Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 10

Space Race
I've nominated Space Race for Good Article. Would someone please consider reviewing it? I know some newbies somehow gave it Featured Article which it never deserved, but I've done a lot of work fixing the problems (mostly lack of citations; making it reasonably complete, accurate and fair; and removing inappropriate elements such as "military conflict infobox"). I think this is an important bit of history; today's space travel technology such as Starship, etc. would not exist had it not been for the Cold War space race. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow! Good on you for taking on such an arduous project. As excellent a job as you've done on it, I am concerned at its length (150K; 14000 words). Wikipedia guidelines strongly suggests reducing to <100K or 10000 words. I'd be happy to help. Can you hit me up on Discord and we can discuss? I am on the spaceflight channel, and we can go from there. --Neopeius (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ingenuity (helicopter) and dating (i.e. February 20, 1961 or 20 February, 1961 etc.)
...as well as American style dating on American space missions ('April 19, 2021' or '19 April, 2021) - does consistency or a guideline exist? I'm personally not sure, and the user that brought the meter-or-feet question gives me, at least, a chance to find out. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:UNITS provides a guideline for units, which relies on strong national ties for the choice of units in certain articles. It suggests US customary for "non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States." Elsewhere it suggests "SI units, non-SI units official accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-sourced discussions of the article topic." With this wording I would be leaning towards SI as our primary unit scheme, because of the scientific nature of this article. With that in mind, however, I remember a similar discussion on this wikiproject about units. I will look through the archives and report what the conclusion was.--Cincotta1 (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 6 concludes that both SI and English engineering units need to be included, but does not come to a consensus on which is primary. There was some discussion of a transition point (the space shuttles). Articles before this time were about the history of technology and followed the strong national ties rule in favor of imperial units, while those after used SI. Even this, however, was contested and no consensus was reached.
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 9 concludes again that both SI and English engineering units need to be included; there might have been a consensus towards using English as the primary unit because that is what was ultimately used in the article, but there was also support for the dissenting opinion. Subject being discussed was Gemini 1.
 * My conclusions: there has not yet been a discussion about unit conventions in contemporary space flights. In the past we have concluded both types of units should be included, but have not consistently enforced one as a primary. Historical flights may prefer to follow the strong national ties rule, as those articles are of both scientific interest and historical interest. Primary units for contemporary flights are contested.--Cincotta1 (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My preference would be to make the units used within the project the primary unit. That's SI metric in the case of Ingenuity. Otherwise, we're layering conversions (i.e. SI metric converted to non-metric units by or for the American media and then those non-metric units converted back to SI metric by Wikipedia.) That doesn't make sense to me, and there's the potential to introduce some roundoff error. Fcrary (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Vandenberg Air Force Base listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Vandenberg Air Force Base to be moved to Vandenberg Space Force Base. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich
This article was originally written as the Sentinel-6 program article, but at a later point it was refocused as the Sentinel-6A satellite article. Much of the body of the article is still about the program, discussing both 6A and Sentinel-6B. This seems to be a bad idea. Either the article should be refocused as the program article, or the program material should be split off into the JASON-CS/Sentiel-6 program article (or the Sentiel-6A/JASON-CS.A material should be split off and the article returned to its old name as a program article) -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

John Young quote inclusion
There is a discussion over at Talk:John Young between and myself on whether to include a quote from Charles Bolden praising Young's flying ability. I would appreciate any third-party comments to help get this disagreement settled. Thanks in advance! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

My Draft
I would like feedback on Draft:Super Heavy (rocket stage) please. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) I am taking a vacation in summer and won't edit in July and August. 12:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Assesment
Can someone please assess Super Heavy (rocket stage)? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk page assessments, right? I gave it start class because four paragraphs is rather short and there is room for expansion in the future to make a solid, comprehensive article. Obviously, given the newness of the subject, this may require new references to come available about the subject. I don't always trust my importance assessments; my instincts would be low because this is a single stage which has not flown yet, but feel free to change it if you disagree. In the future, you can self-assess an article for stubs, starts, and c classes when you get a good feel what these should be. In re the content: The only glaring issue was the use of a social media post as a reference for production numbers, I marked this as needing a better source. Let us know if you needed it assessed in some other way--Cincotta1 (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @: I prefer other users to assess articles. Also, I added a better source.StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Changing from “Resupply missions” to “ISS logistics”
There is an editor who has been changing many resupply missions to read as ISS logistics. This is occurring across multiple pages. When several longtime editors have reverted the changes, the response has been defensive and not particularly civil.

Since this is occurring on so many pages, I believe consensus should be reached, especially since it is controversial and contested. The naming of such missions comes from NASA and is long established. Arbitrarily relabelling by a new editor who may not understand why it is used is causing conflict. Ng.j (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cygnus_OA-4&diff=prev&oldid=1026336772

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_CRS-22&diff=prev&oldid=1026636611


 * I find it unfair that the changes are being described as "arbitrary". I made it very clear in my numerous edit summaries that the change was being made more accurately define the scope of the missions, which were more than just bringing up supplies for the crew. "ISS resupply" ignores every other facet of the missions, including delivery of scientific instruments and experiments, satellites for deployment, and returning cargo from the station for recovery and/or disposal. The claim that "several longtime editors" reverted the changes is simply untrue, as only a single editor with a history of uncivil behavior were reverting the changes, often with nothing more of an explanation than "fix" or "update", which is incredibly unhelpful and was identified as anti-WP:ENGAGE behavior by another editor. Had it not been that specific editor constantly targeting my edits, and another editor making the changes, I would've stood to discuss things, but we tried discussing things with that specific editor before, and nothing productive came out of it. — Molly Brown (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with the classification of these missions as resupply missions, as logistics missions would likely include adding major elements to the station. Schujack (talk) June 4

RfC on the Ham and Enos photos on the Chimpanzee page
There is an RfC concerning the images of Ham and Enos at Talk:Chimpanzee which may be of interest. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability guideline for spacecraft
I've been thinking for a while that some sort of explicitly-stated notability guideline should be established for articles on launch vehicles, individual spacecraft, and the alike, similar to those listed at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. An AfD discussion a while back successfully deleted a ton of stub-class articles on Falcon 9 vehicles on the basis of notability, though B1046, B1048, and B1056 have since survived presumably on the amount of reliable sources to establish their notability (WP:RS), despite the boosters themselves arguably being insignificant among the Falcon 9 fleet. Crew Dragon C205 had also been on the chopping block via a merge proposal, but it was saved through a consensus of notability nonetheless, despite being a vehicle that flew one flight; similar to B1019, which had its article deleted in the aforementioned AfD discussion. It's clear some of these articles are being kept and deleted on very inconsistent and everchanging interpretations of notability, and will likely continue to be so. It would perhaps be best if there was an explicit guideline tailor-made to launch vehicles and spacecraft, rather than throwing it up in the air for varying interpretations of WP:GNG. What do you guys think? — Molly Brown (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I missed this! A guideline for spaceflight would be useful, and probably easy to work out given what currently exists. I'd submit that a rocket isn't notable until it does something, and generally, what the rocket carries is more notable than the rocket itself. I've done a lot of articles for a lot of individual satellites, but not ones for the rockets that carried them. --Neopeius (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Mariner program
I don't usually interact with Wikipedia projects, but how do I request an article be reviewed? Mariner program was ranked "start class" at some point in the past, but it's been significantly revised and expanded in the last year. Tisnec (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * We have an Assessments tab on the project website! :) But this is fine. I'll be happy to review it today. --Neopeius (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Tisnec (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion
Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_8. fgnievinski (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Templates to convert Mars mission time to earth time
Hello, I created prototype templates to convert Mars mission time to earth time. For the Mars 2020 mission the raw images are tagged with Sol and mean local solar time. For curiosity mission they have an iso time stamp, including time zone. Basic template is User:Schrauber5/testMarstime. Derived templates are Test page were this templates are used is User:Schrauber5/testMarstime2. Some part of the discussion is also at my talk page. Any comment (shall this be be a normal template, is it correct, is this OR) are welcome. Schrauber5 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Schrauber5/testMars2020time
 * User:Schrauber5/testMarsCuriositytime
 * You don't need to worry about WP:OR because unit conversions fall under WP:CALC. That is, unit conversions are not original research because they involve trivial, routine calculations that do not expand or synthesize information gathered from reliable sources.--Cincotta1 (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At the moment the discussion at WT:No_original_research is not confirming that.--Schrauber5 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that this was that hotly contested, thanks for the link. I will read the discussion and chime in if I have anything to add.--Cincotta1 (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Category tree considered for deletion
The Category:Spacecraft by launch system is being considered for deletion, along with its subcats Spacecraft launched by Ariane rockets, Spacecraft launched by Atlas rockets, etc. Interested editors are invited to comment at Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 8. — JFG talk 12:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Mariner 1
Hello, all!

