Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space missions

old
I will probably split the mission and program definitions apart as these now-likely-to-be-multiple Space WikiProjects materialize further. -- Pipian

One thing to consider: there is not always a 1:1 correspondence between a "launch" and a "mission" - especially the space station missions have one long term station crew, as well as visiting crews to exchange the Soyuz, or even a partial exchange of the long term crew. This can be seen e.g. by the fact that the ISS long term crew has their own mission insignia, additional to the Shuttle/Soyuz launch insignia. andy 12:16, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * This is true. I think ideally, we should mention crew changes on the space station, but we should keep them as separate missions from the actual spaceflights.  It remains to be seen how it would be best to manage this in cases where there is no mission name for a long-term crew on Mir/ISS/etc. -- Pipian


 * Yes, this is going to become increasingly complex. What's really being described here are launches of spacecraft that have carried a crew on the way up and/or on the way down... This fits neatly with the numbering schemes adopted by the various players. Hmm - maybe the missions we're actually talking about are the missions of the spacecraft rather than the missions of the crew on board... synonymous in the early days! rlandmann


 * Pretty much. ISS missions at least have names (e.g. Expedition 1, etc. though none of these have pages as of yet.) -- Pipian

For the fact sheet - I don't like the colored background for the mission insignia. For one transparent images are not that easy to create (AFAIK IE has problems with transparent PNG, and JPEG cannot be transparent at all), it also looks better with a standard white background. I prefer the color in the table only for the caption rows. andy 12:16, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * So switch the colors to buff for the rows and white for the insignia? (as it currently appears) -- Pipian


 * I would suggest to do it similar like it is already in the few Space Shuttle missions already existing. We also should not make the fact sheet too long, especially when the article itself gets so much short then it looks just ugly. For example the crew listing can better fit into the text, especially when it has a backup crew, or a alternate Payload Specialist, or the ISS crew has the Mission Specialist # position during the ascent, and the ones returning from ISS will have that number on descent. If you want to fit this all into the fact sheet it will explode. As another example see Soyuz TMA-2 - it has a lot of data, but some of the data in the fact sheet there is IMHO a bit obscure for the normal reader. andy 08:33, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Alright. I'm not going to argue.  Looks like someone else (Rlandmann) is standardizing the appearance of the table based on what already exists anyway, so I'm going to standardize more on that.  Orbit data should be limited to Number of Orbits, in retrospect.  Perigee, Apogee, Inclination, and Orbital period are nice, but too detailed for Wikipedia, IMO.  Crew I guess can be listed in the article itself under the crew entry (Number of crew members could stick around though). -- Pipian 16:14, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree that it's a good idea to artifically limit the depth of a wikipedia artical. I feel more is always better.  However it doesn't all have to be in one table.  There could easily be a 'Crew' table in the article body somewhere.  Audin 08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

About the previous mission/next mission box. I think it should go, for example, Mercury 9 --previous Mercury 8, next Gemini 3. I think the way it is written you would rather have it go Mercury 9 --previous Mercury 8, next Gemini program. I don't think that is helpful. Besides there will be a link to Gemini program in the Gemini 3 article. Also will we skip Apollo 1 and Apollo 2-6 in the bottom box? Rmhermen 16:30, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * I meant for it to say something like:


 * Whereas you would like:


 * Did I get that right? I suppose it's not a big deal either way, and yours might be cleaner.  As for uncrewed test flights in the same program, perhaps it should be something like...


 * That sound good? -- Pipian 17:10, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Since the program link should explain any abnormalities in numbering I think we can skip the unmanned ones. (Of course the Mercury page doesn't explain why there is no Mercury 5 yet!) Also I found that the Apollo mision had a slightly different box already. Should we standardize? Rmhermen 17:20, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * That's what the talk page is for. Anyone else want to weigh in on the manned or unmanned issue? I'm personally comfortable with either, but there are some articles for the unmanned missions (e.g. Apollo 4) so I tend to favor pointing to them as next in the series in some fashion or another. -- Pipian


 * I prefer to add only the manned ones, whereas the project article can list both manned and unmanned in one table in their correct order. But if the majority thinks otherwise I have no problem with it either.
 * But it only have this clear projects for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo - for STS most missions actually stand for themself (but for example the Hubble Servicing missions are somewhat linked), and the Russian flights are numbered, but there is no "Soyuz project", especially no distinction between the "Soyuz project" and the "Soyuz T project". Instead it had e.g. the Apollo-Soyuz preparation missions, it had the lunar Soyuz testing missions, it had the Salyut-1 missions. And for Salyut 7 it even had two "projects", with the station being empty between the two. In these case we can either do a "next Soyuz flight" link, or a "next Soyuz flight in same project", which might not be the same. We can of course use the simple way of linking the next Soyuz flights in bottom and mentioon the actual project with its precursor and follow-up missions in the text. andy 08:33, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I would just link in strings of a single country in the order they were launched, not sequential in program. Rmhermen 16:08, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, In terms of projects, I was thinking more by spacecraft design (Mercury was not the same as Gemini, which was not the same as Apollo)? But when I say spacecraft on the main page, I don't mean that it should link to Space Shuttle Discovery but rather the general Space Shuttle program -- Pipian


 * I'd like to see the unmanned flights listed. They are too often overlooked. Audin 08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

- I disagree with one of the naming points, that is concerning astronauts. I would suggest using cosmonaut for Soviet/Russian ones and astronaut for all others. We certainly don't want to start uses 32 different names representing each country that has flown someone in space. I also doubt that either name for the Chinese astronauts will last in English. Rmhermen 17:04, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, in my opinion, there's a subtle difference between merely flying someone into space and using that name (e.g. France's spationauts, see Astronaut) and using a different name for each nation that has ORIGINATED crewed spaceflights (Only USSR/Russia, US, China). Let's use this section to debate the name however... Western media uses taikonaut, but the Chinese term is yuhangyuan.  English articles from Chinese news sources say Chinese astronaut. -- Pipian


 * Actually, I've only seen taikonaut in use by space geeks (I include myself!!), not in the mainstream media. I don't think it will last, and I don't think it's a good idea for Wiki... -- rlandmann


 * Well, I certainly want to keep taikonaut mentioned on the astronaut page, with a link from taikonaut to astronaut (as it currently is), and I doubt anyone will disagree with me. I do like the "naut" ending, but it's not really official in any respect, so I do not really support its use for Chinese astronauts. Others may choose to disagree however, but I personally think it's a choice between astronaut and yuhangyuan.  I prefer the latter, as it's hearkening to the Chinese term, rather than an English term (I do like the distinction), but on the other hand, we say cosmonaut, not the actual Russian kosmonaut.-- Pipian

Another naming point not directly related to the template discussion. Is it called manned or crewed? There seem to activist of both sides changing some of the articles back and forth, and such edit wars are not really productive. For myself I am much more used to the word manned, however as a non-native speaker I don't know what is the politically correct word now, or how much politically incorrect the other one is. We have an article called Crewed space mission which however does not explain which of the two terms is better, more NPOV and more common. I only know in German it is bemannt, and everyone except maybe a feminist activist will laugh if anyone would call it bemenscht. andy 12:27, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I am a native English speaker and I cannot ever remember hearing "crewed mission" anywhere but here. It is always "manned mission". Unless someone can provide some other evidence, of course. Rmhermen 13:38, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * On a personal note, I agree with manned over crewed (especially due to historical reasons), but in the interest of lack of sexism and so that we won't have strife, I decided that we should have crewed (as it's less likely to spart an argument than manned is). If we can come to an agreement that manned is perfectly acceptable, then I have no problems with changing the spec, but since I'm interested in keeping fights over this to a low roar, the official stance right NOW is to keep it "crewed".  Feel free to debate until we agree (if we do) that manned is better. -- Pipian


 * In Talk:Shenzhou spacecraft there is a rationale for why the term manned is not sexist - and the article Crewed space mission has now been moved back to Manned space mission. But we should concentrate on creating good contents, not about changing one word back-and-forth. andy 18:28, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * One entertaining way to do it would be to use the terms Manned, Womaned, and Crewed correctly for each mission. I don't think it makes much difference, though I did change some of the 'crewed's back to 'manned's a while back in the Apollo (I think) article while making other changes.  I do like the renaming of Manned missions to Human spaceflights.  Audin 08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

- The following section has been moved from the Village pump:

After the successful launch of Shenzhou 5, and looking at similar pages (Mercury 3) for reference when helping to write/update/edit the article, it got me thinking (particularly considering the bottom of Mercury 3) that there perhaps should be a WikiProject standardizing the appearance of space mission entries. I'm not sure whether it would apply to both crewed and uncrewed missions, or just crewed missions, but I figured it might be a good idea to at least standardize on a footer to help navigate through the various missions, much like rulers of countries (e.g. George Washington and Elizabeth II) have a navigation system. It wouldn't hurt to standardize on a method of describing the location/time of launch, location/time of landing, crew names, and mission badges (if applicable). Anyone else agree? I'll lay out the template if people say it's a good idea. -- Pipian 02:58, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Ark30inf 03:01, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * There's a "de facto" scheme I've been trying to implement - look at the early Soviet pages - Vostok, Voshkod, Soyuz 1-12. But yes, I agree standardisation would be nice :) rlandmann


 * Please check out WikiProject Space Missions then while I'm working on solidifying a possible standard. I'll probably adopt most of your existing one. -- Pipian


