Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 1

Assessment
so, as per Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot, i've set up Category:Space exploration articles by quality and Category:Space exploration articles by importance. Template still to come.. Mlm42 16:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC) now there is a banner at. Mlm42 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Spacecraft propulsion listed for FAR
Hi, I'm not entirely sure this is the place to post this, but this message is to inform any and all interested parties that Spacecraft propulsion has been listed for Featured article review. Please feel free to either improve the article directly (the reason for review is the complete absence of references) or comment on the review itself. Thanks! -Fsotrain09 03:34, 3 October 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)

Glynn Lunney FAC
Just a note to say that I have nominated the article on Glynn Lunney as a featured article candidate. I would welcome comments and suggestions from anyone associated with this project, or anyone who has an interest in articles on space history. MLilburne 11:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

STS-51-L
I'd like to propose the addition of the STS-51-L article to the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. It's a fairly new article that could do with a lot of expansion, particularly in the areas of the background and lead-up to the accident, the mission objectives, along with various aspects of the mission's objectives & crew that don't fit into the disaster page. What do we think? Colds7ream 22:23, 28 December 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 16:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Project Constellation
Hello all, I just added myself to the member list of this project and wanted to say hello. I've been working on the Ares I article and plan to go through and work on a number of the other Project Constellation related articles. Since these are all related to space exploration, they need to be better integrated into the space exploration wikiproject page. I've also noticed that there are a lot of space exploration related articles that don't say they are a part of this wikiproject, so when I find them I'll tag them as part of this project. Grant 18:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of flights
I have a major issue with the edits of User:Jamesbondfan, and I would like to check about it. He/she seems to consider that when an astronaut launches on one Shuttle, is in an ISS expedition and lands on another Shuttle flight it counts for three flights in the digit between brackets on the crew tables in the mission page. We have therefore had conflicting edits on Expedition 14. What do you think. Hektor 09:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've always thought of that as only one flight, and I believe that's the commonly accepted definition. MLilburne 11:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

MSC
Hello. Just in case I goofed thought I should say here that I rated Jeannette Piccard, a spokesperson for MSC during Project Apollo, and gave it Low importance. Also uploaded a photo for Robert R. Gilruth because someone had rated that article High importance. Hope this helps. Best wishes for your project. -Susanlesch 14:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Space Launches by Month/Year
Tdrss (talk • contribs) has made this category with articles in it but I don't think there'd be many space launches in any one month for there to be a point in having seperate articles. Can someone handle this? Thanks! --WikiSlasher 02:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is already being attempted in Timeline of spaceflight 131.111.8.103 09:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just sent it to CFD. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

new article
Would members of this project take a look at Independent evidence for human Moon landings? Bubba73 (talk), 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ATS
I have started an article on the Applications Technology Satellites. Please help in expanding the article. Regards, Aksi_great (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Conversion templates
Hello! This is to announce that several templates for automatic convertion between metric and imperial units and for displaying consistently formatted output have been created: km to mi, mi to km, m to ft, ft to m, km2 to mi2, mi2 to km2, m2 to ft2, and ft2 to m2. Hopefully, they will be useful to the participants of this WikiProject. The templates are all documented, provide parameters to fine-tune the output, and can be substituted if necessary. Any suggestions, requests for improvement/features, or bug reports are welcome.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a bit of testing here and as you can see sometimes new lines are started when they shouldn't. --WikiSlasher 07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because and tags must immediately follow one another. When you "noincluded" the see also section added by another user, you inserted a line break, which shows when the template is trancluded.  I'll have that fixed.  Thanks.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

launch window
I added Launch window as an article within the scope of this project. It's currently mostly a stub. Any suggestions on where to find good references to expand this topic? Sdsds 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WP Space exploration banner
It has been suggested here that the banner WPAstronomy be merged with WPSS and WP Space exploration into a hypothetical WPSpace banner. This would take a good amount of work, that i'm willing to take on (with help, hopefully!). Comments welcome here. Mlm42 09:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, so hopefully i didn't just break everything, but i believe i've replaced the WP Space exploration banner with WPSpace.. if there are any requests about how the banner should look, let me know.. i just threw this one together. Mlm42 01:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

scope of project
Can we put together a better paragraph for the "scope" section of WikiProject Space exploration? I propose:
 * The scope of this project includes articles on the history of space exploration, the science and technology used for space exploration, and to a lesser extent the motivations for and politics of space exploration programs. However, not all spaceflight is exploration per se. For example, modern telecommunications satellites are outside the scope of this project. The project does however follow the example of NASA and include all human spaceflight as exploration, even commercial space tourism.

Comments? Improvements? Alternatives? Sdsds 23:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review of Shuttle-Mir Program
Hi there everyone - just to let you know that i've put the Shuttle-Mir Program up for peer review, and would very much appreciate any comments anyone would like to make. Colds7ream 16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings → Apollo missions tracked by independent parties
Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings → Apollo missions tracked by independent parties- proposed by user:ScienceApologist. 132.205.44.134 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pluto spacecraft, Template:Neptune spacecraft, Template:Uranus spacecraft
Template:Pluto spacecraft has been proposed for deletion at WP:TFD by user:Cop 633. 132.205.44.134 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Mercury Program
Template:Mercury Program is up for deletion at WP:TFD, because it overlaps with Template:Project Mercury. 132.205.44.134 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