Normally I'm not reticent about rating my own articles up to B class, but given the high visibility of the Mariner missions, and since I plan to reuse much of the text I've done on this latest article for Mariner 2, I wonder if a friend could review Mariner 1 and determine if it be a B (and if you think it good enough for GA, let me know, and I'll start that process). Once I'm confident in the language, I can get to work on Mariner 2. :)

Thank you!


 * P.S. This is all 's fault -- I'd been putting off diving into the deep end until he got me interested in the Mariners again... :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I've put it up for GAC if anyone wants to take it on. --Neopeius (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

 * 881	UTC Aerospace Systems	5,052	162	Unknown	Unknown
 * 125	Zhurong (rover)	32,777	1,057	Stub	Mid
 * 173	Oleg Novitsky	25,131	810	Stub	Mid
 * 253	Yusaku Maezawa	19,172	618	Stub	Unknown
 * 269	Yulia Peresild	17,830	575	Stub	Unknown
 * 312	VSS Unity	15,728	507	Stub	Low
 * 361	Victor J. Glover	13,119	423	Stub	Low
 * 457	Long March 7	10,865	350	Stub	Unknown
 * 477	Space diving	10,459	337	Stub	Low
 * 548	Heavy-lift launch vehicle	8,936	288	Stub	Low

WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Units of thrust used in articles about SpaceX launch vehicles
There has been some discussion about the units of thrust used in various articles about SpaceX launch vehicles. This followed one editor's across the board change of all articles about those launch vehicles (to make the primary unit of force "tonne-force".) Most of this has taken place on the SpaceX Starship talk page. One editor felt that thrust should be primarily expressed in tonne-force, because of a tweet my Mr. Musk which seemed to prefer this unit. The discussion has run the usual fourteen days, and it looks like four other editors feel this is inappropriate, because it is not a SI unit and because SpaceX itself (as opposed to a tweet from the company's CEO) uses kN. I think that decision has reached a conclusion and a consensus, to shift back to kN as the primary unit. But since this affects multiple articles, I would like to make sure there are no objections from people following the Spaceflight Project. Fcrary (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Being largely away from editing these days, I was not aware of the changes and associated discussion. I would join the dissenting editors in preferring the SI unit kN, which allows easy comparison between various launch systems. — JFG talk 12:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Lynk Global
With their fifth test satellite in orbit, I decided to create a new article for the company Lynk Global. Satellite to cell phones, global reach, could be big; or it could be just another failed space telecommunications play. Either way, the obviously notable company needed an article, and with plans to get to a 5000-sat megaconstellation if they can successfully execute and their 5th sat in orbit, it was time.

Would appreciate other spaceflight-interested editors reviewing it, and enhancing it if you wish. N2e (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Karman Line
There is a dicussion at Karman Line that may interest members of this community over if NASA and the FAA recognize the boundary between air and space as 100 km or 50 mi.Garuda28 (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Garuda28. And to editors who care about the matter of the "beginning of space" or the "edge of Earth's atmosphere", there is even a somewhat broader topic on that Talk page in the section right above that one, started earlier, but with little input. So if the topic is interesting, please do look in on it.  N2e (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Astronautix.com a reliable source?
Mark Wade's site has been brought up in many FACs, with the self-published nature of the site considered a strike against its reliability. Mark Wade is a reliable source, per the American Astronautical Society's History Committee. I have found errors in his work, but no more, and not more egregious, than I've found in "reliable" sources including encyclopedias and the NSSDC. That said, I tend to use other, more direct sources when I can, but I would not disqualify something from Featured status for citing his work. :) --Neopeius (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with nothing you've said, Neopeius, especially the serious attempt to find other more direct sources whenever possible. That said, the place to have this discussion is on the reliable sources noticeboard if you want anything to stand up when later discussed on various spaceflight-related Talk pages.  (and then, if you do that, come here, and INVITE spaceflight editors to the topic discussion on RSN).  Just my 2 cents.  N2e (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The RSN has ruled that it is a reliable source; but FAC requires high quality reliable sources. What makes a reliable source "high quality"? Nobody knows; it is decided by consensus on a case-by-case basis. Spaceflight editors are required at FAC, not RSN. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the discussion of Mark Wade at RSN? Just for my morbid curiosity... :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)::::Not much: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190. TJRC (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Other discussions, not at RSN: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 4 and Talk:International Space Station/Archive 13 Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, these predate the HistCom's awarding of the Ordway Award. If a committee of the top space historians in the country (including NASA's historian, the NASM historian...and also me ^^;;) consider a fellow reliable, then who (the hell) are we to argue? :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Lithobraking
I think this article is very suspicious. Searching with google gives two types of results: 1) obvious copies from the article 2) references to the video game Kerbal Space Program from 2015.

The article was created in 2004. This version contained a reference to this website with cartoons ("Tongue-in-cheek term apparently coined Jan. 05, 2004 by Illiad").

It appears that the following happended:
 * The term appeared in a cartoon in 2004
 * Someone created a wikipedia article in 2004
 * People copied the article
 * A video game from 2015 used the word (inspired by wikipedia?)
 * The word become more popular because of the video game

I discovered all this because someone translated the article to German. The deletion is discussed right now in de.Wikipedia. Do you think this article can remain in en.Wikipedia? --Kallichore (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: The translated article in de.Wikipedia has been deleted because of Wikipedia:No original research. However, someone found this publication from 1999 that uses the word "lithobraking". --Kallichore (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I first heard the term used in connection with the failed landing of the Mars Polar Lander spacecraft, which was in 1999. So the above guess at the origin of the term is incorrect. However, "lithobraking" is a joke. It's primarily used by scientists and engineers working on spacecraft missions as a euphemism for a spacecraft crashing. I've never heard it used to describe a real, planned landing technique. So this Wikipedia article is definitely problematic. In addition, the term is an obscure term used by a pretty small community. I don't think that makes it sufficiently noteworthy for a Wikipedia article.Fcrary (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Often a word escapes the confines of its creation and subsequent usage to evolve into a wider definition, and it seems this one may have done that. Seems notable as sourced and described. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The origins of the term, comic or not, does not matter. It has been found in formal scientific papers since at least 1999 - see Deep Space 2: The Mars Microprobe Mission.  There are plenty of references on the page.  I think we should keep it.  LouScheffer (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe the best outcome of this discussion would be for German Wikipedia to reverse its seemingly incorrect decision. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this statement from Jonathan McDowell in this glossary from 2020 is helpful: "Originally a whimsical euphemism, but increasingly a standard term." (thanks for this reply) He does not say why the term is "increasingly standard", but the existence of a wikipedia article for over 17 years may be a (crucial?) factor here. All in all, I have a bad feeling when looking at the search results of Google. --Kallichore (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Coming for us in 2021: new methods of spaceflight will mean new descriptive terminology will be needed
It seems 2021 is the year. After less than ten private persons got to orbital space in the entire past two decades from options provided by the Russian Soyuz orbital space capsule flights to the ISS (7 actually, 2001–2009), plus 8 more if we add in the SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo test pilots (2004–2020 total of 7) who have flown to suborbital space, the total number is still only 15 from 2001 through 2020.