 * Please also, set up a standard for what we call the crewmembers. Someone removed astronaut and changed it to taikonaut.  Someone else removed the Chinese (Yuhangyuan) because they said "it looks ugly".  We need a standard. Ark30inf 03:53, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Alright. I might just make a whole groups of Space WikiProjects.... -- Pipian


 * Just commenting that the "buff" coloured background on the tables was already kinda standard from many of the Shuttle missions - might be worth reviewing those pages as well before settling on the final version of the template... not really an issue, of course! rlandmann


 * Quite some time ago I started with adding a factsheet to some of the space mission (I did e.g. STS-9), but never came to more then just a few when the next project absorbed me. As that was when I was new to Wikipedia I didn't know about the Wikiprojects yet, and then didn't find the time to return to the space mission except to add minor details sometimes. So it's a good idea to revive this project, and at first unify those space missions already existing. andy 11:59, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have a book that covers early space missions and could add at least stubs on a lot of those that don't have them already. The book includes orbital parameters of the missions and I think that these should be added to articles whenever possible so I wanted to discuss their format here. Another interesting thing that it describes are mission achievements; most early missions have certain unique achievement (First satellite in orbit, first around Venus, first man on the Moon etc.) and perhaps this should be added to the template (I don't think in the table, but a standard paragraph would be nice). Nikola 22:09, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, this wouldn't happen to be the Space Almanac would it? Because I happen to have that book, which I plan to use to fill out some stub data for articles... -- Pipian 13:06, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * No, it's a book in Serbian :)


 * I propose the following addition to the table, above "Number of orbits":


 * For deep space missions there should also be infomation on the orbit around the Sun, for missions to other planets on orbits around them, for mission that landed landing coordinates. Nikola 09:35, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * For satellites don't forget the official satellite number (e.g. 1987-16A) in the template... andy 09:37, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I'd rather like to keep the tables as clean as possible, and while I think knowing the perigee, apogee, inclination, and period are important, I don't think they're important enough for MANNED flights (which already have enough space taken up with the patch and so forth). I think those should go on satellites for certain though. -- Pipian 06:07, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Perigee, Apogee, Inclination, and Period can be obtained for any of the manned flights I believe...  But still, my inclination is to exclude these bits of info in the interest of keeping the table short (unless it shouldn't be an issue)...  We need to settle on this before I go ahead and start changing the Soyuz pages. -- Pipian 07:20, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it would be important on unmanned flights and not on manned. Of course, sometimes the orbit was changing, so if it is impossible to follow the changes it should be dropped. Perhaps it could be the best to add data in a standard heading, not in the primary table. Something like this:

Mission parameters

 * Satellite weight:
 * Perigee:
 * Apogee:
 * Inclination:
 * Period:
 * Number of orbits


 * A lot more could be added without any clutter. Including the launch vehicle. Nikola 09:55, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm going to start WikiProject Space Missions/Sandbox as a testing ground. The text will be that of Vostok 1. -- Pipian


 * After consideration of the fact that Crew is listed in such a fashion after the main text of the article, I believe that mission parameters like that are fine, after the crew listing. Anyone else want to weigh in?   I'm applying the change to Vostok 1 for the time being. -- Pipian 19:09, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I've decided it's better to change "Satellite Weight" to "Mass" to be more accurate scientifically, and ignore the satellite/spacecraft issue. -- Pipian


 * I think the addition of these parameters to the ends of the articles is incredibly ugly - we already have a (large) data table, which I think would be a far more logical place to put this data. Personally, I think that details such as perigee/apogee/inclination are probably too esoteric for the encyclopedia anyway... Hasn't this already been discussed somewhere? --Rlandmann 05:44, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to limit the size of the table. The more information the better.  Audin 08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm just wondering whether the level of detail in these parameters is really encyclopaedic? But I'm not raising any really strong objection to it... I *am* suggesting, though, that if we're going to include them, we make them part of the table, which is not the case at the moment (see Vostok 1 and my suggestion below --Rlandmann 23:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to the following modifications? --Rlandmann 00:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * moving the current mission parameters in with the rest of the data table
 * replacing the "number of crew" row in the data table with a "crew names" row (as per the current mission parameters?)


 * I like the idea of adding the crew names to the table, maybe also with their positions (CDR, LMP etc). Personally I don't like the idea of the mission parameters. Most missions have some orbit changes and on ISS-Shuttle missions there is usually a gradual raising of the orbit by maybe a dozen kilometres by the Shuttle. They just aren't hard and fast numbers. I agree however that we need to include a general idea of orbital height as Hubble-Shuttle flights are much higher than ISS flights, which in turn are higher than the later Apollo flights which in some cases were in orbits that barely would have survived a couple a orbits before decaying. --enceladus 23:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I do agree that data is nice, but too much data becomes useless for most people. That's why I haven't put Apogee and so forth in the table.  Crew names would be helpful in the table, BUT they make the table far too wide in many cases.  I'm pretty much for whatever the consensus is regarding the extended data (Though I've been gathering what I can for all the Vostok flights). -- Pipian

I worked on Apollo 17 but changed number of orbits to time on lunar surface. There are several other facts that could go in the box. Anyone want to give an opinion. Rmhermen 23:13, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes. Orbits should be removed and replaced as needed.  Especially with the lunar flights.  Orbits are practically unnecessary for satellites, since they tend to have a large number of orbits before coming down.  I would, however, recommend that "Time on Lunar Surface" be moved above EVA (where it logically follows that it should be placed) -- Pipian

Hi all new round here (I'm usually use E2 but its been down for the last couple of days so had to find somewhere else).

Anyway, I've been writing Soyuz articles for E2 and will add them as soon as I can get them from there. Just one thought though on early missions. I think that it should be mentioned in the articles that most of the patches on all the Mercury missions, Gemini 3 and most Soviet flights are not really patches that were created for the mission. They weren't worn by the crew and at the very most were just made into medallions. - enceladus

I'm looking into my Space Almanac again, and I was thinking... Should we add the launch vehicle used as part of the table (e.g. Vostoks with A-1, Voskhods and Soyuz with A-2)? Or should that to be left for the spacecraft articles? -- Pipian


 * I guess that there could be cases where same spacecraft was launched with different launch vehicles. Perhaps it could be a part of Launch field, then it wouldn't clutter the table:


 * Or, as I said above, into the standard heading.
 * Could I also ask you to link cosmodrome to Baikonur instead of Baikonur ? Nikola 09:55, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to see the pad mentioned... Audin 08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * It is, when known. -- Pipian

I've been writing up articles for all the manned Gemini missions. As part of this I've suddenly realised that all the Gemini missions except Gemini 3 used roman numerals instead of arabic numbers. As such I've moved all the pages to the right pages, ie Gemini 5 is now at Gemini V. This will not affect anyone greatly as the pages will automatically redirect if you type Gemini 5. - enceladus


 * Indeed the roman numerals were used once upon a time, but that was a long time ago, and arabics are now the most common (Google shows a 10 to 1 ratio), not to mention the part where roman numerals are harder to read. So your redirs are backwards. So as to preserve history, a sysop will have to delete the redir and move back. Stan 04:16, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * No, as long as the redirect page has no history by itself it can be moved back by everyone, no need for admin power. If any of the redirects however has a history then I can offer my admin powers :-) andy 09:33, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Triggerhappy admins, wait a moment: if original name of a mission was Gemini V, the article should be at Gemini V, even if today Gemini 5 is more used. Nikola 09:36, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * According to "On The Shoulders Of Titans", after Gemini 3 and the Molly Brown incident, NASA managers made a decision that all missions were to be referred to as roman numerals: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4203/ch10-5.htm (end of fifth paragraph). Now of course I can see where people are coming from in the fact that it more commonly known as Gemini 5.


 * If we started naming all the Gemini missions with roman numerals, we would then have to refer to STS-26 as STS-26R and all the Mercury flights as MA-6 or whatever. And Vostok 1 should be referred to as simply Vostok as that it what the Soviets announced it as.


 * So if there is a concensus that they should all be referred to as Gemini 5 instead of Gemini V, then I think we should revert them to their original states. - enceladus 00:36, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I would like them but back if just for consistency. Rmhermen 00:44, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * I like consistency, but I also like historical accuracy. Thus, even though Vostok 1 might not have had a number, I like it having a number.  Perhaps we should go back to Gemini 5 and link Gemini V to it, and then mention in the article something like "Gemini 5 (officially Gemini V) -- Pipian

OK. All the Gemini missions are back to arabic numbers. However in the table it is referred to as Gemini V, and there is a commment that officially it was Gemini V. - enceladus

Question about the table at the bottom of the pages. Should it have the previous/next manned flight in the program or the previous/next flight around the world?

And somewhat related to this is whether some of the X-15 flights should be counted as spaceflights. All the flights below are over 50 miles (USAF definition of astronaut) while only two are over 100 km (FAI definition). Although an abritary limit is not desirable, personally I think we should go with the 100 km. The only other one close is Flight 62, which is still 5000 metres off, so we are not keeping anyone out who got to 99999 m.

Flight 62 - 95940 m. Flight 77 - 82810 m. Flight 87 - 86870 m. Flight 90 - 106010 m. Flight 91 - 107960 m. Flight 138 - 85527 m. Flight 143 - 82601 m. Flight 150 - 90099 m. Flight 153 - 81230 m. Flight 190 - 85500 m. Flight 191 - 81080 m. (Disintegrated after going into spin) Flight 197 - 81530 m.