a bunch of things were prodded because of transwiki to wiktionary on June 3rd
Chasma, Dorsum, Flexus, Flumen, Fluctus, Linea, Macula (planetary geology), Mensa (geology), Rupes, Tholus. Personally, I feel they should be redirected somewhere... 132.205.44.134 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Does scope include astronauts
Does the scope of WikiProject Space exploration include astronauts? I ask because of the three I checked, the Neil Armstrong discussion page indicated he is within scope, but Sunita Williams and Clayton Anderson didn't. Is there value to being consistent? Is there value to picking and choosing? (sdsds - talk) 04:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is definitely value to being consistent. I think there are just a lot of astronauts that no one has gotten around to tagging yet. MLilburne 07:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed at Talk:Lee Archambault that template:WPBiography banner has options (e.g. military-work-group=yes) allowing working groups for other professions to state the person is in their scope. Following this approach would take less space on the page than a seperate template:WPSpace banner. Maybe WPBiography|space-work-group=yes could be set up for astronauts, flight controllers, etc.? (sdsds - talk) 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an interesting idea. MLilburne 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI I attempted to start a dialog on this at Template talk:WPBiography. (sdsds - talk) 19:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Article need attention
The article Reports of Streptococcus mitis on the moon needs attention. It is about the reports of bacteria being brought back in the Surveyor 3 camera. It has a notice that it may be a hoax article. I don't know one way or the other, so someone in the know should take a look at it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My feeling from a quick look at the article and the links is that it's not a hoax, just very POV. I don't have the time to work on it, but I don't think it needs an expert, just a little thought and attention. MLilburne 11:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is fine now. Nick mallory 23:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I agree that it's not a hoax, but I think the article still needs some work on encyclopedic tone. I may tag it as such. MLilburne 09:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Operation Moonwatch
Operation Moonwatch is up for deletion here. It was a worldwide project of amateur astronomers and observatories improvised to track early satellite launches in 1957 and was the first to track Sputnik but somebody thinks it might be a hoax.... Nick mallory 23:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopper (spacecraft)
I have proposed a merger of Hopper (spacecraft) and EADS Phoenix; discuss at Talk:Hopper (spacecraft). If anyone has the time, any and all thoughts and opinions would be appreciated. Thanks, Vsst 04:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Space elevator FAR nomination
Space elevator has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Qblik talk 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Added userbox and category for WikiProject Human Spaceflight
I've created a userbox for HSF:

I have also created the appropriate category for the project. Since the proposal would not affect either the HSF project, nor its parent project, this should have no issues should the proposal go through. Input is appreciated! Ariel ♥ Gold 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC) How do I join this wiki project, I am very interested to contribute. --Mic of orion 01:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be a member to contribute, but please feel free to add your name to the list here. (sdsds - talk) 09:28, 27 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 01:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Challenger redirect?
Shoudln't Challenger redirect to Space Shuttle Challenger? That's got to be the most searched for use of the word. It's wrong that Space Shuttle Challenger is listed lower than articles like Challenger Elementary on the disambiguation. Basil Richards 18:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag 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. Thoughts? Ariel ♥  Gold  13:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientific peer review
This Scientific Peer Review project can hardly be called successful. While there have been a steady but small flow of articles submitted for review, the actual reviews have been either non-existent or in no real way different from those done through the standard Peer review process. Some editors will recall that the project was started with an enthusiastic discussion about identifying expert reviewers through an elected board. Unfortunately as time went by, it became clear there was no consensus on whether we had a board, or on how it was to be set up or on what it was supposed to do. There was also a lack of consensus on what "sciences" we were covering, and on many other aspects. In the end we sort of lapsed into a minimal review process which has staggered on for about 18 months. I think it is time we decided what to do about the project. Unless people can come up with a new way forward and enthusiastically implement it, I think we have to declare that this project be no longer active in any sense and that editors should ask for review at WP:PR. I am posting this on the talk pages of the major Science WikiProjects. Please feel free to publicize it elsewhere. Please add you comments at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

MESUR
MESUR (Mars Environmental Survey) program seems to be missing. 132.205.99.122 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delta-v (physics) for deletion
Delta-v (physics) has been nominated for deletion, see Articles for deletion/Delta-v (physics). A suggestion has been made to perhaps merge with Delta-v, the orbital dynamics article. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Surface features of celestial bodies
categories of Surface features of celestial bodies has been nominated to rename from cat:X on Y to cat:X of Y. See Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 9 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Renaming to WikiProject Spaceflight
I wonder if it would make sense to rename this wikiproject to WikiProject Spaceflight and expand its scope to explicitly include commercial and military space missions. The obvious alternative, creating a new wikiproject, would not work as well within the overall scope of Space-related wikiprojects. (See organizational template subst-ed at right.) Comments? (sdsds - talk) 06:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly support per nom. Very good idea, it is illogical for things such as the "timeline of spaceflight" to fall under space exploration. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 19:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been proposed for a while now. There have been no objections, so I'm going to move it. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 10:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Portal:Space exploration into Portal:Spaceflight
Hi, I have proposed that these two portals are merged, as there is too much overlap between them, and Space Exploration is being too general in its content. Please could you look at, and comment on the proposal, which is located here. I am posting this on the talk pages of all interested WikiProjects. All feedback is greatly appreciated. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 19:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge three child WikiProjects