That number is going to now rise rapidly!

With the opening up of commercial spaceflight this year—Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo suborbital option, Blue Origin's New Shepard suborbital option, and SpaceX's Crew Dragon private orbital option all are taking their first non-government sponsored people to space in 2021—some of our existing definitions and practices in the Wikipedia endeavor to explicate spaceflight for a global encyclopedia readership will be tested.

Moreover, the roles and functions of people going to space are going to both blur, and expand.

Terms we have used broadly in Wikipedia articles up to now ("crew", "crewed spaceflight" [replacing the former, and now deprecated "manned spaceflight"; almost a find-and-replace in hundreds of articles], "astronaut", and other terms I imagine, will soon come up for discussion, in multiple articles. We have some terms that are already worked into a few articles, for example commercial astronaut or spaceflight participant, but the word "crew" and "crewed spaceflight" is still ubiquitous in Wikipedia human spaceflight articles.

Here's an example of questions I would expect us, as editors, to have to deal with in the coming months: Am I "crew" if I spend 15 minutes on a suborbital spacecraft in an autonomous capsule? Would I be "crew" if the capsule were flown by a couple of pilots, but I need to do nothing other than strap myself back into my seat after a few minutes of weightless flight? What if I have to help another person get strapped back in? What if the private company trains me to help my neighbor in the spacecraft under certain circumstances? Would I be "crew" on an autonomous orbital space capsule that spends four days in orbit, and all four people need to do a few things aboard the craft that, if we were on a ship or a jetliner, we would have "crew" working for the transportation operator doing for us? (stow things for safety, prepare meals, clean up the toilet to deal with exigencies, ...) Does a person being "crew" make it a "crewed spacecraft"? If there are no persons in the "crew" role, would it still be a "crewed spaceflight"? or merely be passengers on a flight to space?

I would not suggest we debate all the many possible questions here, right now, in this section.

I do think it would be useful to think about how we, as Wikiproject Spaceflight participants, might suggest we address the topic. One alternative is to just let it get dealt with on any article pages where it comes up. But my sense is there is probably a better way, and it could be valuable for the project for us to discuss this topic proactively.  Interested in what others think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Plainly we should decide whether to honor the FAA ruling on "astronaut". The companies interested in that will undoubtedly have a different view and will present astronaut pins.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is clearly one term of interest, and it is currently being rather robustly discussed on the Talk:Commercial astronaut page.
 * The question asked in this section is rather more general. Would it be useful and improve the encyclopedia to think/discuss the broader issue amongst a number of spaceflight-interested editors, where history is now (or is soon going) to invalidate certain legacy terminology in spaceflight? So far, it would seem perhaps not, and we'll just muddle through these discussions on an article-by-article basis, which is certainly the default approach.  N2e (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Oliver Daemen
Alerting of a deletion nom. Oliver, we hardly knew ye. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And why should we have known him? When you put a pointer to a deletion discussions on a project page, it is supposed to be neutral and unbiased. You should not add comments like "we hardly knew ye" Fcrary (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"China’s national Satellite Internet project"
We don't currently have an article on this topic "China’s national Satellite Internet project", which is a quote from a recent SpaceNews article.

Based on that SpaceNews article, I've enhanced our coverage of the topic just a bit with an oblique mention of it in another article, and have also created the redirect China national satellite internet project as a placeholder, for now.

If this is a planned megaconstellation as it would appear, rivaling the OneWeb satellite constellation or Starlink, then we will clearly want to develop a decent article summarizing the basic facts? Does anyone here read Chinese? ... and perhaps might be willing to search for additional public pronouncements from the Chinese press on the topic? Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I expect we'll get more information when this project gets actual hardware and not just plans. The linked article has some basic information about the constellation design. --mfb (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Mir
Mir, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aircorn (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Style guide
After editing and watching others' edits on certain articles I think the style guide should be updated to clarify the following issue. Should stress marks be used in the Cyrillic names of Russian and Soviet spacecraft? Eg. Бура́н or Буран? The stress marks are not used in "normal" russian, only in "learning resources". There are arguments on both sides as to its place, on the one hand, stress marks help a reader unfamiliar with russian place the stress correctly and stress marks are present in some encyclopedias and dictionaries for that very reason, on the other hand it may confuse the readers, as it was not "Бура́н" that was written on the side of the orbiter, it was "Буран", and many of the headers already include IPA pronunciation, which includes a stress mark anyway. Galopujacyjez (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Seems like it would make the most sense to put the Russian as it would normally be written followed by a pronunciation guide in IPA. --Neopeius (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Please review these drafts ASAP!
Wikiproject Spaceflight currently has 3 drafts that have been waiting for review for 6 months (Draft:List of Thor DM-21 Agena-B launches, Draft:List of Thor DM-18 Agena-A launches, and Draft:List of Thor DM-18 Able launches). This is an absurd amount of time! The next oldest AFC submissions are only 3 days old. Can someone please review these articles ASAP? Thanks in advance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.238.109 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

NASA Astronaut Group 2
The article on NASA Astronaut Group 2 is currently at FAC. This is the Next Nine astronauts who were selected for Projects Gemini and Apollo in 1962. They were the next most famous group after the Mercury Seven, although few astronauts are much remembered today. They are also widely regarded as the best group ever chosen. Six of the nine flew to the Moon (two of them twice), and Neil Armstrong, Pete Conrad and John Young walked on it as well. Seven of the nine were awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor (one posthumously). If anyone would care to drop by Featured article candidates/NASA Astronaut Group 2/archive1 with some comments, this would be appreciated. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  00:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"astronaut wings"
currently redirects to the US government badges, but this is no longer the case, now that Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin have minted their own in-house wings. This needs to be returned into being a separate article, that covers the variants of space wings. One would be a link for the US government badges, other badges for cosmonauts etc should also be covered. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Soyuz mission patches
Please see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soyuz MS-20 Mission Patch.png -- where it is brought up that most Soyuz mission patches should be deleted from Commons, because they are using the wrong license and would not be compatible with Commons otherwise. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk discussion on NASA Astronaut Group 4 article
There is a discussion about the NASA Astronaut Group 4 article in that article's talk page. I don't think many people follow that article, so I thought I'd mention it here. The discussion concerns the format and readability of table in the article. Fcrary (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Apollo 16
This article is at FAC. I've just been warned by a coordinator that the FAC may be closed soon due to lack of comments. It would be nice to have it available as a FA for the 50th anniversary next April, so it could run on the main page. Comments are welcome at the FAC here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Inspiration4 patch
File:SpaceX Inspiration4 insignia.png What's this patch for? Its gotten removed from the article page -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship peer review
Hello, I just listed the article for peer review, and I want to have as much comment and improvement at the article as possible. Here's the peer review link: Peer review/SpaceX Starship/archive1. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Relevant entries in OpenStreetMap
Use the "overpass turbo" link in the upper right corner for details / coordinates
 * aeroway=spaceport / aeroway=launchpad / aeroway=landingpad
 * company=aerospace / aerospace:product
 * logistics=spaceflight / logistics=aerospace
 * other aerospace values such as faculty=aerospace

