 m monolithic primary option. - Rod57 (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

LUVOIR-A and LUVOIR-B merge proposal
High-Definition Space Telescope and Advanced Technology Large-Aperture Space Telescope &rarr; Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor – since both LUVOIR-A and B are competing proposals for LUVOIR, I don't think it makes much sense for these proposals, one of which will become LUVOIR and the other simply won't be selected, to have separate articles from Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor. It made sense at a time when both HDST and ATLAST were separate proposals for separate missions, but this is no longer the case. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 13:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support -In the beginning, both were presented to the public as competing proposals, but much later it became evident they were two versions by the same researchers. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 November 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

 No consensus. See no general agreement below to use the acronym to title this article. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to effect a renaming. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 17:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor → LUVOIR – per Wikipedia's guidelines on commonly recognisable names. In addition to the official website of the project preferencing the use of the "LUVOIR" acronym in titles and prose, various third party sources either preference the acronym or use the acronym more than its full name. One should also note that LUVOIR already redirects to this article, and there is no other topic or subject with this name or acronym.

– PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 14:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisted.  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 11:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Relist note: members of WikiProjects Spaceflight and Astronomy have been notified of this request.  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 11:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - per "common name". Rowan Forest (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. All 5 of the sources cited above spell out the complete name, as does the Royal Society of Chemistry and Scientific American. Naturally the acronym is used more often; that's the function of an abbreviation; but an encyclopedia should use the full name rather than an abbreviation as the title and first mention unless the topic is known almost exclusively by its acronym. Station1 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the guidelines on acronymns, "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". The fact of the matter is that the Royal Society source you cited uses "Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor" only once and "Luvoir" four times, and the Scientific American source uses "Large Ultraviolet-Optical-Infrared Surveyor" once and "LUVOIR" fourteen times. All of the citations used in the original rationale use the full name – in various forms often differing from the current name of the article – only once, while "LUVOIR" is used multiple times. Its acronymn is clearly more "primarily associated" with, and referred to more often as, the subject. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I noted, that is the function of an acronym. You spell out something's long, complicated, easy to get wrong, or oft-repeated name once at first mention, and then use the acronym thereafter. This topic does not rise to the level of being "known primarily" by its acronym, in my opinion. If one wrote, "NASA's budget will increase next year", almost everyone would know what we were referring to; but if one wrote, "LUVOIR is not yet operational", most people would not know what it is. I think article titles should be names, not abbreviations, with rare exceptions, as being more encyclopedic. Having said that, I don't think it makes a huge difference, as long as one redirects to the other. Station1 (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "...but if one wrote, "LUVOIR is not yet operational", most people would not know what it is." – That's because most people in general don't know what LUVOIR is. Once they do know, which name do you think they're going to remember? The barely used name, or the name used dozens and dozens of times in many pages and articles? It's simply not in the guidelines on acronymns to title the article after a name that is barely even used, compared to an acronymn that is so much more widely used. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 02:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On an additional note, the official mission website does not even mention "Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor" at all [1 ]. "Large Ultraviolet Optical Infrared Telescope" is used in the home page's browser tab title, but on the actual website itself, "LUVOIR" is exclusively used. The report the website is based off is also called The LUVOIR Final Report [2 ]. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 07:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the name is "barely even used". It's used by at least 8 of the 9 sites linked in this discussion. The LUVOIR Final Report uses it over 400 times, at the top of each page. Station1 (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – the acronym is not widely familiar; failes WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose- I agree with Station1. The full name, rather than the acronym, should be given in the title whenever that's practical. Reyk YO! 11:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Station1 and Dicklyon. The full name is a descriptor as well as a name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: The YouTube videos I have watched, including Fraiser Cain's one, used "LUVOIR" for the proposed telescope. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the full title is usually more useful in search results. The exception would be widely-known acronyms such as NATO. Praemonitus (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (weakly) Based on presentations by people working on it, I think LUVOIR is what they commonly call it. Note that many Wikipedia pages for spacecraft use the acronym as title, rather than spelling it out. That's especially common when the acronym is pronounceable, and especially so when it's contrived to be a word or name. (E.g. InSight, MAVEN and THEMIS.) In some cases, the acronym is common usage to such an extent that people working directly with the spacecraft or its data have trouble remembering what some of the letters stand for. So the fact that "LUVOIR" is an acronym isn't a reason not to consider it a common use name and the appropriate name for the article's title. I'm only weakly supporting this because I think, but and not totally sure, the the acronym is common usage for LUVOIR. Fcrary (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as it is the much more common way people refer to it. --mfb (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Important comment – If this move proposal fails, a second move proposal will have to be brought up, concerning the can-of-worms that is the massive disagreement between various official and third-party sources over what the telescope's full name actually is. I'd strongly advise to support simply naming this article "LUVOIR", since all sources brought up in this discussion use that name more commonly, whereas those same sources in reference to a long name use either "Large UV/Optical/IR Surveyor", "Large UV Optical Infrared telescope", "Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor", "Large Ultraviolet Optical Infrared Telescope", "Large Ultraviolet Optical Infrared Surveyor", and "Large Ultraviolet-Optical-Infrared Surveyor". The first four of these names have been used by NASA and the LUVOIR team, so even identifying an official name would be a challenge. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 04:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion is no move. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 09:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor → Large Ultraviolet Optical Infrared Surveyor – I want to skip a general discussion on all the names used by both NASA, the LUVOIR team, and third party sources, and focus on a single name I believe to be more commonly recognisable than the current article title, "Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor" – which is used by some third party sources,  and the Goddard Space Flight Center's final report on LUVOIR. "Large Ultraviolet Optical Infrared Surveyor" is used literally by some third party sources as well, and variations of names that have the word "Ultraviolet" – such as "Large Ultraviolet/Optical/Infrared Surveyor" and "Large Ultraviolet-Optical-Infrared Surveyor" – are used much more often than those that use "UV" instead. The LUVOIR report uses "Large Ultraviolet / Optical / Infrared Surveyor" in its prose introduction, and the LUVOIR team's official website bills it as the "Large Ultraviolet Optical Infrared Telescope". Therefore by proxy, I believe that "Large Ultraviolet Optical Infrared Surveyor" is the more appropriate name for this article. Pinging all participants in the previous discussion with Hidden ping.

– PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 08:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per well-researched nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I'm all for expanding acronyms. "Ultraviolet" is clearer and more obvious than "UV". Fcrary (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But what about NASA? We cannot expand that to National Aeronautics and Space Administration! --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In that particular case, "NASA" is the most commonly recognisable name for the organisation. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 05:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I see no reason to oppose this. - Jadebenn (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Decision in 2020 ?
When will the National Academy of Sciences' Decadal survey committee make its recommendation to NASA (between LUVOIR-A, LUVOIR-B, and the other 3 contenders) ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The latest information on the National Academy's web page for the survey says it will be released in "Fall 2021." These Decadal Surveys are peer reviewed, and revised based on the reviewer's comments. How long that takes depends on what the reviewer's comments are, so the schedule is a bit uncertain. Fcrary (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Any update on what they recommended to nasa? 75.81.155.167 (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh nevermind I cant believe I did not see the update, my bad. 75.81.155.167 (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Out of date
Hasn't been updated since before 2020 172.58.43.170 (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

What mirror temperature and longest wavelength infrared is planned ?
What mirror temperature and longest wavelength infrared is planned ? Near-infrared only goes out to about 2500 nm. - Rod57 (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)