Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Project SAINT


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Project SAINT

 * Nominator(s): 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel that it fits the criteria. It forms somewhat of a niche, and actual content is somewhat limited due to it being cancelled, but I feel that there is still enough. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  01:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kees08
Anti shouldn't be capitalized here: ...cheaper Anti-satellite...

In what year? - cost 56 million dollars.
 * After checking the sources, it merely says what they were projected to cost, not what they actually cost. I have removed it.

Increase the number of wikilinks, for example in project phases there are none. Radar cross-section would be a good one for that section, as an example.

I understand the significance of the F-15 missile photo, but in my opinion any photos not of the subject matter should be called out by name at least once in the article.
 * It sort of is with the "The project's only unique role, that of being able to destroy satellites, was then given to fighter planes, which were cheaper and could hit a satellite without being detected" links directly to the photo of a fighter plane with a ASAT rocket. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  03:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Should be 'such as a' in this sentence: The third phase of the project included several elements such as powerful main engine whose propellant was pressure fed For this, the proper term would be cold gas thrusters, so it would read 'along with nitrogen cold gas thrusters for orientation' or similar wording, could also say its for attitude: along with cooled nitrogen gas jets for orientation Reword to "After this, the Agena would use its propellant to put the...:After this the Agena would be used as fuel to put the SAINT in a co-orbit with its target Propellant, not fuel: depleted of battery power and fuel. Would coat be a better verb?: was to blast it with black paint Maybe try 'rendering it inoperable':  making it useless Additionally, I have found a couple of sources that give a little bit more interesting background. You might have to dig into the material that these sources are citing, but for your reference:

https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/14219/Sambaluk_ku_0099D_12030_DATA_1.pdf?sequence=1