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dulliman (talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This should be copied to a "resources" subpage for the project. WP:WikiProject Spaceflight/Resources for editors for example -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject SpaceX
Would you join this WikiProject if it was created? It is currently proposed. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 23:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , to me that just seems too corporate, like it should be covered by a non-specific project about commercial space exploration. We wouldn't want to have "WikiProject Blue Origin" too. And "WikiProject Virgin Galactic."— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * cf WikiProject Spaceflight/SpaceX working group


 * Eh, wouldn't it be better to be a WP:WikiProject Elon Musk ? Then it could cover Tesla, the AI project, the Hyperloop proposal, The Boring Company, PayPal. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX on Commons
FYI, there's a set of deletions on Commons COMMONS:Category:SpaceX deletion requests -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Thor DM-18 Able launches
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Thor DM-18 Able launches that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Question: How should the category "Commercial astronauts" and related categories be used?
(Related to this discussion at a user talk page) I have made a number of edits to articles due to a change in the FAA definition to Commercial Astronauts that occurred recently. One of the edits I made was reverted and a discussion occurred over and. (The former was discussed more as the latter was recently created by myself.) Now, with the launch of the Inspiration4, I have more questions than answers and am unsure if I should be changing the half-dozen or so articles with  to something else or leaving it and adding related categories to the articles. What is the best procedure at this time? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Commercial astronaut is clear, they are professional astronauts working for a commercial entity, instead of a military or other governmental one. They are separate from civilian astronauts as the press sometimes calls them (such as on the Inspiration4 flight), who do not work for a living as astronauts. Instead of "astronaut", just call them "space travelers", and then we don't have to worry whether they fall into one of the FAA mandated categories, military categories, NASA categories, cosmonauts, spationauts, taikonauts. We then subcategorize space traveler into professional astronauts, space tourists, mission specialists, and other, as needed. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds reasonable and seems simple enough. Thank you for this advice.  :)  --Super Goku V (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

CNN said that SpaceX classified the entire crew of Inspiration4 as spaceflight participants at the FAA, and the FAA indicated they would not qualify for FAA wings, though all four went through months of commercial astronaut training at SpaceX, but did not control the automated flight, though the two onboard pilots Proctor and Isaacman atleast had emergency capsule training. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

NS18
Now that Shatner's been named to Blue Origin NS-18, it's probably time to start an article? -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Active spaceflight editor CactiStaccingCrane
I've been away from most spaceflight article editing for a bit, and have just learned that we have a (very) active new editor working extensively on spaceflight articles. CactiStaccingCrane has been editing Wikipedia for just five (5) weeks and has made over 2300 edits, most apparently on spaceflight-related articles.

Full disclosure: I have not had the chance to more than skim a small part of the massive number of edits made by CactiStackingCrane; as we all know, Wikipedia is a volunteer gig and we all only have the time to do what we can do. I have Welcomed CactiStaccingCrane to Wikipedia, shared my concern, and did say I would ping him to a couple of discussions where I had a concern; and so am doing so here.

I do have a couple of concerns, and invite other editors to consider taking a look at some (subset) of Cacti's edits. It may be that we will all say, great, no issues. But it is somewhat likely that with 2300 edits in 5 weeks, there may be some major changes in need of a bit more review by more editors, and more editors may just not have eyes on them as fast as the edits are being made. (We have had this problem in Wikiproject:Spaceflight a couple of times in the past, where massive edits were made, not thoroughly reviewed, and later the editor was banned and a LOT of cleanup was much harder then.) I'm not saying that is happening here.

I will identify one area for concern in this section right now. I have just noticed today that Cacti has reassessed a fairly large number of articles in Wikiproject Spaceflight to Quality level "B". Now it may be that all criteria were carefully assessed, and a "B" level rating was given with great consistency to the quality an article must have to have received a "B" level in the past. But I recall that, with that limited number of Wikiproject Spaceflight members who would even agree to assess articles for "B" level quality in the past, many of them would fail many articles as not yet ready. So I do find it somewhat unlikely that all these "B" level ratings are fully justified. But I don't know; I've not had the time to evaluate them all individually myself. The new "B" ratings are coming in too fast.

So, I request other Wikiproject Spaceflight editors to begin to review, and help guide, Cacti in their new enthusiasm for writing spaceflight-related content. And please would a couple of you be willing to review a subset of the large number of "raise to "B" level" assessments that have been done in the past couple of days. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's all the reviews: WikiProject Spaceflight/SpaceX working group CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Confusion with list of space agencies
Some of the agencies, the Australian one for example, do not have the color representing satellite operating capability, but have the box for satellite operating capability checked off. Also, later in the page Australia suddenly gets sounding rockets capability. Am I just confused or is there an issue with the article? ProteinFromTheSea (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021
Hi all, just a quick reminder that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many areas, and will last until November 30th or December 15th. WSC is organized every two years, and it is formally open to all countries (the goal are the international prizes, the national ones are an incentive) but specific national pages are set up for example for USA or Ireland.