 * Discussion is located on the Human Spaceflight project's talk page

I'm just notifying a couple of the parent projects of a proposal to merge WikiProject Space missions and WikiProject Space travellers into WikiProject Human Spaceflight. Please leave comments and questions on the Human spaceflight project's talk page. Thanks -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 23:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review notification: Saturn V
Saturn V has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Roketry project
Is WikiProject Rocketry still an inactive project? I'm wondering if there is enough interest to have that project re-done as a shared aviation/military history/spaceflight project task force. To take a sampling of articles that link to Infobox Missile, V-2 rocket and AGM-65 Maverick are currently tagged under the Military history project (just like (B-17 Flying Fortress). Perhaps is should be a shared task force, just like the Military aviation task force. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging Mariner 1 and 2 article
Over the past week I've been steadily improving the Mariner 2 article. I noticed there is a large overlap in information between the Mariner 1 and Mariner 2 article, specifically because they were essentially the same, and as Mariner 1 failed it returned no significant data. I suggested merging the articles, but got no response so far, so I hope you can give an opinion on the matter. Also, Mariner 6 and 7 are currently one article, so overall it shouldn't be a problem. Please discuss here. Thanks! Van der Hoorn (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project
Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects. Requests are currently being taken at Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too. If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unknown-importance space exploration articles
I've tweaked the WPSpace banner template so that it now populates Category:Unknown-importance space exploration articles. There are currently more than 200 entries in that category. I wonder if someone would like to take the lead on the effort to evaluate the importance to spaceflight of these articles? Or even formulate the criteria by which that importance should be evaluated? (sdsds - talk) 07:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the WikiProject seems a bit dead. I'm willing to give it a try. We should definitely define some criteria first as this would certainly make evaluation easier. I also noticed some articles (e.g. Pioneer 5) are not even tagged with this WikiProject, so we should lookout for those pages as well. Some criteria could be:
 * Spacecraft (e.g. Mariner 4)
 * System used on spacecraft (e.g. Magnetometer)
 * Successfulness of spacecraft (e.g. failed on launch vs. crashed on planet, vs. mission successful)
 * Van der Hoorn (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * After two years, I'd like to renew the request for lists of quality and importance examples, customized for the space and spaceflight topics. For instance, the project template link WikiProject Space/Importance ratings has nothing to point to. This could be a reason that more than half of the spaceflight articles have low or unknown importance. --IanOsgood (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The WPSpace banner and "Importance to Spaceflight"
It should now be possible to use the WPSpace banner template with e.g. "spaceflight=yes | spaceflight-importance=Mid", as demonstrated at Talk:Pioneer Venus project. This mechanism still places the talk page into the pre-existing Category:Space exploration articles by importance categories. At some point will we want to rename those, or make new ones for "spaceflight"? (sdsds - talk) 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Started today. LanceBarber (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * DONE, updated all STS and Shuttle Talks with new form, and unified all lead-in sentences of all same articles. LanceBarber (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo and related articles Talks have been updated.LanceBarber (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Satellite navigation systems at MFD
Hi, I have nominated Portal:Satellite navigation systems for deletion. Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Satellite navigation systems. GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Asia's Space Race
Hello, I've recently created the article Asia's Space Race. I believe this is a recent and important topic in the field. Please help me to expand it. Cheers.--Mhsb (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

shuttle Crew Members Category
Is there a category/list containing space shuttle astronauts ? I think would be a useful addition. --Jor70 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Rocket article titles
I have proposed a large number of moves and other changes to clean up the mess that is caused by the lack of any accepted disambiguation standard for rocket articles. The proposal is located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Space Shuttles
Should Project 921-3 (Chinese Shuttle), be added to this template? Thanks, Marasama (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Collaborate on Mars lander article
With the Phoenix landing being in the news, might it be fun right now to launch a collaborative authoring effort to create a Mars lander article? There's a lot to be written about landing on Mars, and in particular on the different approaches (powered descent, beach-ball, impactor) that have been used or considered. Even the rover missions need a lander component. And it would probably be within scope to discuss at least a little the entry and descent aspects of this kind of mission, not just the landing per se. Is anyone interested in organizing this kind of effort? Does it make more sense just to "wade in," creating yet another stubby article with whatever comes to the author's mind, or would a dicussion first at Talk:Mars lander make for a better result in the end? (sdsds - talk) 01:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Responding to myself: perhaps the (extant) Mars landing article is sufficient. (sdsds - talk) 23:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Future spacecraft template?
In a discussion at Talk:Ares V it is beginning to seem like having a Future spacecraft or Future space vehicle template, rather like Future ship, might be useful. Does anyone have thoughts to share on that? (sdsds - talk) 05:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a parameter on Future spaceflight would be a better idea. The infrastructure already exists, and the modification process would be simple. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 06:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics. See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages. The Transhumanist 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS. Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

List of NASA Administrators
... is currently a Featured List Candidate. Comments welcome. Mike Peel (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion
An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ?  " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) -, member of WikiProject Council. 14:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New type of collaboration
Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/draftbox. --Usp (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A new task force under wikiproject Europe
I just wanted to let you know that a European Space Agency task force has been set up to improve the presently very poor condition of articles about ESA and related topics. If you are interested, please join the task force here. We sure could use your help. Thanks.U5K0 (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Craters and spaceflight
I started this conversation at User talk:OOODDD; brought it here for wider input. (sdsds - talk) 05:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Could you please explain a bit of your reasoning for adding WPSpace with spaceflight=yes to the talk pages for [all] articles about craters? These craters are in space, yes, so WPSpace makes sense. But they aren't all the target of spaceflight missions, are they? (sdsds - talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not all of them, but some missions to the moon did make it a priority to visit cratersOOODDD (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems like disruptive vandalism. Now you've done it again with a few thousand articles about asteroids. They're in space, yes. But they have nothing to do with space exploration or spaceflight. Please undo all of your crater and asteroid tagging. (sdsds - talk) 14:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of first orbital launches by country nominated at FLRC
Timeline of first orbital launches by country has been nominated at Featured list removal candidates/Timeline of first orbital launches by country. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Space exploration
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7. We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations. A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