-enceladus


 * I like the next flight in program as it is now. We could add a second box for next/previous manned flight. We also have a List of manned space missions chronologically. I would also list all X-15 flights over 50 miles with a notation of the different definitions and special notice of the two over 100 km. Rmhermen 03:17, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * I second Rmhermen. List it in lists of manned space missions, but not in the tables, especially as they aren't actual articles... -- Pipian


 * Really ambitious would be a multi-line table...Next flight in program...Next flight in country...Next flight period. Audin 08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. It would be ambitious, but I don't want the pages to be too messy with data and too lacking in text.  -- Pipian

-- I added Crew to Apollo 16 and 17 but I didn't add Mission Parameters headers since none of them are applicable to lunar missions. And I should add that I think satellite weight is misleading. The common conpt of satellite does not include spacecraft. Coudln't it just be spacecraft weight? And for lunar missions which weight - total, lander, LCM, etc. Rmhermen 19:35, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * I could change it. I think it would be better if it were just plain "spacecraft weight", with the Apollo missions having italicised subcategories Lander, LCM, and Total.  I mean, obviously some things have to be changed to work.  Apogee and Perigee could still work, as Apoluna and Periluna (closest and furthest points from the moon, obviously) and orbital time around the moon, etc.  I couldn't tell you if these data are known though. -- Pipian


 * IIRC the correct terms are perilune and apolune. And now for a stupid question - what was LCM stand for? - enceladus


 * I realized that when I tried looking it up on Google. And LCM (Lunar Command Module) is actually more properly known as the CSM (Command/Service Module) -- Pipian


 * Freaky. I have never heard LCM before.  :)  Audin 08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

- How will the article Pioneer 6, 7, 8 and 9 fit into our format? Rmhermen 20:09, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
 * I think we should think about splitting that into four separate articles (although perhaps not immediately, because there's not yet enough in there to differentiate. However, I can't help but think that surely all four of these didn't have the exact same mission, regardless of how many similarities there may have been. - Hephaestos 21:33, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I second splitting them up, but I do not think there is that much that can be said for differences in the missions, other than basic mission data (launch date/time) -- Pipian


 * Should the various groups of Pioneer spacecraft (and other such generically-named programs) get their own pages? Audin 08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

- Still not sure what Mission Parameters will work for lunar missions. All of the standard ones are to simple. For example for Apollo 17 you have 2 initial earth orbits at 93nm, then the trans-earth coast for 3 days, 7 hours. Then a CSM/LM lunar orbit of 170nm by 52.6 nm for four hours, then an orbit of 59 by 15nm for 18 hours, then an orbit of 70.3 by 54.3 nm. Then a separate LM orbit of perilune altitude 6.2 nm for 47 minutes. After leaving the moon, the LM reached 48.5nm by 9.4nm orbit for 45 minutes then went to an orbit of 64.7 by 48.5 nm then 62 by 62 nm for docking but I don't know when the CSM went to this lower orbit. It could have been there for most of the over 3 days it waited in orbit. Then 2 days 20 hours back to Earth and esentially one orbit before splashdown. Far to complicated. That doesn't touch inclinations or periods. Rmhermen 17:01, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC) -- Shouldn't we add Launch Vehicle to the mission parameters. Especially as such vehicle often changed within a program for the early launches. Mercury and Apollo, for instance. By the shuttle launches it would not be useful though. I don't know about Soyuz. Rmhermen 16:12, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * For Soyuz, they all used the Soyuz rocket (just an R-7 basically) but there were slight variations through the program. According to astronautix.com from Soyuz 19 onwards they used the Soyuz 11A511U . It also appears that the Soyuz 11A511U2 was used as well as the Soyuz FG . enceladus 21:37 Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

--- Why isn't there an article on the Vostok program like the ones for Mercury program, etc. Right now each box on the bottom of a Vostok flight refers one to a disambiguation page. Not good. Should we change our link-in-the-box to Vostok spacecraft? Or write a Vostok program article and redirect to that? Rmhermen 23:50, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * Done :) --Rlandmann 00:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How about agreeing on a standard for launch vehicle descriptions? There's a suggested template by User:Audin that s/he's already applied to the Saturn V and Titan rocket pages. --Rlandmann 07:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'll second this recomendation. :)  I feel that complete standardiztion of the table is difficult given the great variety of launch vehicles around (for instance, think of a table for Delta...), and I went a bit nuts with the Titan rocket table.  Each of the Titans has a story that should be turned into a seperate page, so some day it'll get split up.  I've also left some fields of the table blank when I couldn't find (trustworthy) values for them to provide some incentive for others to fill them in.  I used the same table at Redstone rocket.  Audin 08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should set up a Wikiproject for rockets and missiles. Although I agree that a complete standardisation is impossible, it would be nice to see the major rocket types with standardised table. I think that the Saturn V table would be a good template - a picture of the rocket just after launch, info about each stage and then payload to certain types of orbits. As for rockets like the Delta, we could have the Delta Rocket Family page that then linked to each of the seperate rockets. Even if these articles only had the table and a paragraph or two about each rocket it would be a start. And we have to remember that we have an 'unlimited' (well sort of) amount of space to work with. - enceladus 22:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is what I'm currently playing with as a rocket table... I think the star background on the header looks reasonably sweet...but it's currently implimented in a non-clean way. I'd vote for black as a backup. User:Rlandmann suggested possibly placing the image along side the text, as rockets tend to be long and skinny. I think that would be expecially nice with a broken up image featuring each stage seperately, so the stage images would line up with the stage text. Obviously that doesn't work for all rockets, but i don't see any reason to stick exclusively to one type of table. It's good that the general features be similar (sameish information, similar order), but the layout can differ based on what imagry is available.

Do people like the star background? If so I will talk to the developers about getting a bit added to the CSS so we can impliment it cleanly. It's a reasonably large background image (though still only 4k) so it could be used elsewhere without many problems. Audin 22:50, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I've created a project at WikiProject Rockets. It needs alot of fleshing out and discussion but it is a start. I envisage it looking at IRBM, ICBM and space launchers (and of course there were crossover for all three catergories among some rockets). Anyone is welcome to add to the page or start a discussion. - enceladus

Is there a general wiki rule on throwing a categorization into an article name? Many of the rocket entries have '(rocket)' or just 'rocket' in their titles (ie: Redstone rocket, Centaur rocket). This seems useful in many cases, but is also inconsistant. I intend to go through at some point and add a bunch of articles on rocket engines, should I name them all similar to F-1 (rocket engine)? It seems a little silly. But who knows how long the categorization code will take to materialize. It's also a little weird in the case of the Centaur...it should really be Centaur rocket stage. Audin 08:38, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * The "rules" are to be found at Disambiguation and Naming_conventions but are not hard and fast, and consistency comes from projects like this one. I think a good rule of thumb is that if the article name makes sense without brackets, then don't use them, e.g. Titan rocket but Mars (planet). Disambiguation is a Good Thing, especially with very undescriptive names like F-1, which should definitely be F-1 rocket engine to distinguish at least from Formula 1 motor racing and the Mitsubishi jet trainer! And very shortly we will need to distinguish between Saturn I rocket and Saturn I rocket stage... Agreed that the Centaur should be moved to Centaur rocket stage. Also Jupiter-C IRBM might need to be broadened? --Rlandmann 11:20, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * RE: Saturn I rocket stage This wouldn't be necessary as IIRC these were called S-I stage to distinguish them from the Saturn I rocket. But Saturn stage nomenclature is just plan nasty, with the Saturn V featuring the S-IC, S-II and the S-IVB. And the S-IVB was the second stage of the Saturn IB, which used a S-IB as the first stage. --enceladus 21:56, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Both names seem to have been used, with the "S" being short for "Saturn". S-I rocket stage would be the more normal nomenclature, but we really ought to have at least some disambiguation. --Rlandmann 23:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Units. In some cases I think it is important to retain the original units to which an item was built. Case in point: the F-1 engine. It was built to be a 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 (later) lbs thrust engine. Listing it only as 4,500,000 or 6,670,000 newtons leaves one thinking "why did they choose 6.67 million newtons?". I'd like to see the Saturn V page list "33,400,000 N (7,500,000 lbs)". Audin 02:46, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'll admit I was the one that changed all the lbs to Newtons. I've modified it as I realise now that it is important to include these numbers as in the early 1960s when the rockets were first envisaged they were described as 1.5 million lbs of thrust per engine. I've only added it back for the unupgraded specs as it would clutter up the table with too many numbers to include them for the upgraded versions.