There will be a sitenotice for all readers here on Wikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission. In the meantime, if you are preparing some nice images, consider to submit them to WSC, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Astronaut categories up for deletion
See Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 10. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  04:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rocket
Hey, so I just revised the template to use Wikidata extensively, fix some bugs and future-proof quick patches. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's taken me a lot of looking, but I'm guessing this is why so many the rocket articles now appear here Pages with reference errors. I can't make put what's causing the issues, no cite errors appear on the article but the article are listed as having errors (none of the usual candidates are present). ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The following articles have errors Astris (rocket stage), CTS (rocket stage), GSLV Mark III, List of Antares launches, Long March 1D, and Little Joe II. There will be more but I haven't made my way through the alphabet yet. Could these be being caused by interference between the infobox and the references added into it? The specific error is in regards to broken refnames, although the infobox doesn't appear to provide any itself. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping it's not another wikidata issue, I can't get my head round wikidata. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Add Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle to the list of article failing WP:V. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, that might be because a lot of them have poor citations to begin with :| CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship GA reassessment
SpaceX Starship has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of spaceflight and space related fiction
Since the science fiction Wikiproject seems inactive (concerning for Wikipedia) wanted to inform the project that good faith editor is and has been in the process of deleting and often neutering fiction about spaceflight articles. See the page history of Stars and planetary systems in fiction, the article Uranus in fiction before and after, although they did save the page from deletion), and many others. These pages present historical articles of cultural trends, interests, and completeness of factual information. Could the Wikiproject get involved? Thanks. I can see removing obscure items with no sources and without articles, but things like the famous Tintin album about his Moon travel, which has plenty of sources at its own page, are being deleted from Moon landings in fiction. Too many other examples to list. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yikes, I know WP:AGF but some of these are really egregious and pissing me off. Boiling down a whole list (even one with quite a few unsourced items) to "Uranus was discovered in 1781 and has rarely been featured in fiction since then" (current opening of Uranus in fiction) is ridiculous! I'll see if I can start to find any sources for some of the removed items, but it would be great to get more people from this Wikiproject involved. Goshawksonlyfly (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing I was meant to be pinged, but I wasn't (the template and the signature need to be added with the same edit). Anyway, the issue at hand is that consensus is opposed to TV Tropes-style lists of appearances of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever with entries that are based solely on WP:Primary sources. Consensus is also opposed to basing the content of such articles on WP:Secondary sources about the works themselves, as opposed to sources about the overarching topic of the article (i.e. X in fiction/popular culture/whatever), see MOS:POPCULT. This is not something I came up with on my own, this has been discussed pretty thoroughly (the current text of MOS:POPCULT is the result of fairly lengthy discussion about how best to handle this kind of material). For some specific examples of TV Tropes-style lists being rejected in favour of prose articles based on proper secondary (and/or tertiary) sources, see WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. Simply fixing these massive and widespread issues with the articles that remain, in the same way we have fixed such issues before with similar articles, seems a lot more sensible to me than dragging a bunch of articles to WP:AfD to relitigate this separately for every single article.As for Uranus in fiction specifically, the cited sources on the topic explicitly say "Uranus' remote location ensured that it was rarely featured in speculative fiction" and "Uranus is little discussed in traditional sf. Stanley G Weinbaum's "The Planet of Doubt" (October 1935 Astounding) is one of the rare stories set on this world.", respectively. I can add "comparatively" to the opening sentence, but I want to point out that this comes from the sources, not my personal assessment. If you can find sources that would allow us to expand the article while still abiding by the sourcing requirements put forth by MOS:POPCULT, that would be great; ideally, we would be able to turn it into a WP:Featured article. TompaDompa (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my confrontational tone earlier - I realized quite soon after publishing the earlier section that I could have thought through it a little more. Thanks for taking the time to type this up, I think I generally agree with what you've laid out re: MOS:POPCULT. Goshawksonlyfly (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of how extensive this culling has gotten, many entire pages being axed even if (and this is the major point) some of their relevant entries have a Wikipedia page one click away that has multiple sources. Over and over again, across the spectrum of space related popular culture items. Wikipedians have created one of, if not the, internet's historical record of literature and film about the human race's ideals, dreams, and imaginings of off-planet exploration. A heritage collection for future generations of readers and editors. Many of the removals have been good ones, trivial mentions of a poster hanging on a wall and such, but If even one of the removed listings is about the topic and has a linked page with references then the entire article edits should be reverted to sort them out. I can see removing items with no articles or references, and very trivial mentions. But MOS was not designed to do good faith harm to such an amazing collection. Notice should probably be made to other Wikiprojects who might also have concerned editors. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Providing sources is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores material. You say the entries are relevant, and that might even be true, but that's not for us to say but for WP:Reliable sources about the overarching topic (e.g. Moon landings in fiction) to say, which is something that has already been discussed thoroughly resulting in the current phrasing of MOS:POPCULT. The community has rejected having these kinds of TV Tropes-style lists that merely provide examples in favour of prose articles about the topic in question. The way I usually put it is that we don't want list of rainy days in London, we want climate of London (and the essay WP:CARGO puts it thusly: Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. (There are some elephant jokes in elephant joke, for example.) But simply amassing huge piles of them doesn't make an analysis. What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research that is forbidden here.)). A good example of this is Earth in science fiction, which was nominated for deletion back when it was just a list of examples (see WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination)), but was rewritten as a prose article and is now a WP:Good article thanks mainly to User:Piotrus, whom I gave a WP:Deletion to Quality Award as a result. The benefit of doing what I'm doing—replacing the lists with prose articles where I can and redirecting them where I cannot—instead of deleting them first (as with WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction) is that the edit history is retained in case anybody wants to write lists like these over at e.g. TV Tropes or Wikia. TompaDompa (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Justified or not, these massive deletions are also breaking links from other articles. If you're going to make these changes, you should also go through and fix all the links. This includes, but is not limited to Stars_and_planetary_systems_in_fiction in Omicron Persei. The articles may or may not be improved by these deletions, but please don't make a mess in the process. Fcrary (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked, TompaDompa was removing unreferenced fancruft and replacing it with some reliably sourced analysis. I'll review the examples provided here when I have more time, but please don't criticize editors for cleaning up accumulated years of garbage that dominate so many science fiction topics (which instead of providing an analysis of the topic are kitchen sink unreferenced lists of trivia). Should the project get involved? Yes, and I recommend awarding a barnstar to TompaDompa for their cleanup efforts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC) PS. I had time to look at Uranus in fiction before and the current version is clearly superior. What's the problem? That unreferenced trivia was removed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, but if someone really cares about clearing out that sort of junk, maybe List of adjectivals and demonyms of astronomical bodies deserves some attention (or deletion.) It's basically just a list of the names of planets, asteroids, etc. with the names converted to the linguistically correct, adjectival form. And in most cases, there are no reference nor any indication that anyone has ever used the listed adjectival form. Talk about an unreferenced list of trivia. I was thinking of nominating it for deletion, but then I realized that it's linked from all the articles about all those planets, moons, etc. And I didn't want to manually clean up all the broken links. Maybe someone with a script to clean up broken links could handle it. Fcrary (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When I saw that the Tintin Moon journey comic, which has an article, was removed from the Moon landings in fiction page, then I knew that excess removal was underway. Any page which has an article which includes good references should not be removed from these culture collection articles and should be put back. That will now require a group effort, and yet the editor is continuing to remove and lessen Wikipedia's collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Diff please. Was that fact referenced to an independent source? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TompaDompa (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. As the author of space travel in science fiction (a GA that I feel is quite relevant to this WP too), written in the style of TompaDompa's rewrites, I can only say I am grateful it didn't exist before in the form of the trivial list of 'works featuring science fiction'. All the trivia lists that are being slowly rewritten now are, well, WP:TRIVIA. Notable works featuring whatever elements can be included a category, and most topics fail WP:NLIST criteria when looked as a list (ex. no source out there outside Wikipedia ever concerned itself with listing fictional works that feature Uranus). Further, such lists are usually 90% unreferenced and attract indiscriminate cruft. I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument that they are useful in a trivial way, but at the end of the day, TRIVIA and WP:ITSUSEFUL argue against having them on Wikipedia. Rewriting them into analytical articles (that certainly can list some relevant works) in the style of encyclopedia - as seen not just in our MoS but also in works like The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy - should be encouraged, not criticized. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There are parallel discussions at Talk:Stars and planetary systems in fiction and Talk:Tau Ceti in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:SpaceX South Texas launch site
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SpaceX South Texas launch site that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Assessment of CXBN, CXBN-2, and List of spacecraft deployed from the International Space Station
Hello all, could someone assess the articles CXBN, CXBN-2 and List of spacecraft deployed from the International Space Station and perhaps mark them as patrolled? I created then and would like a third party to review them. Thanks in advance! :) Nigos (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Done! I cannot mark it as patrolled though, because I don't have that right. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! Nigos (t c) 02:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship peer review
I just gonna left the peer review here for anyone to log their concerns about the article. Cheers. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

New cable transport system
Cable suspended from platform in space dropped to Earth's floor allows fuel less transport to space aboard a transport platform that rides cable thru clouds into space ... 2600:1700:3331:810:2599:2116:51CA:514E (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment notice
SpaceX Starship has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 15:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Christopher C. Kraft Jr.
I have nominated Christopher C. Kraft Jr. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