MAVEN
Yesterday I created MAVEN (spacecraft) and have since added it to WikiProject Spaceflight and Mars. I've placed the same importance to this article as similar Martian probes have. Currently it's assessed as a Start-class article. So far, NASA hasn't released much information about the mission, but everything that is out there has been incorporated into the article. As a result of NASA announcing this article, I've suggested that Mars Scout 2013 be rolled into the MAVEN article. Any help I can get on the article, or at least some outside review of it, would be appreciated. Grant (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment of Space elevator

 * I dispute the B assessment. Since the initial assessment it has been edited beyond recognition. It no longer meets the current Wikipedia standards or the criteria of "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia". It is way too technical for a general audience, it is loaded with either original research or unpunished synthesis, some of the claims are bordering on science fiction and some of the sources are of dubious reliability. Therefore it is of little use to "nearly all readers", there are multiple obvious problems and it does not even come close to the quality of a professional encyclopedia. The article needs to be reassessed by experts to check many of the claims and reassessed against current standards. As it stands it should at best warrant a C rating. 59.167.37.230 (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Soyuz 2 rename
Soyuz 2 rocket has been proposed to be renamed to Soyuz-2. There is currently a space mission article at Soyuz 2, so it's a non-obvious selection. This is part of a renaming of rocket articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles/Poll 70.55.203.112 (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternate landing sites
Is there a location to verify when or if a site was selected as an alternate/emergency landing site for Shuttle missions? Hunter Army Airfield's website asserts that it is an alternate landing site, but I do not believe it is currently a landing site and have tagged the statement as needing a citation. Two IP editors have removed the tag but have provided no reference. I believe it should be verified for it to remain in the article, since it involves another government agency. And, since it does involve another government agency, I believe that it is reasonable to expect it to be verifiable. I will watch here, or you can comment on the Talk:Hunter Army Airfield page. --Born2flie (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on article dispute
Im not sure if this is the proper place to ask this, but it would be very helpful if members of this project could comment on a current article dispute, see Editor_assistance/Requests. If you could comment on the relevance of the article Ronnie Nader, specially on the articles characterization of Mr Nader as an astronaut, claims of Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center training as "Advanced Suborbital Astronaut Trained (ASA/T)", sources referred to, etc., it would be very much appreciated. Regards, -Hilbert137 (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

GA sweeps: 4 Vesta
Hello, as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 4 Vesta. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If anyone is able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

4 Vesta
Just a quick reminder that this article is undergoing a GA reassessment as part of the GA sweeps. It has been on hold for over two weeks, but several concerns remain. If they are not addressed soon, I will have to delist the article. Because it is part of the Main asteroid belt Featured Topic, this would also mean that the Featured Topic would be delisted. There's not much left to do, so any help you can provide would be great. The reassessment page is here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

New article: Jack King (NASA Public Affairs Officer)
I've created a new article, Jack King (NASA Public Affairs Officer), and invite updates. King was the NASA Public Affairs Officer who provided the Apollo 11 launch commentary you've probably heard many times. TJRC (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

May I destroy?
May I make a redirect page of the article Planetary Database System? The reason is here: Talk:Planetary Database System. Said: Rursus (☻) 16:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅.  TJRC (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 in spaceflight up for peer review
In order to improve timeline of spaceflight articles, I have requested that 2008 in spaceflight be peer reviewed. Please comment on the article here. Thanks -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 10:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

List of private spaceflight companies
I've decided to clean up the mess that is the List of private spaceflight companies. I hashed it together when I first started editing wikipedia so it was pretty ugly to start. A bunch of people have done a lot to improve it, but it still needs some TLC. My plans to modify it are at: Talk:List of private spaceflight companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aremisasling (talk • contribs) 18:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Space exploration categories
Some of the "space exploration" categories are being used for articles that have nothing to do with exploration. This is the same issue which led to the project being renamed last year, so I have proposed renaming the categories. Please can project members comment and !vote on the issue on today's CfD page. Thanks. -- G W … 20:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Plasma propulsion engine & Ion thruster
Plasma propulsion engine and Ion thruster seem to be about the same topic... perhaps a merge is in order? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation problem
For the purpose of categorisation, we need to draw a line as to what goes into the "space exploration" categories. I think it is fairly obvious that: do not constitute exploration, and that: do constitute exploration, however it is unclear whether: constitute exploration or not. I would be inclined to say that the first two do not, however the latter two do. Does anyone have any comments or alternative suggestions regarding this? -- G W … 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Communication satellites
 * Navigation satellites
 * Weather satellites
 * Military satellites
 * Earth observation satellites
 * Technology demonstration spacecraft
 * Rockets
 * Unmanned planetary probes
 * Manned Lunar (and eventually planetary) flights
 * Manned LEO and suborbital flights
 * "Firsts" (eg Sputnik 1)
 * Near Earth research (eg. Explorer 1)
 * Astronomy satellites


 * Apparently "space exploration" has two, or perhaps three different meanings, each of which has a considerable number of people (and thus wiki editors) who are sure their meaning is the right one. Some will say mere observation (e.g. stargazing) is a "space exploration" activity, or at least that telescopic observations should be considered as such. This view is stated in the intro to the Space exploration article, and is supported by a cited reference at the NASA Goddard website. A cached version of the text of that page is here.