 * Seems like a good compromise. The uprated thrust numbers aren't as round anyhow.  Now it's clear that there wasn't any real deep reasoning behind the numbers, they were just ballpark big numbers.  Audin 04:36, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Now just something unrelated but I've updated the pictures in the Saturn V articles. I felt the previous two were not the best quality. I managed to find the exactly the same image as the one in the table but was unable to find the picture of the Apollo 4 launch across the water. So I replaced it with the Skylab launch to show the two stage version of the Saturn V. --enceladus 03:15 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'll admit to being the one who originally cropped and scaled down the nasa image. I felt 10k was about all i wanted to force a modem user to endure.  I did link to the full-scale nasa image on the image page itself, however.  The new image is ~80k, the old one was ~11k. Audin 04:36, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Agreed that where hardware was designed in imperial units, those units should be retained. I tried to do that on the Saturn rocket page. The great thing about the metric system is that zeros can be readily dropped to remove clutter... :) I guess the same thing can be done in imperial by using words. I think that 7.5 million pounds is somehow more meaningful than 7,500,000 pounds. And of course 33.4 MN is a lot tidier than 33,400,000 N (but then, maybe not so meaningful??) --Rlandmann 03:44, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind though that non-American readers WILL be using the Wikipedia (and it is not to be targetted to Americans). I would at the least recommend linking to the definition of pound as a force? -- Pipian


 * I've linked the first instance of Newton and Pound-Force to their respective articles. - enceladus 20:36 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Shrink width of space mission table... I'd like to suggest changing some of the wording on the mission table to make it a bit narrower. Specifically, I would change "Number of Crew Members" to "Crew" and "Number of Orbits" to "Orbits". This results in a table like that at right. A good example is to make the changes to the Apollo-Soyuz table. I think the page renders much nicer with the skinnier table. Audin 23:06, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change experimentally while playing with the layout of Apollo 17. Audin 23:18, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why do we list a Spacecraft Name in the template right after call sign? I haven't seen anyone use it. Should it just be eliminated from the template? Rmhermen 00:12, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * Because the place I see it most used would be STS missions. I mean, theoretically (and I believe this is true), Columbia, Challenger, and so forth would be call signs as well, but it would be more appropriate to put it in under spacecraft name.  In essence, I believe it should be call sign for all non-space shuttle flights, and spacecraft name for Space Shuttle flights (unless there's proof that there are different callsigns for space shuttle flights, in which case you would just use both.  You could always use spacecraft name for those little detailed data pieces (like Soyuz-TM OK #37 or whatever it says on Astronautix) -- Pipian

I did a count of List_of_human_spaceflights_chronologically and found that we have articles for only 80 of 256 missions listed (30%). And some of those don't follow the template yet (Mercury). Just an update. Rmhermen 14:30, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Has a decision been made as to the way that we are dealing with visting crews and permanent crews to space station? Do we deal with them as Salyut 6 EP-1 (First Visting Crew to Salyut 6) or as the Soyuz 27 spacecraft and what happened to that. To me the logical is the former as it ties up lose ends as to what happened to that particular crew.

If we went with the latter we would end up with alot of repeating eg [[Soyuz 26 article would mention that it launched the first permanent crew to Salyut 6 who returned to Earth in Soyuz 27 and that the crew of Soyuz 27 returned to Earth Soyuz 26. It also doesn't make sense as the spacecraft doesn't mean that much. Sometimes a permanent crew could have over three different escape craft docked to the station.

At the moment I've written the Soyuz 27 article from the point of view of making it about the Salyut EP-1 crew (It makes more sense if you read the article). Just my 0.02. What do other think? - enceladus

Navigation bar
It makes no sense to insert a navigation bar for sole missions in a program (e.g. Shenzhou V). The navigation bar is intended to be of some use. --Jiang 04:17, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes it does make sense -every article has it -it is a standard format -something we are striving for to improve consistency and professionalism on Wikipedia. Rmhermen 14:55, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Answered on Talk:Shenzhou 5 that this is a unique situation. We also insert the footer for various world leaders, but it makes absolute sense to leave it out in one-man regimes. Not every situation warrants the inclusion of every element of the template. The template is designed to include information that is found in all articles of the set under the same formatting. When an article lacks this information, it's logical to leave it out. --Jiang 15:07, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Coloration
There has been comparison of project tables at Taxoboxes, and it has been revealed that, horror of horrors, this project uses the exact same color in its table as WikiProject Compounds. I am reasonably certain that the compounds table has been implemented in more articles than this project's table, so I think this project should switch to something not already taken. I'd be willing to do the labor of changing the table where it already exists, if the list above (or another one somewhere else) is complete so I can find them all. Tuf-Kat 02:50, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Tuf-Kat - see the proposal above with the starfield background. I think it fairly rocks.  :) - Hephaestos 05:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's good too. In that case, this is a reminder to change Taxoboxes when the background changes. Tuf-Kat 05:53, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it would rock better if the text wouldn't display in black as well - at least in Mozilla 1.5 it shows just a black bar with a a few white dots. andy 09:05, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Does that change help? (I put in a redundant font tag; it may be that Mozilla isn't recognizing the css that was there.) - Hephaestos 16:59, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, better. I did check the previous version with IE earlier, there it showed of course. I hate these browser incompatibilities. andy 17:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * The list in the middle of the page is not up-to-date. All of the Gemini missions also have the box. I didn't check the Russian ones. Rmhermen 22:25, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * The space shuttle ones have the box too. Rmhermen 18:59, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Commercial and unmanned military use of space
We seem to have fairly good coverage of manned missions and scientific satellites and probes but there is very little and that widely scattered on commercial satellites or spy satellites. Even Timeline of artificial satellites and space probes doesn't include very many and none recent. What we have are stub articles based around satellite. Any good ideas on how to expand it? A separate list of commercial satellites, list of spy satellites? Rmhermen 19:28, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Cosmonauts
As now quite a lot of biographies of cosmonauts are created I uploaded a list of the names in cyrillic spelling, which then can be added to the articles - I already did for those articles I noticed. See User:Ahoerstemeier/Cosmonauts for the list. The names in latin are in the german transcription, but it is not too much different from the english one. andy 21:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, Ive been filling in Space shuttle missions that are blank with templates. See STS-47 for an example. Does this look good for a standard shuttle mission template?Theon 18:08, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Unmanned space missions?
I'm a bit confused whether the scope of WikiProject Space Missions really includes unmanned exploration, and I see User:Sennheiser has created WikiProject Space which includes two "To be created" projects, one for manned and one for unmanned. Is the idea that Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Missions is for Manned space missions only, or will there be a name change or what? I'm actually interested in both, but I can't see the template for manned really fitting well for unmanned. Wikibob 21:19, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the space missions is basically manned space missions. I second the need for a seperate wikiproject to standardize unmanned space missions.  My only disagreement is that term "exploration" he used.  I'd like a more generalized template that can include all unmanned spacecraft, those for scientific purposes and those for exploration. Ryjaz 18:36, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
 * Created new project for this at WikiProject Unmanned Space Missions Ryjaz 04:10, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

Template namespace
For testing the template namespace, I create Template:Infobox Spacemissions on Test-Wikipedia ( http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_3, http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_4 ). Possibly you want to use it. -- User:Docu

Mir missions
We have dates for the various flights to Mir listed in three locations Mir, List of human spaceflights, 1987-1999, and in the individual mission articles like TMA-11. But the dates don't agree with each other. For example, for Soyuz TM-9
 * from Mir: - February 11 - August 9, 1990
 * from the List: February 11, 1990 - July 17, 1990
 * from mission article: February 11 - August 9, 1990

This occurs on several missions. Which dates are correct? Rmhermen 21:17, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Using the succession box template for our own purposes
Over in the biography-oriented Wikiprojects there have been a number of "succession box" templates developed for putting little tables at the bottoms of pages to keep track of who held what titles and offices over time. I'm thinking that we could easily use those templates for space missions, too. For example:

If not this, then we could create our own template based closely on this to maintain a common look-and-feel as well as common coding practice across Wikipedia. (if you're wondering why the "start box" and "end box" templates at the ends, it's to allow multiple succession boxes to be combined. See for example Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston for a huge aggregate of succession boxes, including one in which two titles wind up held by the same successor. Not sure if there'd be anything nearly that complicated in space missions). Bryan 00:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mercury Mission Numbering
Hi,

I think that the numbering of Mercury flights with a single number is problematical.

NASA never numbered the Mercury missions this way. Instead there were separate number sequences based (primarily) on the launch vehicle. So launches involving Mercury spacecraft were numbered as:

BA-n for the Beach Abort Test(s) which didn't really use a launch vehicle per-se but rather just the escape tower rockets. It's unclear whether there was more than one Beach Abort test, one source claims that there were three, but I've only found one mentioned in the official NASA project summary report.

LJ-n for the Little Joe test flights which primarily tested the Mercury escape system. Some of the Little Joe test flights had letters added to the number when a test had to be re-flown after a failure e.g. LJ-1A, LJ-1B

BJ-1 for the single Big Joe flight which was used to test the heat shield. The Big Joe was really an Atlas.

MR-n for the Mercury Redstone flights. In the case of MR-1, which failed in the famous 'pop gun' abort depicted in the movie "The Right Stuff" the reflight was MR-1A.

There was also an MR-BD (for Booster Development) flight which was inserted between MR-2 (which carried Ham) and MR-3 which was the first manned Mercury flight, because the Redstone on the Ham flight overperformed. Since this was a booster test, the payload was a boilerplate capsule, not a production version.

MA-n for the Mercury Atlas flights.

The flight order of these "sub-programs" was interleaved, at least until the manned flights started.

MA-1 (which was overall flight number 8 ignoring the two questionable Beach Abort "flights") actually preceded the first MR flight, which was overall flight no 10. I'll put these overall flight numbers in parentheses below, but keep in mind that NASA never used sequential overall numbers.

MR-1 (10),and 1A(11) were unmanned. MR-2(12) (Ham) was a primate flight. MR-3(18) (Shepard), and MR-4(19) (Grissom) were the two manned Redstone flights.

MA-1(8) ,2(13), 3(16), and 4(20) were unmanned, MA-5(21) (Enos) was a primate flight. MA-6(22) (Glenn), MA-7(23) (Carpenter) MA-8(24) (Schirra), and MA-9(25) (Cooper) were the manned Atlas flights.