""
The redirect has been nominated for deletion. Is there a suitable target to repoint this to? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe Space Shuttle abort modes; The only uses I know for the term is when a Space Shuttle uses powered pitcharound after an emergency shortly after take-off.--Cincotta1 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"Last flight" entry for active rockets
How useful is this field? For rockets flying frequently it is often outdated. At Falcon 9 Full Thrust it was updated just 6 times last year while the rocket flew 31 times, so most of the time the entry was wrong. Unlike the launch statistics - which give some information about overall use and reliability even if they are one or two launches behind - the field is completely outdated when it doesn't get updated after a launch. Can we use this field for retired rockets only? --mfb (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's useful in some cases. For example, the Angara A5 made its first flight in 2014, but didn't fly again until 2020. During that time, the "last flight" field was a useful indication that, while technically in service, it wasn't in active use. For launch vehicles which fly many times a year, I guess we can just leave the field blank if keeping it up to date is a problem. Fcrary (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Fcrary. --Neopeius (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you think of just using the year for these cases? It shows that the rocket is in active use, and it limits updates to the beginning of the year. --mfb (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Dates and times section in the style guide
As seen here WikiProject_Spaceflight/Style_guide. This style guide is in violation of MOS:DATERET so must be removed. Specifically it says that articles should be self-consistent but that there is no overarching date standard. And many spaceflight pages ARE connected to specific countries and the main date standard in that country should be used. NASA for example uses American date standards so pages for NASA missions should match that. NASA-related articles fit "strong national ties" for example. Ergzay (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing that. This is not an issue a project can just decide for itself. Further, project members shouldn't be edit warring to use DMY dates where articles have used MDY dates in the past, as User:CRS-20 is currently doing at Space Shuttle. BilCat (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, for the love of Pete. I should have known. --Neopeius (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Mentioning you as you made the original change that I removed. I looked at the referenced page and there was zero consensus on using DMY format, only for using UTC. Because of those changes a user has been going around to every single US spaceflight article and converting them to DMY and the damage is now significant and difficult to revert. Ergzay (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not the case. The style guide does not violate WP:DATERET. DATERET applies to existing articles. Article style should not be changed without consensus. Edit warring is unacceptable. The NASA style guide specifies DMY., which is why the project guide recommends it. But it applies only to new articles. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot override WP-wide guidelines at the project level, even for new articles. BilCat (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but this is not the case. No WP-wide guidelines are being overridden. MOS:DATETIES: In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The exceptions need to be decided at the MOS level, not the project level. BilCat (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? It reads to me like the MOS says In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles then brings up the US military in a for example. This reads to me like an "including but not limited to the US military", where the military is just one example of a topic with a customary date format. (joke): I think, if your interpretation is that that should be a complete list, the text there in the MOS should be replaced with  &lt;/joke&gt; Leijurv (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The "customary usage" for NASA-written articles is the MDY format so MDY should be used. Ergzay (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have something that says that this NASA page is official in some way? It appears hidden away on the site and I can't find anything linking to it. More-so, it goes against NASA's general publishing everywhere else in it's material where MDY format is always used. More-so, the date format used historically when NASA historical events occurred was also MDY format. You say edit warring is unacceptable and I agree however I would not call "restoring pages" as edit warring. I agree that pages that are already MDY should not be changed. However changing DMY pages back to MDY pages after they have been changed is acceptable in my opinion. Ergzay (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * After reading that NASA style guide, I don't think it is applicable. It specifically says it is about what "NASA history authors, editors, proofreaders, and printers" should do. And in the later text, it's pretty clear it's about what people writing histories of NASA work should do. That means it's not applicable to NASA media relations or PIO publications, and those publications are not consistent about date formats. Fcrary (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is some suggested wording for the style guide: "Dates should be in the date format used by the launching company or country if the company does not specify or use a specific format. If the mission or object is international then day-month-year format (7 July 1983) should be used." Ergzay (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While that sounds fine to me, couldn't someone just as easily claim that this still violates MOS:DATERET, just as much as the previous wording did? Since this recommends a different standard than the MOS (the MOS only recognizing "national ties", while this refers to the date format used by the launching company, or DMY in the case of no strong national ties). Leijurv (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Launch Control Center
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Launch Control Center that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Expert needed at SpaceX Starship
Hi, I am one of the main editors of that article and I would like to have it checked for any factual inaccuracies. I am no expert on the subject matter, even though I've delved in deep on materials for a few months. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

NERVA
I have the article on NERVA up for review at Featured article candidates/NERVA/archive2. The article is all about NASA's efforts to build a nuclear-powered upper stage. Comments welcome. Or just read the article and enjoy. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  00:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Crystal balls
A whole bunch of my edits to ISS-related articles, such as have just been revedrted by User:Mfb.

I had added cited text to the effect that "continued international collaboration on ISS missions has been thrown into doubt by the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and related sanctions on Russia", which they have removed, with edit summaries including bogus claims that there is "no indication that this would affect the mission at all".

They have also undone changes of the kind "Mission X will..." to "Misson X is planned to'...". Such expressions are an egregious breach of WP:CRYSTAL, since Wikipedia is in no position to assert that such things will happen in the future, even before the war in Ukraine makes it increasingly unlikely.