Contained in these links are interesting things like the fact they changed it from Satellite Interceptor to Satellite Inspector to make it align with the President's view of having peace in space. Obviously look into it and vet the source. Also I swear I had found more than one source when I first started typing. I'll try to find them again later.
 * Wasn't incredibly full of detail, but the bit about the kill function not being developed after 1959 is very useful, I've added it to the developments section. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have received a lot of sources from the reference desk and can email them to you, can you send me an email and I can forward them on to you? I would expand the article, but I am guessing as an A-class reviewer I am not really supposed to? Kees08 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Anything useful in those citations? No rush, just curious. Kees08 (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've only gone through a few, but so far, nothing exceptional, in one of them it mentions the president (Eisenhower) wanted an investigator from the start, but that is huge enough that I would have thought every source would talk about, not just a thesis. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As you are the last of the three, would you mind taking another look at this? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did a couple of minor copy edits. I was looking through a source I sent you, "A Falling Star: SAINT, America's First Antisatellite System," and it seems like there is information there that would help polish the article. For example, it gives specific reasons and numbers for the choice of the booster (it was based on reliability numbers). It also has a more thorough listing of potential sensors and equipment that the system would contain. Additionally, it gives an estimated length and mass of it. This is all on page 3, or PDF page 46 of the document. The next page discusses how the weapon would specifically operate, such as the large delta-v changes down to how fast it would be approaching the satellite it would be inspecting. These are just examples of things I think would really make the article standout more. As I have never done an A-class review before, if these comments are out of the scope of the review, please let me know and I will stamp a support on it. If these are the sort of comments you should be getting, then definitely take a look at that document and the other documents I sent to see if there is good information like I pointed out above. That was more of an example of the good information available, and not an all-inclusive list of what I would expect to see. After you take another go at including all of that, I'll skim the sources and make sure the major, relevant project details are all included. I hope this is helpful! Great article so far, I am fascinated by the ASAT programs.  Kees08 (Talk)  19:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to this later today when I get home. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I ask how you obtained the Falling Stars piece, I've added in info, but I don't have an ISBN to cite. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, I got it from Rob via the reference desk. Not sure if Rob has anymore info on it, you can ask him though!  Kees08 (Talk)  06:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * - See here, the full citation is: . Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe I have added all of the important information. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support  Kees08  (Talk)   00:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7
Ah, the 1950s. The Golden Age of Mad Science.
 * Yep, I'm hoping to live until its declassified (should have been in 2012, but wasn't for some reason) so I can find out exactly who, at a meeting about how it would take out a satellite, stood up and said "lets launch a one megaton nuke at it, and if they were summarily fired.
 * Judging from Project A119, he probably got his own TV show. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The project was created after... Following this... In response... Suggest removing the "Following this", since things that come after are invariably following. Consider removing "In response" too.
 * Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (at the time called Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)) Just name and link Advanced Research Projects Agency
 * the construction of a launch facility within 12 hours of Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg These are on opposite sides of the country. If it's twelve hours by air, last I looked, all of the lower 48 were. (And Alaska and Hawaii were not states at the time.)
 * What do you recommend I do here? Remove it entirely?
 * What do we really mean? What does the source say? launch facilities capable of responding within 12 hours at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg So we are not talking about constructing new launch facilities at all; we are talking about using the two existing facilities, and making arrangements so a SAINT can be launched within 12 hours. Which makes far more sense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the source, it means building two new launch facilities that could respond within 12 hours. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What do we really mean? What does the source say? launch facilities capable of responding within 12 hours at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg So we are not talking about constructing new launch facilities at all; we are talking about using the two existing facilities, and making arrangements so a SAINT can be launched within 12 hours. Which makes far more sense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the source, it means building two new launch facilities that could respond within 12 hours. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The study undertaken by the Space Technology Laboratory suggested the use of a Thor-Hydra booster, however the more capable and more readily available Atlas-Agena B booster was selected instead. Phase two however, would use the Atlas-Centaur booster. Can we cut back on the "however"s?
 * a nuclear weapon or something else whose power source involved a radioactive substance Nuclear weapons were not normally powered by radioactive substances (although it's not a bad idea). Delete "else"
 * Other sensors included infrared, gravimetric sensors to ascertain the mass of the other satellite, while Replace the comma with "and"
 * It was planned to the launch four satellites in December 1962. Delete "the"
 * The project had also gone heavily over budget, spending over 100 million dollars, which was several times what was reported to the public. Are we talking here about the budget, or the cost overrun being under-reported? (And suggest deleting "heavily")
 * It was planned to the launch four satellites in December 1962. Delete "the"
 * The project had also gone heavily over budget, spending over 100 million dollars, which was several times what was reported to the public. Are we talking here about the budget, or the cost overrun being under-reported? (And suggest deleting "heavily")
 * The project had also gone heavily over budget, spending over 100 million dollars, which was several times what was reported to the public. Are we talking here about the budget, or the cost overrun being under-reported? (And suggest deleting "heavily")
 * The project had also gone heavily over budget, spending over 100 million dollars, which was several times what was reported to the public. Are we talking here about the budget, or the cost overrun being under-reported? (And suggest deleting "heavily")
 * Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

 * Support: G'day, not a lot stood out to me. Just a couple of nitpicks, but overall seems pretty good to me, altogether the content is over my head:
 * "fas" --> "Federation of American Scientists"
 * "metres"" --> "meters"
 * "kilometres" --> "kilometers"
 * is there any explanation as to why a station was needed in Rhodesia? (I assume it was due to rotation of the Earth or something similar?)
 * Presumably, but I have nothing I can cite for that. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * in the infobox it says the role was "Satellite killer", but from the text I get the impression that it morphed more into a satellite inspector?
 * in the infobox it says "Duration 	– December 1962", I wonder if this should include some sort of start date? Possibly March 1961, or even "c. 1957" if the exact start isn't known?
 * "operators in the USSR, or else if it sensed that it was being scanned..." ("else" probably isn't required here)
 * "with possible ASAT use", probably need to define this acronym (I assume anti-satellite)
 * "A wing of the Program was called...", "program" probably doesn't need caps here
 * the images seemed appropriately licenced to me (no action required)
 * "operators in the USSR, or else if it sensed that it was being scanned..." ("else" probably isn't required here)
 * "with possible ASAT use", probably need to define this acronym (I assume anti-satellite)
 * "A wing of the Program was called...", "program" probably doesn't need caps here
 * the images seemed appropriately licenced to me (no action required)
 * "A wing of the Program was called...", "program" probably doesn't need caps here
 * the images seemed appropriately licenced to me (no action required)
 * the images seemed appropriately licenced to me (no action required)
 * the images seemed appropriately licenced to me (no action required)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.