I have a mediawiki site which is focused on the Mercury program for modelers. For a full list of Mercury flights see: http://www.denhaven2.homeip.net/wiki/index.php?title=Mercury_Spacecraft_Modeling#Mercury_Flight_Order

--Rick 21:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Space
Is this also a parent project for this one? siafu 22:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, there really isn't a WikiProject Space. It is just a list. Rmhermen 13:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am working on WikiProject Space to be a collection of information on the various space-related WikiProjects and Portals for ease of finding. --Exodio 16:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Italicize spacecraft names
User:Knowledge Seeker has started to italicize all spacecraft names, manned and unmanned. This is in line with major style guides. This will be a large effort if anyone wants to help. If there is no objection I will soon add a line in the project guidelines about this. Rmhermen 23:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, this means every instance of the name needs to be italicized? Rob 03:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 03:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

siafu 14:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Deep Space 1
 * Voyager program
 * Voyager 1
 * Voyager 2


 * Apollo 11
 * Space race
 * Project Apollo
 * Space shuttle Rmhermen 21:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this list! I'll be adding them to our space missions listing in the next few days. Feel free to edit/add things on that list. Thanks, Walkerma 06:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been looking over other articles to find more suggestions, and there are quite a few "decent" articles (e.g., the Venera series, the Sputnik program, Mars Express) that aren't necessarily good or feature quality. They have the most important facts, and not much else (including copyright or POV).  How much do we need for "B-class", really?  If they don't muster, it wouldn't take much work to push them over the edge, but it's just not too clear from the criteria page supplied. siafu 06:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The criteria that we use is available here, but you're more than welcome to adopt your own requirements for articles to fit in those categories. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I finally got around to assessing these for the table, please take a look. You folks are the subject experts, so please edit these if I've got any wrong, or if you find/improve articles. From my perspective I think the Venera, Sputnik and Mars Express need a bit more to make B-Class, though Venera is probably very close. All these seem like important topics that we would want to include in WP1.0, so I hope they can reach A-Class soon! There are three (Apollo 11, Project Apollo and Space Shuttle program) I judged to be A-Class, you might want to consider submitting these as Good Articles nominations. Many thanks, and keep up the good work! Walkerma 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this project active?
I've noticed a lot of the spacecraft that I have worked on are pretty sparse, and I'd like to flesh them out a bit. I was looking for a standard format to follow. Rob 05:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is in a most of the rules are set, most of the heavy lifting done sort of state. So not really inactive. If you are talking about rockets, there is also WikiProject Launch vehicles It may be that spacecraft fall into the cracks between the two projects. Rmhermen 21:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Six articles linked from 2006-07-24 APOD.
Well done. -- Jeandré, 2006-07-24t18:01z

Linkspam
I've just cleaned out a load of linkspam from space-related articles. The major offender was space.gs, who spam us extensively and often, but I also found "sister sites" of theirs (ie, a new domain and same republished dross) - these others were astronautics.org.uk, exploration-space.com, newsweather.co.uk, astronautics.tv, space-nasa.com and astronautics-nasa.com. Lots and lots of spammy goodness.

I've mentioned this here for future reference - please note any other heads you encounter from this particular hydra. Shimgray | talk | 16:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Descendant WikiProject
Shouldn't WikiProject Unmanned Space Missions be a descendant WikiProject? 24.126.199.129 00:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Time format discussion
(Note: I separated out the date discussion because the time issue became more immediately of interest and the date issue is more complex than I originally thought.) In the list on the main page under Structure/Space Missions, there is an item I have questions about: Seems like a good idea for things like launch or landing that have a "local" time. But what about spacewalk times or ISS-Shuttle mating times? What is "local"? Local to the editor? Local to ground control? Local to launch site? I think I favor UTC in those cases. Thoughts? --3Idiot 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Times in the text of a document should be in 12-hour local time (with UTC offset given)"

OK, this has taken on new life with respect to STS-115. It can pretty easily be seen that a typical shuttle mission could reasonably have times cited in EDT (launch facility), CDT (control), PDT (landing facility), and UTC (spacewalks etc). (Throw in the possibility of the mission spanning one of the switches to/from DST and the whole thing gets even more ugly.) Is it the case that only missions that are ongoing or very recent have this problem? As things get further in the past, do exact times matter (in an encyclopedia)? Or could we just drop the time that most events take place and leave (for example) "Following the official completion of the installation of the P3/P4 Truss to the ISS in just under 2 hours, Tanner and Stefanyshyn-Piper began their spacewalk to activate the truss" instead of "Following the official completion of the installation of the P3/P4 Truss to the ISS at 4:06 AM CDT (09:35 UTC) (with installation beginning at 2:48 AM CDT (07:48 UTC)), Tanner and Stefanyshyn-Piper began their spacewalk to activate the truss at 4:17 AM CDT (09:17 UTC)"? I guess that still leaves the problem open for current events and times that really do matter... In the spirit of WP:BOLD, I offer that I think all times should be listed as UTC. (and I reserve the right to change my mind in the face of compelling arguments...) --3Idiot 14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the use of UTC. Maybe a conversion guide can be placed on the talk page of a current shuttle mission so that editors can easily convert, eg. UTC = EDT+4, UTC=EST+5, etc. Atrian 14:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

UTC's probably the best - after all, it does stand for Universal time, and its the time zone used by Wikipedia itself... (On a totally separate note, how do I sign up for this Wikiproject?) Coldstream 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am unaware of that format being followed. I think all the pages use UTC with occasional local time in parentheses. I think that was probably an old instruction that was never adopted. Rmhermen 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the time zone used as the edit timestamps... Coldstream 21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How about: Times in the info box should be in 24-hour UTC. Times in the body of an article should be in 24-hour UTC with ground local time added parenthetically if and only if the ground time of the event has significance. (takeoff, landing, etc) --3Idiot 16:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In light of the discussions here, just below, and over at Talk:STS-115, how about:
 * Times in the info box should be in 24-hour UTC.
 * Times in the Mission Timeline Detailed timeline section should be in 24-hour UTC with 24-hour local time added parenthetically for ground-referenced events (takeoff, landing, etc).
 * Specific times should be used in the body of an article only when notable. When they do appear, specific times in the body of an article should be in 24-hour local time with 24-hour UTC time added parenthetically as indicated by the Manual of Style.

--3Idiot 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better if a single time format was used throughout, so I would suggest using GMT/UTC/UT/Zulu (whatever you want to call it) as the primary format for all instances, with local time in parenthesis, even if they are specific. This will prevent the articles looking scrappy as they alternate between time formats. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this suggestion. As the human space exploration enterprise begins to include more international partners, this will only become more of an issue. The Columbus control center is in Germany, right? So ESA press releases may well use that timezone. JAXA will be in the mix soon too. Either Wikipedia readers are all going to need to learn to convert from multiple timezones, or Wikipedia editors are. I favor putting the burden on editors rather than readers. (sdsds - talk) 19:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Date format discussion
Did I miss this discussion? Or is it open? Can I offer up the ISO8601 "way" of YYYY-MM-DD? (And how does this interact with wikilinks the preferences settings of individual users?) For example, today is 15 September 2006 or September 15, 2006. Both of those display "15 September 2006" to me because of my preference settings. 2006-09-15 works surprisingly well (2006-09-15). But 2006-SEP-15 doesn't (2006-SEP-15). So, I officially support YYYY-MM-DD. Thoughts? --3Idiot 16:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Date format (DMY or MDY) should be discussed on the talk page for now."
 * I don't think there is any reason to change Wikipedia's basic rules on this subject. Use whatever the local use is, use it consistently throughout the article, and link both the month day and the year. Rmhermen 23:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Argh. Of course now that I try to separate date format from time format, I think of a problem... We need to be sure that the date listed actually matches the time listed. For example, a launch from Kennedy Space Center at 20:25 EDT on 12 September would really occur at 00:25 UTC on 13 September. But as for date format, Rmhermen is right. There's already a guideline. After the experiment with formats above, I propose we change the "rule" to: --3Idiot 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Dates in the info box and in the body of the article should be wikilinked as described in the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

The Manual of Style is pretty clear on what time zone to use as well: "When writing a date, first consider where the event happened and use the time zone there. For example, the date of the Attack on Pearl Harbor should be December 7, 1941 (Hawaii time/date). If it is difficult to judge where, consider what is significant. For example, if a vandal based in Japan attacked a Pentagon computer in the United States, use the time zone for the Pentagon, where attack had its effect."

For events on Earth, such as launches, the local date and time should be used. For extraterrestrial events, if the date itself has historical significance or relates to simultaneous events on Earth (such as July 20, 1969) or there is an large body of existing references to a local time zone (such as NASA reporting most events after launch in U. S. Central Time), I'd recommend using the time zone that the reporting agency recorded. I can't think of a cogent argument for recalculating dates and times to UTC. -- Greg 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (This is really time discussion and should be in the section above, but...)
 * Greg, you left off the next line from the Manual of Style: "If you know it, include the UTC date and time of the event in the article, indicating that it's UTC."
 * So, we're encouraged to use UTC in addition to whatever timezone "where the event happened".
 * For the ISS, that seems to be GMT. Since GMT and UTC are mostly used interchangeably by the public and the GMT and UTC times would be the same to within a second in most cases, I'd argue that writing "12:04 GMT (12:04 UTC)" could reasonably be shortend to "12:04 UTC".
 * For the shuttle, "local time" is either Mission Elapsed Time or UTC, but gets reported in press releases (aimed at mostly US news outlets) as Central or Eastern Time (+/- DST).
 * For the Soyuz missions...I have to admit, I don't know and don't want to look it up right now, because...
 * I think what all this leads to is the realization that most specific times probably aren't that "encyclopedic" anyway. I might have opened a pointless can of worms worrying about an article detailing a current event, where times mean more than they will in the long-term.  Really, in a year (or a month even), do we care what minute Tanner and Stefanyshyn-Piper stepped out of the airlock for their first EVA of STS-115?  Or when they came back inside?  Might it better be described instead as a "six hour and twenty-six minute EVA"? Or even a "six and a half hour EVA"?  If we want to record exact timing of every event detail for a mission, maybe a "Mission Timeline" section or subpage is the right place for that?
 * (Yes, times of launch and landing, first human footstep on the surface of Mars, etc are notable. I support recording them in the encyclopedia and using "local" time to do so.  The Manual of Style also then encourages us to have sympathy for those millions of readers not in the same timezone as the event and include UTC.)
 * --3Idiot 14:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, recording UTC in a parenthetical comment is mostly harmless. I went on with another amusing anecdote that I decided to put on my talk page rather than clutter the discussion here with it.  The most important thing is to use the date stamp that a user will find in other references.