My edits should be restored. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We report plans. The plans have not changed and at least in the articles I reverted there is no indication that they would. Even the crew swap is still planned (Montalbano is the ISS program manager). Panic-editing every single article connected to the ISS is not appropriate. If you want to get rid of every single "x will ..." in Wikipedia where it's not inevitable by fundamental physics, or even get rid of of every statement about the future altogether, start an RFC. It's possible that I reverted a "will" -> "planned to" change where that change was appropriate, that can be restored of course. If you want to fill every spaceflight article with an exhaustive list of every event that could potentially change any plans in the future, discuss this here before editing tons of articles (I'll be strongly against it). --mfb (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Misson X is planned to'..." (which you reverted) is reporting a plan. "Mission X will..." is a false assertion of certainty. There was no "panic" editing; please do not abandon the assumption of good faith. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You added what looks like identical text to something like 30 articles. I don't see any scenario where this would be appropriate. I also don't see any attempt to evaluate a potential impact on an article-by-article basis. For most of these articles there is no indication that the invasion would be affecting the discussed plans at all. It's possible that my reverts also reverted a good change here or there. That's something I already wrote. Feel free to change that where appropriate, independent of this discussion. --mfb (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your lack of understanding is not a reason to revert - much less mass revert - edits. Each of my edits was made (unlike your reverts, evidently) after reading and considering the individual article concerned. Once again: please do not abandon the assumption of good faith. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am having trouble understanding why you think that saying "Mission X will" (instead of "Mission X is planned to") is an . Could you help me out with specifically what sentence(s) in WP:CRYSTAL support this? Specifically about the phrasing of "will" versus "is planned to". From my perspective, I see, which makes it seem fine, if sourced. The main idea of WP:CRYSTAL, to my reading, is cautioning against presenting original research as if it were speculation about the future. Seems fairly straightforward to me: Wikipedia does not predict the future, itself, but it can report on future events if properly referenced?
 * And picking on the specific linked example,, I'm also having a hard time seeing it. This seems perfectly fine to me, because, we are following WP:CRYSTAL and crediting the statement to NASA. Did NASA say that the mission will fly on a Crew Dragon? If so, this is fine. We don't need to change it to "should fly on a Crew Dragon", because that's inserting our own unverifiable uncertainty into NASA's statement. NASA's statement did not have this uncertainty, so we should not inject it. Also, "would" is, in my opinion, already too uncertain. I would write . Leijurv (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A more pertinent policy, in my view, would be WP:SYNTH. The cited source did not mention Axiom Mission 2. And the cited source has language such as and  which casts a lot of doubt on whether it's WP:DUE to reduce this down to just the one side of  (where's the "but the ISS continues to operate its science and research missions regardless of pearl clutching and Rogozin's posturing on the ground"). I would call that an "egregious" breach of WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH, to take this Nature article, which is far from clear that collaboration on the ISS is at risk even now, and apply it to an unrelated space mission that could dock with the ISS in the future. Leijurv (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Could you help me out with specifically what sentence(s) in WP:CRYSTAL support this?" The second sentence: "Wikipedia does not predict the future.". Also, further down, "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident.". HTH Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at the context around that: It's saying that verifiability still applies for future events. It's not saying that we can't report what reliable sources say about future events.
 * For the second part about "dates are not definite" can you share how that applies to ? We have it credited to NASA (not said in WP:WIKIVOICE), and we have "would". Leijurv (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not predict the future, but our references report anticipated events in the future. We reflect the status of these references. Currently the sentence is in the following articles. I suggest to keep it there for now, and remove it or replace it with actual changes if there are any in the near future: List of commanders of the International Space Station, List of visiting expeditions to the International Space Station, SpaceX Crew-5, SpaceX Crew-6, Boeing Starliner-1, Soyuz MS-22, Sergey Prokopyev (cosmonaut), Russian Orbital Segment, Roscosmos. In Soyuz MS-21 the sentence was removed by a different user as the flight launched normally. --mfb (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia says co-operation on the ISS will end - but doesn't say when, which makes the statement pretty trivial. Russia wants to provide details "in the near future", so maybe we'll get more specific information soon. --mfb (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Or not so soon. Rogozin delays decision on space station future: "but there are no signs of any near-term changes in station operations" --mfb (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice on Hubble Space Telescope
Article about to be dethroned with issues noticed. 2001:4455:30B:6C00:45B7:D10F:374A:178A (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * To be clear, an entry has not been made on the Featured articles review page; standard practice is to raise concerns at an article's Talk page and give them a couple weeks to see if they get resolved before escalating. The citation needed tags on Hubble Space Telescope have been resolved, but other problems may be lurking: dead links, outdated material, text sourced only to press releases that needs the more tempered judgment of a peer-reviewed journal article, etc. Community input would be much appreciated. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Constellation program
This is a collaboration group that aims to improve an article, one at a time. Currently, the broad topic is spaceflight, though this may change in the future. Come in if you are interested! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

error
For the latest starlink launched you have launch hour as "22" but it was actually "20" David Moore editor, Astronomy Ireland magzine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:A2C5:7A00:A064:D703:879B:6F75 (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Judith Resnik
I have the article on Judith Resnik up for review at Featured article candidates/Judith Resnik/archive1. As usual, I am in need of reviewers. The article isn't very long, because her career as an astronaut was a short one. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  22:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Christopher C. Kraft Jr.
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Christopher C. Kraft Jr./archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Are space tourists astronauts? Are they flying "missions"?
I am opening this discussion as a result of reverts on Christopher Sembroski, Hayley Arceneaux, Jared Isaacman, Anna Menon, and Sarah Gillis all of whom are involved in SpaceX's tourism operation Inspiration4 and derivative Polaris Dawn. These are paying passengers on a fully automated flight who have no control over the spacecraft as detailed here: SpaceX Inspiration4 mission will send 4 people with minimal training into orbit — and bring space tourism closer to reality, "the rocket and crew capsule are both fully automated — no one on board will need to control any part of the launch or landing".

The company, and the main paying customer Isaacman, have been describing these trips as "missions", which is an odd choice as it seems no one sent them other than themselves, and the tourists in these fully automated capsules as astronauts along with made up titles such as commander (there is no role for the crew), pilot (who doesn't actually pilot anything), mission specialist (there is no mission), and the Startrek themed chief medical officer (Arceneaux is at least a physician, so she was medical, though chief only of herself).

I my view, tourists paying for these trips are not flying "space missions" nor are they astronauts in any reasonable sense of the word. Ham (chimpanzee) and Laika have a better claim to this title, and could at least be said to be carrying out a mission, Ham was trained at pulling levers for example and this was measured in space versus earth. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

FAA does not determine whether or not who are considered astronauts.

According to the dictionary Merriam-Webster, an astronaut is defined as "a person who travels beyond the earth's atmosphere," or "a trainee for spaceflight."

In the U.S., the FAA and the U.S. military awards astronaut wings to those who fly above 50 miles (80 km). However, NASA astronauts don't receive wings to qualify their astronaut status. Since the dawn of human spaceflight, "wings" have not been a necessary requirement to achieve astronaut status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpenz (talk • contribs) 21:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * NASA has astronaut wings for its civilian astronauts. The US FAA used to issue commercial astronaut wings but this was discontinued in 2022. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Tourists. The FAA stopped its silly commercial astronaut wings program after five months: No more commercial astronaut wings: FAA ceases program with arrival of 'space tourism era'. We should only use commercial astronauts for actual professionals, like Charles D. Walker or any other salaried modern equivalent with actual training and a role. Tourists are tourist, same as Space Mountain ride just a bit more expensive. --StellarNerd (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I would say the fact that the spacecraft is automated is irrelevant. Many astronauts have flown as "mission specialists" or "payload specialists". Their role had nothing to do with operating the spacecraft. Similarly, I think it's irrelevant whether they are paid by the government, someone else, or unpaid. (And I find it odd that you consider being on a "mission" relevant, or that a "mission" has to be a task assigned by others. That certainly isn't the normal usage of the word.) For the distinction between an astronaut and a tourist, I think the primary distinction should be what they do in space. If they're simply along to enjoy the ride, clearly they are tourists. But if they're doing some sort of useful work, they're not just tourists. Even if they aren't highly trained or specialists in the sort of work they will be doing. Note that the current NASA administrator is an "astronaut" even though he was just a Congressman who use his political influence to get a ride on the Shuttle and did an infamously inept job of conducting some experiments during the flight. So in terms of the people you mention, we should be discussing what they did during the flight. If they decided it was important to have a doctor on board and therefore included one, then that doctor would be an astronaut not a tourist. So I would certainly say Ms. Arceneaux was not just a tourist. On the Polaris Dawn mission, Mr. Isaacman will do an EVA, which is a first for a Dragon flight and testing new hardware, so he also shouldn't be considered a tourist. Fcrary (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue that the sub-orbital spaceflights like Blue origin and Virgin Galactic are all tourist expect maybe the pilots of Virgin galactic who actually have to fly the spacecraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpenz (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship
I think that this article has been fairly complete, but I afraid that it isn't comprehensive yet. What do you think? What is the article missing? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § NPOV issues in some sections at Space Race
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § NPOV issues in some sections at Space Race. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

need help
can someone help me out with my question at Talk:Autonomous spaceport drone ship it needs to be sorted out quickly Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Sally Ride
I have the article on Sally Ride up for review at Featured article candidates/Sally Ride/archive1. Ride was the third woman to fly in space. She flew two Space Shuttle missions in the 1980s. This article is the second in a series I have written on women astronauts. As usual, I am in need of reviewers, and it would good if someone from this project could take a look. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Artemis 1 improvement
The mission would launch 7 days from now at the earliest. We should improve the article to B-Class so that at the launch date, readers will be informed about this important mission. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Is spacefacts.de a reliable source?
I'm doing the GA review for Ravish Malhotra, which cites spacefacts.de several times. Can anyone here provide information that would help us decide if it's a reliable source? (In fact it would be great if there were a subpage of this project listing reliable and unreliable sources.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions can be found at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 273 in 2019 and Portal talk:Spaceflight in 2021. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks; looks like a definite no. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems like we got that question sorted, Mike Christie.