 * Another view holds that whether an activity is exploration depends on context. For example, the first person from a given culture (say, European) to travel to the Pacific coast of North America must, in this view, have been engaged in exploration, but the modern day businessperson who is flying non-stop from Heathrow to Seattle probably isn't. So the first person in LEO must have been exploring space, but not every "routine" ISS crew rotation flight is exploration.


 * This difference of views is likely unresolvable, so I feel the "space exploration" categories should be deprecated and eventually deleted, invoking whatever policy was used to decide that Category:Wells, Somerset was a better category name for those articles than Category:Wells. (sdsds - talk) 03:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there are no objections, so I'm going to start pulling "routine" manned flights out of the SE categories, unless they have some specific claim to be "exploration". I'll leave Mercury, Vostok, Shenzhou and Apollo alone for now. -- G W … 11:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

new article request: NASA Lunar Science Institute
My name is Delia Santiago and I work at the NASA Lunar Science Institute (NLSI): http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/. There is currently no article on the NLSI and I would like to request an NLSI article for wikipedia. When "NASA Lunar Science Institute" is typed into the search box of en.wikipedia.org, one is incorrectly redirected to an article on the "Lunar and Planetary Institute", with a note of "(Redirected from NASA Lunar Science Institute)" and a url of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Lunar_Science_Institute. The NASA Lunar Science Institute and the Lunar and Planetary Institute are distinct organizations so this redirect (at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NASA_Lunar_Science_Institute&redirect=no) is incorrect.

I am aware of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines and will abide by them. My edits and volunteered information will be restricted to the talk/ discussion pages. If you wish to contact me directly, please leave a message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deliasantiago or email me at Delia.L.Santiago@nasa.gov.

Deliasantiago (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

 * This was originally posted on the redirect at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space exploration. I have moved it here and informed the bot operator that his bot may be malfunctioning. -- G W … 10:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:42, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Category:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Sun
Category:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Sun has been nominated for renaming, see Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 15 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Canada's mission to Mars?
The Northern Light (Canada's mission to Mars) article was created a couple of months ago, but is essentially unsourced. I tried looking it up in Google, but there zero news stories and surprisingly few web pages on this probe. Does anyone here know anything about this mission and/or could help improve the article? As it stands, the article is very nearly an orphan. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Current spaceflights
Someone's trying to get rid of Category:Current spaceflights. I think this is an issue which needs the attention of the members of this project, but the discussion is pretty close to being closed (I've only just noticed that they didn't send notices around). Please can members look at this page ASAP. Thanks. -- G W … 15:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Category Deletion Jihad?
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion The latest nomination I've noticed is Category:People currently in space being nominated for deletion here. (sdsds - talk) 02:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Kwangmyŏngsŏng reorganization
Please see my proposal at Talk:Kwangmyŏngsŏng concerning these pages. Any input appreciated. Rmhermen (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 11
The 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing is July 20. The article Apollo 11 is already at GA status; is there enough support out there to get this up to FA status to get on the Main page on the anniversary? I've never been involved in such an effort and am not sure what it required to make it work. Paxsimius (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Mer-b-final-launch.jpg
File:Mer-b-final-launch.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

CFD of assessment categories
I've nominated all the assessment categories (which were still using the old project name) for renaming in line with the current name. Discussion is located here. -- G W … 23:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. CFD has gone through, all categories and assessment pages have been renamed, and has been modified to use the new system. -- G  W … 16:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Black Arrow GAN
I have nominated Black Arrow for Good Article status. -- G W … 08:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:WP Space Exploration
has (just about) removed the last few instances of, and nominated the template for speedy deletion under CSD T3. -- G W … 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

List of spacecraft
List of spacecraft currently fails CSD A3. Please could someone sort it out or delete it. Thanks. -- G W … 00:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong GAR notice
Neil Armstrong has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

PROD of List of A1 spacecraft
Article seems fairly pointless so I've prodded it. -- G W … 10:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Some mentoring required
Please give some pointers in the right directions. See xyr edits such as this one to Italian Space Agency, which would seem better off in an article about the history of Italian astronautics, and Luigi Gussalli. Uncle G (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Experts needed
Expert opinions are needed concerning edits made today at Examination of Apollo Moon photographs. Bubba73 (talk), 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