ISS peer review
A request has been made for International Space Station to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of the article. // Duccio (write me) 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Units discussion
The decision to only use metric units in the articles has me perplexed. While I understand the desire for uniformity, the entire United States space program was/is designed, executed, and reported using United States customary units. It seems strange to omit these units from the articles when NASA reports them this way, and even the scientists design and program the vehicle using them.

I know that the project desires to use "scientific" units, but I feel it is almost misleading to force the use of only metric in the article, when that misrepresents almost all of the original scientific work that went into the vehicle. For instance, the Apollo System Specification from 1963 says that the CM should have a nominal diameter of 13 feet, not 3.9624 m.

I guess I'm wondering why the mandate is to ONLY use metric, while most if not all other projects I looked at under the WikiProject Transport used the more inclusive two system reporting -- 122 NM (226 km). Please forgive me if consensus has already been reached on this issue. I would appreciate a link to the original discussion of this issue if this is the case. Cjosefy 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears, the only rule using both sets of units violates is "Even though this can be construed as a historical project, it is also very much a scientific project, so please use only metric units in the articles" from this project's page. User:Pipian added those rules on 15 October 2003, during the birth of the project. User:Pipian appears to still be actively contributing to WikiPedia, if not to this project.  It might be worth our effort to try to get some of the project forefathers back involved.  I have some issues with a number of those rules, anyway.
 * I think the first line of this section of the guideline gives room to argue that science projects conducted in imperial units should be recorded in imperial units with metric conversions provided parenthetically.
 * The relevant Manual of Style section seems to indicate that "122 NM (226 km)" is pretty close to "right". I guess "122 nautical miles (226 km)" is a bit more "correct". (And it says "Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.")
 * That said, there probably are a few places where compactness of information outweighs completeness (infoboxes, some tables, ...) and maybe conversions shouldn't appear. For those, I'd prefer to see "source units".
 * --3Idiot 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the very thorough reply. The MOS does say, “For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.”


 * I find it laughable that there are articles on US built space ships that have a list of specifications in metric next to a diagram with specifications in US units.


 * Beyond the argument that these are US ships/missions that should probably be in US units is the argumement of accuracy. For better or for worse, the ships were built to precise specifications outlined in US units.  Stating specifications only in metric (as is done on many pages) leads to less accuracy. Cjosefy 18:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I should have added above that there's still something that makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck about this, though. I know that a lot of the diagrams and blurbs we see come out of NASA use imperial units, but I wonder if that's not already translated from SI because they know the audience is mostly the mainstream US press.  I believe that when Apollo was designed, NASA measured in feet and inches.  But I wonder if they don't use SI internally now.  (I have no references either way, that's why it makes me uneasy.)
 * It would make sense that NASA would use SI these days, especially when developing things in conjunction with ESA and the Russians. It would also make sense that the PR department knows the American public feels more comfortable hearing about how many feet long the shuttle is and how many miles high it orbits, even if that means they have to do a little translating before printing a press release.
 * If that's the case, then WikiPedists shouldn't feel compelled to susbscribe to the same policy. However, since most of the sources we can cite for space mission information are press releases and not actual NASA-internal sources, I don't know that we have a choice.  Now would be a good time for a real rocket scientist to weigh in *grin*.
 * --3Idiot 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Shuttle internal technical documents are in US standard units. In fact, some documents note that most international partners have switched to SI, so the document provides a conversion table.  However, you'll probably see a shift to at least some SI with CEV. Cjosefy 22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The hair's back down against my neck for now.  --3Idiot 17:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd say that we should feel compelled to subscribe to a very similar policy. Whatever units NASA may have used internally may influence which set of units is presented first, but the other should be offered parenthetically after regardless. siafu 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This may indeed be a scientific project, but it exists in the larger context of wikipedia. The MoS is designed to create standardization, but also to allow the subject matter to be comprehensible to anyone speaking the language in which the wikipedia is written.  That is, I'm of the opinion that we should absolutely include both units in every article, as these two sets of units are the principle (only?) ones in use in the English-speaking world. siafu 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose your point of view. The english wikipedia has (and is supposed to have) a wide, worldwide spread body of users - anyone who reads english, including non-native english speakers. I, for instance, come from a SI country, Italy. // Duccio 15:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You say that you oppose my POV, but you don't say anything in opposition to it. I'm suggesting using both sets of units.  Where is the disagreement? siafu 23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I support the idea of using both SI and UScu in space projects where the internal documentation uses UScu (most NASA projects with few exceptions), but I oppose your idea of absolutely including both units in every article and strongly oppose the idea of making the english wikipedia fit the needs of what you call the English-speaking world. // Duccio 15:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So you want a English Wikipedia which only SI-using English-speaking people can understand! I think you will find yourself fighting a losing battle trying to get that. Rmhermen 15:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the English-speaking wikipedia does serve the needs of the English-speaking world. That's why it's in English. I'm really not sure what the alternative would be, exactly. siafu 18:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it is not a question of "understanding": just like I can understand what a pound is by reading once the appropriate article, I guess the average american has enough IQ to understand what a kilogram is, that's not a hard concept. The question is using an international standard or a national standard in an international project, like wikipedia, considered that using the "double units" like 1 m (3 ft) affects readability, in my opinion. Still I think that space projects where the internal documentation uses UScu are a perfect exception to this rule, because having imperial units too makes checking sources easyer. // Duccio 22:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you should have no complaints with everything only in American units because having read once pounds, you should be freely and easily converting it in your head to kilograms. For the rest of the world, double units are indicated. Anyway this has been extensively debated at the appropriate place: Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 Rmhermen 01:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we at least try to get a consensus here on the Space Shuttle? I propose that for all Space Shuttle articles (hardware, missions, etc.) we use the source units first (UScu) followed by the SI conversions in parenthesis. This would seem to mesh well with the WP:MOS as well as stay true to the original units in which the hardware and missions were designed.

Some Space Shuttle mission articles are starting to become either SI first or SI only articles. I'd like us to reach an agreement on this issue so we can finally standardize. Cjosefy 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that:
 * 1) We've discussed that the applicable internal documents and press releases are in UScu, and
 * 2) The MoS says use source units first with conversions in parens to follow, and
 * 3) A lot of the recent "switch to SI" edits don't follow some of the other suggestions here,
 * I support your proposal. (And It all boils down to references, in a way...  If we are diligent about citing sources for the numbers we throw around, it'll be easier to check "source units" and thereby fend off those who would change everything to SI "just because".)
 * --3Idiot 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

templates category
I've started a Category:WikiProject Space missions templates, and Template:Space mission, but haven't tagged many articles. Mlm42 08:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

STS missions updating
I feel uneasy when i read many of the Space Shuttle mission pages.. most of them, the main body of text is copied directly from a NASA webpage. i don't have a problem with that, except sometimes, (STS-91, STS-92, and many more) the text copied was written before the mission, so is in the future tense.. that's not so bad, because you know what you're reading was the plan, and not neccessarily what happened.. the problem is that some editors will change all the future tense to past tense (e.g. STS-93) - thus apparently fixing the problem! this worries me.. any thoughts? Mlm42 09:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject
I have two questions.. firstly, on the project page, does anyone else get the [edit] link at the side of each section? because they aren't showing up for me.. and i'd like them to.. secondly, shouldn't we change the name of the project to WikiProject Manned Space Missions, or even WikiProject Human Spaceflights? Mlm42 10:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that they disappeared a few months ago. I have no idea why though? Maybe ask at the Help Desk. Rmhermen 15:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories
I think the categories of these missions need some cleaning up.. for example, pretty much everything is in Category:Human spaceflights.. but really, that should be mostly empty with some big subcategories, like Category:Space Shuttle missions, Category:Apollo missions, Category:Soyuz missions, etc. how does that sound? Mlm42 10:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems useful. Any category with over 200 entries is overpopulated in my opinion. (requiring paging through the category list which may not alphabetize correctly) Rmhermen 15:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Review request.
I've just finished rewriting pages Soyuz TMA-9 and Expedition 14 - i'd appreciate it if people had a quick look and check I haven't missed anything out, and check for errors. Thanks - Colds7ream 17:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The table on Expedition 14 has several parameters which need to be filled in with "In orbit" or "Still in orbit". Rmhermen 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Astronaut/Cosmonaut
See discussion at Template talk:Infobox Astronaut regarding the infobox fields and the designation of space tourists, as well as guests on another nation's vehicle. --Dhartung | Talk 06:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Solid Rocket Boosters
It's occurred to me that there's an extrenmely major fault with the Space Shuttle SRB page - the entire article is written as if the SRBs carry the Orbiter, when in fact the Orbiter is capable of lifting itself off the ground - the SRBs are only there to heft the fuel tank off the launchpad. Oops! Colds7ream 17:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It says "The Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) is the rocket that provides 83% of liftoff thrust for the Space Shuttle." This statement is correct.  While the SSMEs are powerful enough to lift the orbiter off the ground in theory, the vehicle is going to space.  The article very acurately states that the SRBs get the vehicle into a position such that the SSMEs can take it the rest of the way into space.  I guess I don't see a "major fault" in the article.  It describes exactly what the SRBs do. Cjosefy 22:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Space exploration
I've started the Space exploration WikiProject, but there's nothing there right now. My hope is that we will be able impliment the article assessment that's going on at the 1.0 editoral team, as they are trying to Work via Wikiprojects. Over 100 other wikiprojects are already following suit; the articles within the scope of this project could greatly benefit from being apart of this.. thoughts? (discuss here) Mlm42 17:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Numer of spaceflight indicators on mission pages?
After some confusion on Soyuz TMA-9, I think I have figured out (from STS-116) that the numbers in parentheses after crewmembers' names on some space mission pages is supposed to represent number of spaceflights by the individual. But is this a number we intend to update each time the individual revisits space? If so, this seems like the beginning of a maintenance nightmare. If not, then I think it would be better to clearly indicate that the number indicates number of spaceflights up to (and including?) the mission in question. Either way, most mission articles presently don't explain the numbers, making them confusing. I think this information is already better presented on each individual's article and should be removed from the mission pages. If the individual's flight is notable for some reason, it could be spelled out in the article itself. ("This mission was John Doe's twentieth trip into space, surpassing the record previously held by Jane Doe" or "This mission was the first mission since xxx with an entire crew of first-time astronauts".) --3Idiot 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely think that we should keep the numbers, since they are mildly interesting, and already there; perhaps so consistancy would be nice.. i'm pretty sure the numbers on the STS missions is that number of spaceflights they've had up to and including the mission in the article is about. For the Gemini and Apollo missions they seem to list all flights during their career (some of which may need to be updated, therefore).


 * So, I suggest we go with the number format (i.e. STS-115), with the number meaning "number of space flights up to and including this mission", because it gives an idea of crew experience, which i believe was the purpose. Mlm42 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They originally just listed the number; I started rolling out "all flights during career" to make it more comprehensible, as a result of cleaning up Apollo 8 during FAC, but stalled halfway through STS-xx. I think it's been removed everywhere but the early missions now, though. Shimgray | talk | 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I recently removed it from the earlier STS mission to make them consistent. I didn't realize it was used elsewhere. I think the numbers are more useful as it relates to the mission itself. (shows who is a rookie). All career flights should be listed already in each astronaut's personal article. Rmhermen 20:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * hmm.. i see. it's hard to get a good idea of what's on all of the STS pages - there are too many! regardless, i agree with Rmhermen; in fact even for the Apollo missions (including the featured Apollo 8), i think we should only include the number of flights up to and including that mission. Mlm42 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I like the idea of indicating "crew experience" for each particular mission. I wonder if it might be better in sentence form: "The crew of STS-xxx had a combined total of 10 previous spaceflights; 3 for John Doe, 4 for Jane Doe, and 3 for Little Billy Doe"?
 * If we stick with the parentheses format, we need to explicitly state on each article what the numbers represent: "Numbers in parentheses indicate crew member's total spaceflights up to and including this one" or similar.
 * Either way, I think we should revisit Gemini/Apollo/etc and clean up those.
 * --3Idiot 15:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * i think explicitly stating what the numbers mean is the way forward, rather than sentence form.. the crew names are going to be in a list anyway. Mlm42 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See how STS-1 explains it. I think that is used on most of the STS missions. Rmhermen 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

How do we want to treat backup crew? --3Idiot 14:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They are listed when known. Look at the Apollo missions which I think all list backup crews. Rmhermen 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but does the "current mission" count in their total? If so, it seems a little misleading.  If not, then the "up to and including this one" text (or similar) is not quite accurate maybe?
 * --3Idiot 12:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ...or Apollo 1?
 * --3Idiot

article assessments
as some of you will have noticed, i've been tagging many article, under the broad topic of Space exploration, with the tag WP Space exploration. this banner has a built in assessment feature.. you can rate the articles quality (out of Stub/Start/B/GA/A/FA), and the importance (Low/Mid/High/Top). The quality has a pretty clear grading scheme, but the importance is much more subjective.

anyway, to do this, for example, add to the Talk page. the banner also has a link to a pretty bot generated list (update once a day, around 10am UTC) of all articles with the Space exploration tag. so feel free to help out, and tag and assess some articles. :) also, when rating an article, you may feel a desire to justify your rating; if so, a comment on the Talk page with the heading "Assessment" seems appropriate. Mlm42 09:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

space exploration and spaceflight
Please comment on the merge proposal. Rmhermen 01:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Crew of Soyuz
I know that makes repeats, but I think that the "trick" used to avoid to repeat names makes the lists difficult to read and understand. I am for clarity even if it means repeating names.Hektor 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer the old system of describing the Soyuz crew:
 * Crew up (the two or three guys)
 * Crew down (the two of three guys)

For those joining us late...take a look at this change. I agree with Hektor. The newer presentation: But, there has been no recorded discussion/consensus that I can find on presentation of the crew section of mission articles. So, we decided to bring the discussion here to get a wider audience, to get some consistency across space mission articles, and because WP:Space missions has discussed related things recently.. I propose something like this (fake data for example purposes only):
 * 1) is more cluttered, and
 * 2) makes more sections in the Table of Contents (ToC) that don't need to be there, and
 * 3) takes up more screen space.

Crew
Mission XXX was a transport mission for the International Space Station (ISS) Expedition NNN crew. The flight delivered ISS Commander Pavel Vinogradov and ISS Flight Engineer Jeffrey Williams to the station to replace the Expedition MMM crew members. Flight Engineer Marcos Pontes joined the XXX crew for the ascent and docking with ISS, spent approximately eight days aboard the ISS conducting experiments, then returned to Earth with the outgoing members of Expedition MMM aboard Mission ZZZ. Vinogradov and Williams were joined on their return trip to Earth by Spaceflight Participant Anousheh Ansari who launched aboard Mission VVV and spent approximately seven days aboard ISS conducting experiments for the Fake Space Agency.

Primary Crew
 * Pavel Vinogradov (2), Commander - 🇷🇺
 * Jeffrey Williams (2), Flight Engineer - 🇺🇸
 * Marcos Pontes (1) [ascent only], Flight Engineer - 🇧🇷
 * Anousheh Ansari (1) [descent only], Spaceflight Participant - / 🇺🇸

Launched *Pavel Vinogradov (2), Commander - 🇷🇺 *Jeffrey Williams (2), Flight Engineer - 🇺🇸 *Marcos Pontes (1), Flight Engineer - 🇧🇷

Landed *Pavel Vinogradov (2), Commander - 🇷🇺 *Jeffrey Williams (2), Flight Engineer - 🇺🇸 *Anousheh Ansari (1), Spaceflight Participant - / 🇺🇸

*Number in parentheses indicates number of spaceflights by each individual prior to and including this mission.

Note: Marcos Pontes returned to Earth aboard Soyuz TMA-7. Anousheh Ansari launched aboard Soyuz TMA-9.

Back-up crew
 * Fyodor Yurchikhin Commander - 🇷🇺
 * Michael Fincke Flight Engineer - 🇺🇸
 * Sergei Volkov Flight Engineer - 🇷🇺

Support crew Some things I think we need to decide up front: --3Idiot 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Vance Brand, Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM)
 * Jack Lousma, CAPCOM
 * Bill Pogue, Assembly and Checkout Officer
 * Joe Kerwin, Flight_Surgeon
 * Milton Windler, Maroon team Flight Director
 * Gerald Griffin, Gold team Flight Director
 * Gene Kranz, White team (Lead) Flight Director
 * Glynn Lunney, Black team Flight Director
 * Where do citations go? I think a cite for the whole section could be sufficient, but putting it on the "Crew" label makes it appear in the ToC, which is ugly.  Putting the cite on either the first or last group doesn't make it clear that the cite is for the entire section. Putting a cite on each group could work, even if they all point to the same source.
 * I don't think each group needs to be a subsection in the ToC. These are mostly going to all fit on one screen, so being able to navigate to "Crew" is probably sufficient.
 * We've already discussed the (#) notation for crew experience. But we left unsettled the application of the notation to backup crew.  I propose it not be applied to anyone who doesn't actually enter space as a result of the mission in question.
 * Country designators? Flags or text only?  Who gets them?  Right now, I'm indifferent to the flags, and propose that country designators only be applied to flight crew and backup flight crew.


 * 1) Generally these facts should be readily available in the references of the article anyway, but if one really desires inline citations, then next to Launched, etc, seems appropriate.


 * 2) I agree that each group doesn't need a separate subsection, especially if there isn't very much text there to support the list. Speaking of which, it seems desirable to have a sentence or two about the crew under ==Crew==, before launching into the list.


 * 3) The (#) notation doesn't seem as appropriate for a backup crew, since it would mean "The number of spaceflights they would have had at the time of launch".. while somewhat relavant (i.e. "backup crew experience"), it looks nicer with numbers only next to people who actually went on the spaceflight - which is a distinction that should be emphasised.