NASA GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed NASA for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the gruntwork is done now, and the article could use a fresh set of eyes to copy edit it, add more materiel, and offer suggestions and feedback. If you have a chance, I would appreciate it if you could take a look. Good Article Review Thanks! — V = I * R  (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Skyramp
Skyramp (space launch system based on ground based accelerator) is up for deletion at AfD. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Project Constellation mission articles
Hi all. I've posted a proposal at Talk:List of Constellation missions, about possibly merging all the "Orion xx" articles back into that page. Any thoughts would be appreciated; please leave comments there. Shimgray | talk | 23:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 4 and 6 cameras
Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 both say that the footage of the S-IVB staging is from a Saturn V. But the S-IVB shown has three ullage motors (as in the Saturn IB) instead of two as in the Saturn V. So this must be from a Saturn IB - right? Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 00:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Help collaborate on Ares I
If anyone has a moment to spare, I would deeply appreciate it if you could come lend a hand with Ares I. It's recently received a Peer Review, which can be found at Talk:Ares I/Comments. Any and all contributions would be welcome, no matter how small or large. Even if you come and change one comma to a period, that would be useful. Thanks! — V = I * R  (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a multi-project manned working group to focus on Black Projects
I recently completed a sweep of the pages tagged with the black project template that fall within the scope of the military history project. In my report to milhist on the pages, their content, and the questionable material and sourcing in some articles I received a reply from the a contributor at WP:SPACE suggesting the milhist formally incorporate a working group to oversee these black project to better ensure that they stay free of original research and unreliable sources and ensure that the pages conform to the best of their ability with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The more I think about this suggestion, the more I am of the mind that it would be a good idea not only for WP:MILHIST, but for WP:SPACEFLIGHT and WP:AIR. The vast majority of the black projects covered break down into one of four distinct categories - space based recon satellites, advanced recon and fighter/bomber aircraft, military R&D programs, and signal/electronic intelligence programs - and each of our projects is best suited to cover one aspect of these black projects.

Working groups at milhist are considered to be a step below our task forces, so if your project members agree to participate we will not have to create a bunch of new pages for the working group, we can attach this working group to either the military technology and engineering task force or the Intelligence task force and use the existing task force as a base of operations.

For this reason and for the potential for better improvement and monitoring of our black project articles I am interested to know if there are any members of this project who would be interested in joining such a working group. As the working group must exist within the milhist project I would ask that all interest parties place their replies on the main milhist talk page, noting the project you are from (if you are coming from a project other than milhist). Please feel free to ask any questions or make any comments/suggestions, at this point this is very much in the planning stage, and any feedback/input would be welcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Help in developing content for Orion Lite
Over the last 24 hours I created Orion Lite, which is a new LEO craft proposed by Bigelow Aerospace, with technical assistance from Lockheed Martin. I could benefit from any technically minded indviduals who might care to help flesh out some of the details. Likewise, I'm using an image of Orion, so if anyone has freely available images of Orion Lite, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! Apparently the article now primarily describes the Boeing CCDev capsule, which I think is a smart move. Essentially the article should focus on whatever design (and contractor) is included in the Bigelow plan -- if Bigelow has moved from LM to Boeing, the article should reflect that. Keeping the article titled "Orion Lite" is going to be controversial, though. I seconded the proposed name change at Talk:Orion Lite. Could you comment there please, or just go ahead and move the article?  Thanks!  (sdsds - talk) 18:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Was Glushko really Hlushko?
Is it best to allow the article on Valentin Glushko to be titled Valentyn Hlushko? (sdsds - talk) 07:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Glushko" is certainly a far more common transliteration of the name - I'd be inclined to go with it. The same user also moved Vladimir Chelomei to an alternate form, which has since been reverted, again without any explanation. Shimgray | talk | 19:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Space program vs. agency
Currently, the article Russian Federal Space Agency discusses both the agency and the Russian space program in general (Russian space program also redirects there.) It has a lot of material that has got nothing to do with the agency itself. Do you think we should create a separate article for "Russian space program" and let the agency article only discuss the agency's role in the program? Please comment at Talk:Russian_Federal_Space_Agency. Offliner (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability of space-related projects
I'm trying to seek some input from the space enthusiasts on Wikipedia to look into Articles for deletion/Galactic Suite. This is in regards to the Galactic Suite article, but it also is about a much larger issue: What, exactly, is a notable project that should have an article on Wikipedia, and at what point does a space project become something other than a dream?

I do see a danger into simply letting every crazy idea come forward that pretends to be space related be considered notable, as there are so many crazy ideas that never really happen. Galactic Suite seems to be almost an extreme example of this, as they held a press conference and set up a website, but have as yet to do anything else or make any other moves within the space industry. If they are building their own rockets in a secret base located somewhere on the Iberian peninsula, that by itself would be newsworthy. Admittedly only two years have passed since the initial press release, but if they are going to be meeting their goal of sending up passengers starting in a couple of years, you would think they would have something more than a mere website.

I guess my concern is about full-fledged scam artists gaining some traction on Wikipedia by telling marks that "see, Wikipedia has an article about us!" as a way to legitimize what is really nothing but hot air that never goes anywhere or is even intended to do anything but take money from potential investors. I'm not against an article about a start-up company either, but what defines a company that is notable? No, I'm not saying that Galactic Suite is anything more than what it is, but anybody can prepare a press release and create a website domain... and if you have the right connections even get major media outlets to swoon over the idea. I just fail to see what is so notable about a press conference when no metal gets bent afterward.

Expect to see more, many more groups come forward like this in the semi-near future. If companies like SpaceX, Armadillo Aerospace, Blue Origin, Bigelow Aerospace, and Virgin Galactic start to produce profits in a big way, I can see space-related companies become something like the dot-com era companies of the 1990s. Wikipedia will get flooded with hundreds of these space companies that seem to come out of the woodwork and be gone the next day (it sort of is happening right now anyway). It would be worthwhile to debate this issue less passionately before it becomes a major issue later on.

BTW, I really have no beef against Galactic Suite as an idea or Galactic Suite Design, Ltd. as a company. This article, however, has been something sticking in my craw for some time and I am uncomfortable with an article which is based almost exclusively on one or two press releases as the primary source of information. Keep in mind that the news articles are all secondary sources, and those were mainly speculation and commentary on those press releases. Is that a way to write an encyclopedia article? --Robert Horning (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial geographic coordinate templates
and have been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. See Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 16

76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter mass
User:Serendipodous merged Jupiter mass into the planet Jupiter.

Someone reverted him, but he's still trying to push it through at the Jupiter talk page, complaining that there has always been resistance.

I said, "What reasons can be given, other than Jupiter mass being a stub, for a unit of measurement to be merged into an article about a planet?" - but he still came back at me. I am not going to exhaust myself explaining the simplest of things to the ... He is unable to listen to reason, perhaps weight of numbers will dissuade if not persuade him. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Experts needed...
Outline of space exploration is a branch of Wikipedia's outline of knowledge. It presents the subject of space exploration as a tree structure (outline), so that readers can easily see how topics are related (parent, child, sibling, etc.) by how they are arranged on the tree.

And because topics are linked to corresponding articles, the outline doubles as a table of contents or site map for Wikipedia's coverage of space exploration.

The outline is incomplete, and needs editors interested in the final frontier to develop it.

Please take a look....

Is it structured well?

What's missing?

Can you improve it?

For more information on outlines, see WP:OOK, WP:OUTLINE, and WP:WPOOK.

For some specific examples of well-developed outlines, see Outline of the United States, Outline of Vatican City, Outline of robotics, and Outline of classical studies. For examples of even more detailed outlines, see Outline of forestry, Outline of cell biology, and Outline of Buddhism.

The Transhumanist 22:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Template: Future Spaceflight
Following a lengthy discussion (found here) and 2 RFCs, consensus to deprecate all future templates (such as future) has been reached. This includes future spaceflight, which has already been marked as deprecated. If an editor is so inclined, they may open a Templates for Discussion}} debate to discuss a specific future template, with an eye to keeping it, modifying it, or deprecating and deleting it. Is there any interest here in keeping future spaceflight? [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest a Nolo contendere approach to deletion of future spaceflight. When a future spaceflight becomes likely to take place it will have a launch vehicle assigned.  When the launch is next in the queue for that launch vehicle, the WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight templates associated with the launch can provide the equivalent of  future spaceflight. (sdsds - talk) 03:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Exploration of Io Peer Review
Exploration of Io, is currently undergoing a peer review. Please take this opportunity to give the article a once over, submit a review, or Be Bold and help to improve the article. The article contains a significant section on the history of the spacecraft that have visited Io since Pioneer 10 in 1973, and covers the observations acquired by each probe. I hope to nominate the article for a Featured Article Candidacy in the next few days if all goes well. Thanks you, --Volcanopele (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exploration of Io has now been nominated for featured article candidacy. Please go to the nominating page to provide support, opposition, or your constructive comments.  Thank you!  --Volcanopele (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

new template!
I created Spacecraft propulsion today, and placed it in the relevant articles. Was just wondering if someone with expertise in the area could check it out, and make sure I haven't made any glaring mistakes? Anxietycello (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Help wanted with ISS science articles
A new article has been started, Research and Science on the International Space Station. It is curently only a very long, semi-organised list of referenced facilities and experiments. A lot of work will have to be done to turn it into a good article. If anyone is interested, go and have a look.--U5K0 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing spaceflight topics
I've updated my list of missing astronomy-related topics, including its section of spaceflight - Skysmith (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Venus In-Situ Explorer
FYI, Venus In-Situ Explorer was prodded for deletion. I deprodded it. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Orbiter_(Simulator) under scope of this project?
I'm pondering whether or not Orbiter (simulator) falls under the scope of this project, as it relates to the topic of space flight but is a computer program. Any thoughts about if it should be included? Metaphorazine (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