 * 4) Country designators for the support crew somehow doesn't seem appropriate.. i can't pin-point why, though. i suppose, by analogy, astronauts are like olympians - but it's the nationality of the athlete, not the coach, that counts. and flags looks pretty, but i don't know how one could standardize, since we would want to include the space agency - for example the ESA, then what would the flag be? Mlm42 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there are policy as to what support crew should be included? I have been adding flight directors to the lists for the Apollo missions, because I believe that their contribution is notable and because it is something that people are likely to look up. But where is the line drawn? If we are to list flight surgeons, then what about other flight controllers? (Note that I'm not against the idea, just raising it as a possibility.) MLilburne 10:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I had a related thought yesterday when I realized that a lot of the Soyuz TMA-# articles are really just crew lists and a few factoids. For missions that are more than just crew transports, maybe we should move and/or break up the crew listing.  Is the crew really so importatnt as to be the first section of the article?  Does the answer change depending on what extent of "crew" we include?  Subpage?
 * I don't have any answers to these questions yet...just recording the questions and fishing for your thoughts.
 * --3Idiot 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A subpage or a different position might well be necessary if a larger definition of crew is used. I realised how long the list could get when thinking about the later Apollo missions, where you might have six or seven Capcoms plus six or seven flight directors. However, I can't yet think of a logical place where the list would belong. I'm still thinking. MLilburne 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On the larger question... I am new to the Soyuz crew issue, so perhaps my comments will be useful. Never having seen the Soyuz crew lists, I found the newer presentation almost impossible to figure out. The proposed version above is much clearer and more logical. MLilburne 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To Mlm42's point #2 above, I have edited Soyuz TMA-7 and Soyuz TMA-8 according to the proposed crew listing format above and added some text to the section. It was writing this text that made me notice that the Soyuz ISS crew transport missions really don't have much to say about them other than they took a few people to ISS and they brought (mostly) the same people back to Earth several months later.
 * Take a look at those and speak up with thoughts.
 * --3Idiot 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To Mlm42's point #4, ESA has a flag, if that helps. (But it doesn't...now we're mixing nationality with "employer" or "affiliated agency"...).
 * --3Idiot 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Some more work on the matter has led me to believe that this can be cleaned up even more. With good introductory text, the "Launched" and "Landed" breakouts can be eliminated and just list the crew in the list and explain if there is a crew change mid-mission in the text.

I've made such a change to the proposal above. Thoughts? --3Idiot 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User Box
Hey, I am really into space, and think this project is cool. I was just wondering if there were userboxes for user pages? Thanks. Jmclark911 15:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is now! Don't know how long it'll last, but i've put together a userbox for the project like this:

It's at Template:User WikiProject Space Missions. Hope everyone likes it! Colds7ream

Update: Following the unexpected deletion of the Vostok 1 launch image, I've replaced the image with that of the Atlantis-Mir combined spacecraft. Hope the new arrangement is acceptable to everyone. Colds7ream 12:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

Location of the Crew section

 * I think that human spaceflight is fundamentally about launching a crew. Therefore I don't want to have to scroll down halfway through the article to find out who the crew was. Therefore, I wanted to express here my preference for the "traditional" organization of the articles where the crew is the first or one of the first sections. Hektor 22:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think human spaceflight is about accomplishing things that can't be done without human minds/hands/etc. But the _mission_ is the key.  And I think often the description of the mission coming before the listing of the crew can help explain peculiarities in the crew listing, like crew members that go up, but don't come down with the mission.
 * I agree that space tourism is about launching someone into space for the sake of launching someone into space, and would agree that mention of such should be in the mission description near the top of the article.
 * And (for STS and Apollo missions, we need to fix Soyuz, Salyut,...) the crew is listed in the info box near the top if you just want to see a list near the top.
 * --3Idiot 02:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Olympus Mons
Hello, I just nominated the Olympus Mons article for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive because I think that that article deserves to be class A. I thought this nomination might be of some interest to you all. Thanks! S.dedalus 06:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Missions with crews
The 'WikiProject Space missions' page says, Please be aware that the preferred terminology is "manned" and "unmanned". Please be aware that neither NASA nor ESA prefers this terminology. NASA uses "crewed" to refer to current and planned missions, and "human spaceflight" more generally. There's a reason why the older terminology has become antiquated, and wikipedia should follow the lead of these government space organizations. Sdsds 03:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

New article
Would members of this project take a look at Independent evidence for human Moon landings? Bubba73 (talk), 22:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't we just merge this into Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. That article is in awful shape and really isn't needed except in respect to the accusations. Rmhermen 23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, one of the pro-hoax editors started the article. Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations already has a "too long" tag on it.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to me to be a deeply, deeply problematic article, in that the whole premise (that is, evidence of moon landings provided by NASA or its subonctractors is untrustworthy) is flawed. If it doesn't improve very soon, I would support deletion. There are other good ways to create subarticles of the main article, and this isn't one of them. MLilburne 23:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Along those lines, one of the editors accused the person who started the article of violating WP:POINT, using WP to make or argue a point. Bubba73 (talk), 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple of other articles along those lines:


 * Apollo program missing tapes
 * Examination of Apollo moon photos Bubba73 (talk), 05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

total meltdown?
At Talk:STS-117, Colds7ream wrote: I would like, please, to gauge everyone's thoughts regarding the Wikiproject that is supposed to be governing pages such as this, Wikiproject: Space Missions. As far as I can see, the project seems to be in total meltdown, with no real updates to the project page since August 2006, inactivity with the project's assessing of pages, and a general complete lack of input from the project. To be honest, I don't think its serving the space shuttle mission community as well as it could, and as such i'd like to propose one of two things happen:

1. The project has a total overhaul with wikipedians who are actually going to keep the project running properly restarting it and operating it as it should be. 2. Forking a daughter project dedicated to Space Shuttle Missions (goodness knows we have enough pages to keep up-to-date) off the project with those contributors who are active in Shuttle pages setting up and running the project properly, enabling pages such as this to have an active wikiproject supporting them.

Just my twopenneth - personally, i'd prefer the fork option, but I'd appreciate other people's views. Colds7ream 18:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the observation: Wikiproject: Space Missions doesn't seem to have been particularly active. Perhaps the first step would be to begin some discussion here, on the project discussion page, about the proper course to take to correct this deficiency. One approach would be to create another sub-project as outlined above, hoping this will generate more activity. Another would be to elminiate this sub-project, and conduct all its (minimal) activity in Wikiproject: Space Exploration. I'm not sure which approach would be more likely to have success. Sdsds 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

updated space shuttle mission templates.
I converted the Space Shuttle Columbia template to use navbox generic. If people like it, i'll do the same for the other "Mission" templates. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

STS-115
To standardize shuttle missions, see STS-116, STS-117, STS-118) I have merged Timeline of STS-115 into STS-115, and the Timeline page should be deleted. I'll tag it and it can be discussed, but it has been orphaned since March 2007, and as we're trying to standardize all the mission articles into the same format, it seemed odd for this page to have a separate timeline page hanging out there. I've also updated the project page to reflect past flights, and future, as it seems to have not been updated for almost a year (It lists STS-115 as a future flight). I don't see much discussion here, so I'm hoping someone sees this :) Ariel ♥ Gold 00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Timeline of STS-115 redirected to STS-115. Ariel ♥ Gold 02:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

allowing unconverted metrics in scientific articles
I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already left we opinions. They are very few scientific contexts where it is appropriate. None I can think of which involve space missions. Rmhermen 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Stanley Dunin
An article is up for deletion where a key claim for notability is that this person might have been the first to "successfully calculate the way to inject a satellite into a geosynchronous orbit" Some expert opinions and reliable sources on the validity of this claim would be appreciated. Tim Vickers 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag icon use
Per the manual of style on flag icon use, flags should be used sparingly, and not used in the article prose. Flags should also not emphasize nationality without a good reason, "Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." NASA represents the US, and it is a given that NASA astronauts represent America. However, when the astronauts on missions are representing countries other than NASA, it is appropriate to specify this, although the MOS would still discourage the use of the flag icon. The icons are quite distracting when 6/8 people listed on a mission article have US flags next to them. Note that this has nothing to do with national pride, or with national identity, but simply used sparingly to help a reader, and not to decorate. To this end, USA astronauts need not have the flag icon next to them, as it is obvious they represent America by being with NASA. This is a relatively new guideline, so many people may not be familiar with it, so this is why I'm bringing the issue here for discussion. I've also placed this discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Spaceflight, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space exploration, since none of these project talk pages are particularly active. I appreciate anyone's imput or ideas, but I've removed the flag icons from the most recent missions, to conform with the Manual of Style, and the articles are much less distracting without them. Ariel ♥ Gold 13:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger
I have proposed that to reduce overlap and inactivity, this project and WikiProject Space travellers are merged into WikiProject Human Spaceflight. Please see the Human Spaceflight WikiProject's talk page for more details and discussion. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 23:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I can support this. I have a suggestion though: I think we should organize it somewhat like WP:Television. Lets have "guides" for the different type of contents the project covers. That makes sure that every different type of content is still properly addressed within the project, while also allowing the communication to be centralized, and hopefully more active. The differences in type of the content are often what lead to the splitting of projects. It is understandable, but in the process a lot of the communication is often also lost. If people really want to keep separate "groups" of editors as well, than Taksforces can be considered, but personally, I would prefer a bigger Project. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)