List of manned spacecraft
FYI, has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Spacecraft template?
The current spacecraft template seems unsuitable for things like the ATV, Apollo CSM or SpaceX Dragon and indeed it isn't used in any such articles. Could the current spacecraft template be modified or a new one made to accommodate those articles? KimiNewt (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see any problems with the use of on the ATV and Dragon articles (although it is usually used on flight articles rather than programme articles). I can't think of any circumstance that would lead to a reasonable chance of its use on the Apollo article. -- G  W … 18:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I meant infobox, not template. This infobox to be precise. KimiNewt (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What kinds of information would be appropriate for a spacecraft of this nature, and what would it be called? "Crewed Spacecraft" seems to not strictly apply either, although I understand the request being made and thinking it would be appropriate for a rather large number of articles.   Technically all of these are "crew-rated" vehicles even if you include the CST-100 and Progress spacecraft, as they still must meet crew rating standards while attached to other vehicles like the ISS.  Certainly information like typical crew compliment (even if zero), longevity rating information, and information about "pressurized payload capacity" are something that doesn't necessarily apply most other kinds of spacecraft.  As I can think of at least a dozen articles if not more that could use this "infobox" and future articles that may use this template, it seems like a good thing to work on and worth separating from the main spacecraft template as something a bit different from "space probes" or "uncrewed spacecrafted".  P.S.  I'm using "crewed" and "uncrewed" to avoid genderized terms from "manned" and "unmanned" spacecraft.  --Robert Horning (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you're talking about articles that cover more than one individual spacecraft, can be used in some cases. -- G  W … 22:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Apollo 17 Featured Picture facing delisting
This image isn't used in any article and will have to be delisted as an FP unless it can be usefully placed on an article. I don't know what article might be appropriate, so help is needed here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Project Icarus
FYI, Project Icarus has been proposed to be split. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight
I'm currently trying to improve this project but I'm facing a problem with scope. The scope of Unmanned spaceflight, and indeed Human spaceflight as well, is wholly within Wikiproject Spaceflight which for example claims satellites and space exploration probes within it's scope. What else is there to Unmanned spaceflight? While there are plenty of articles related to unmanned spacecraft, tagging an article with the project seems utterly redundant when there's a Spaceflight banner already there within the Space one. As I said, same goes for the manned. Why are we bothering with this at all when it all comes under one project anyway? ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Spaceflight articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Space tugs, or "orbital maneuvering systems" more generally
Is there a Wikipedia article on the general concept of (non-fictional) space tugs?, or orbital maneuvering systems more generally? The current Space transport article links to a very specific instantiation of one particular "orbital maneuvering system" designed for one spacecraft system: viz, the Orbital maneuvering system for the Space Shuttle. It seems to me that the topic ought to be addressed more generally, but I was unsuccessful in finding such an article. Am I missing something? N2e (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I would say something like the Shuttle OMS comes more under the common general term Reaction control system/RCS, rather than a tug in it's own right. The problem I suppose is that vehicles with space tug qualities so far have come into other categories as well, for example the Automated Transfer Vehicle is a "Unmanned Resupply Vehicle", though one of it's primary functions is as a tug moving the ISS to a higher orbit.  I don't think there have been many (any?) vehicles designed mainly for such purposes which might be why it hasn't been created yet. That being said there have been a number of notable plans made for such vehicles,  particularly for satellite de-orbiting, also including Parom and ESA's plan to upgrade the ATV's service unit to perform such duties and many others so there's probably a case for making a page. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2010 (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

Potential New Projects
Hey guys, you may be interested in helping expand articles concerning the Soviet Zond program, Mars probe program and the Marsnik program (even though the last is better written). The Zond program though is severely underrepresented at present.

Progress spacecraft
I've started to doubt that every Progress (spacecraft), deserves its own article (such as Progress 1). None of the articles appear more than a few paragraphs long (with the exception of Progress M1-5, of course), and their content could merge into the appropriate expedition article, space station article, or the articles about each class of spacecraft: Progress-M1, Progress-M, Progress 7K-TG.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what other information could be added to these Progress articles. It seems more natural to merge, for example the Progress 1 article into Salyut 6 EO-1; as a test, I've copied the infobox into the EO-1 article, to see what it looks like. Mlm42 (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a valid concern, but it's also a slippery slope. My understanding of our policy is that every payload launched to orbit is deemed "notable" enough for its own article. Suppose we revised that policy. What revision would you propose? Is yet another A2100-bus comsat (over 30 have been launched) more notable than a Progress? Where would you draw the line? (sdsds - talk) 04:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the policy? We don't necessarily need to revise it. Redirecting a stub to a bigger article can sometimes be helpful - even if the stub is notable enough for its own article. For example, I would say there are some EVAs that are more notable than individual payloads.. but they don't have their own articles, because it isn't necessary - we can simply include the information about the EVA in the article for the relevant space mission, or on the relevant list of EVAs, or wherever. Similarly, sometimes it probably makes more sense to include things like Progress supply missions into the expeditions that they are supplying.


 * So a policy may say that all launched spacecraft are notable enough to deserve their own articles, but that doesn't mean their own articles are necessary. Until the day comes that we have so much information about Progress 1 that it can't fit naturally into the Salyut 6 EO-1 article, I don't see a point of having the Progress 1 article. A simple redirect to the relevant section in the EO-1 article is probably more helpful to the reader - in this case there's a lot to be said for "context". Mlm42 (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be aware, folks, the (somewhat hot) main discussion about this subject is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human spaceflight. Colds7ream (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Popular pages
I've made a request to create a Popular pages subpage for the Spaceflight articles; there's already one for WikiProject Space (see WikiProject Space/Popular pages), but I thought one here might be useful as well, since the Solar system articles dominate the top of that list. Mlm42 (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Article importance ratings
It seems like a good idea to have somewhat consistent importance ratings across the Spaceflight WikiProject, and I was thinking of rating the importance of lots of spaceflight articles. To make sure I(/we) do this consistenly, I've made a guide for rating spaceflight-importance, but I need help filling it out. I've copied this from the one at Human spaceflight, and struck out the bits that were specific to Human spaceflight (Even though, the "Human spaceflight-importance" is probably close to its "Spaceflight-importance"?). Ideas or thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Future role of WP:Space
There's a discussion going on over at WikiProject Space after concerns have been raised over a number of organisation issues, many of which have been laid out over at WikiProject Human spaceflight. Feel free to provide any input as this concerns all projects currently within the scope of WP:Space. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reorganisation of space WikiProjects
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation regarding the future of WikiProject Space and its child projects. The discussion is aimed at defining the roles of projects, and improving the activity and coordination of the projects. The input of members of this project is requested as it is one which may be affected by the issue. -- G W … 22:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sort keys
I've kludged the sort keys for year in spaceflight articles in, but they still need to be fixed in Category:year in spaceflight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)