Importantly, I think it also shows that the Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the right place to have new discussions on spaceflight-related sources and get a determination as to whether a particular source is, or is not, considered an unreliable source. Have seen some editors on spaceflight articles making their own private determinations and just pulling sources in articles, without taking it to RSN. This can become a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than editor consensus about source quality. N2e (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I also think the project-specific discussions can be very useful as not everyone at WT:ALBUMS, for example, necessarily watchs the RSN. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Times and dates
Greetings. I searched the archives, and found a fair number of old discussions about date/time formats, but not whether there's an overriding 'standard' that is used in articles on spaceflight on Wikipedia. I bring this up as over at Fallen Astronaut, an IP editor changed the date of the event from August 1, 1971 to August 2, 1971. Since further in the article the August 1 date was repeated, I just assumed that it was typical IP vandalism. However another editor suggested that it may be correct.

Digging deeper, I see that the event is described here as occurring at "12:18 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time on Aug. 2, 1971" - which would be 7:18 pm Central Daylight Time on August 1 - if we assume 'Houston/Mission Control' time, or 8:18 pm Eastern Daylight time if we assume 'Kennedy Space Center' time. Not being deeply invested in technical details of how space flight times are presented, I can see the confusion myself. Is there a standard? Do we just put everything on UTC, or do we use the clock used by NASA or other space agencies for their own timelines? Pointers, guidelines, casual standards - any information would be greatly appreciated! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Formally, U.S. launches generally use UTC/ZULU time (greenwich mean time) in formal control systems supporting launch. The practical/popular information that is advertised has been converted to EST/EDT for East coast launches like Cape Canaveral and Wallops or PST/PDT for Vandenberg, etc. From a citation perspective, most news articles, etc will likely identify the local time observed at the launch site. The disparity you identify is real and is more apparent when, for example, a NASA astronaut is launched from Baikonur. With a timezone differential of about 11 hours, the locations spend almost half of every day using different date stamps. Russians would generally ID time of launch (or return) from that region where time advertised at NASA mission control in Houston would likely conform to the US central time from a public affairs perspective. Both are accurate, just dependent on the geography of the one reporting the time. My view, use the local time at the point of the event when a terrestrial one (like a launch). For space activities (on station), use the station clock which is greenwich mean time (called UTC or ZULU).SpaceHist65 (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the guidance. I can imagine with so many variables (as well as tendencies of patriotic inclinations), forcing a formal format for such things would probably not be feasible. But this gets me in the right direction. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

New section on Adopt an Astronaut?
Since every astronaut article on the Adopt an Astronaut from Groups 1-7 have been updated to a minimum of C-Class, may we add a new section and template for Shuttle Astronauts? QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * My recommendation would be to set a target of B class for groups 1-7, and C class for Group 8. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Updated NASA Article - seeking comments
Signficantly updated NASA Article to add "the other parts of NASA" which comprise over 40% of NASA's annual budget. Still working on several items but seeking advice from knowledgeable editors on a couple of things. Article is quite large in size with the additions. Looking for areas of removal and/or trimming. See items below. Looking for feedback/consensus from knowledgeable editors to make removal decisions
 * NASA. There is a paragraph in this section that is comparatively quite scientific (starts with "One issue with NEO prediction..."). The material comes from a direct copy of the Near Earth Object article section on 7 October 2019. It is out of place in a NASA article. It fits well where it is found (and has been updated) in the NEO article. Seeking comments/consensus on removal of the very detailed math paragraph. I have already updated the section and aligned it to Planetary Defense. I think that is sufficient for a NASA article. A new user demanded the return of the paragraph days ago so I complied in order not to get into an edit war. There is discussion on NASA Talk page. The user doesn't have an opinion; just decided to do a significant revert for edit count (given the lack of opinion on the topic). I found the direct copy from 2019 and that to me makes believe the info is un-necessary in this article given the subsection links to NEO anyway. Please provide comments. Thanks
 * Removal of small NASA subsection. Material is out of date. NASA has not done a very good job publishing updated guidance that is easily referenceable. I think like most, everyone is easing into a mostly normal operational condition without formal "removals" of guidance overall. Important section during the early and height of pandemic. I offer that it is OBE at this point. Proposing to remove it. Please provide comments.
 * NASA. NASA has been comparatively doing quite well in recent budget years. This seemed to be trying to state a need for more funding. The data in the paragraph is dated (I updated a survey but the financial information graph is 10 years old). There is also a more detailed article where perceptions could be addressed. Is there a reason to keep this given the Budget information at the front of the article? Please comment.
 * NASA I am old enough to appreciate the discussion and recall the Mars flight failure due to the metric english problem. that said, I don't think this is a current issue anymore. Possible to delete? Any thoughts?
 * NASA while the info is interesting, I understand seeking re-assessment of the article in the direction of a Good Article recommends an article size far less than 250K. Is this section worth the space allocated? Thoughts?

Planning to complete updates in the next week or so. I would like to seek re-assessment from this group to have the article considered for a better score. Happy to collaborate or discuss any items included and seeking opinions on the items above (or anything else that you would suggest for reduction to drive article size downward a bit). thanks for considering.. SpaceHist65 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Budget link above wrong. See update: NASA. Seeking to remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceHist65 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The article is only 79 KB. We use prose size to calculate the size of an article, not Wikitext. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Near Earth Object Detection is fine as it is now, but it should have main article hatnote to point the reader to the main article for more information
 * I would like to see the metric use retained
 * Support the deletion of the COVID section.
 * I would reinstate the first sentence of "Perceptions on NASA's Budget" about the historically high percentage during Apollo, and perhaps the graph. I don't think people care much about the 2018-2021 budgets though, and would be inclined to remove that.
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Improvements on C-Class Articles
Can someone check against the project quality scale for all C-Class astronaut articles on the Adopt an Astronaut group, to improve them to B-Class? QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Review needed for red-link page for Translational Research Institute for Space Health
I have drafted a long-time red-link page for the Translational Research Institute for Space Health and have been awaiting review for some time, if someone is available to review. Linked here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherine Tyson (talk • contribs) 13:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback for Draft New Article?
Hello, I’m an employee at Greg Wyler’s new satellite communications company, E-Space. I’ve been working on a draft for an article about the company in my Sandbox to submit to the official Articles for Creation queue for a review there, but before I do that I was wondering if anybody here might be willing to give me feedback on the draft? Thanks for your time! Talex000 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

2022_YG
2022_YG needs help. Possibly  (sdsds - talk) 06:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Local Time Vrs UTC
Recently I was very surprised to see the article for Artemis 1 using only UTC for a table of launch events, including the launch itself from Florida, and other scatterings throughout the article. As it was launched from Florida in the US shouldn't it use EST? Furthermore shouldn't all launches of spacecraft for example in Japan, India, etc. use their local time first and throughout the articles? Why are we using the local time in Greenwich and forcing readers to convert to their local times? BogLogs (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

UTC is spaceflights' time zone. If you so wished to see it in your own local time then you may convert for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankluxuries (talk • contribs) 02:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Should the Polaris Program be included in listings of US human space flight programs?
I noticed it was included in Template:US human spaceflight programs and I'm unsure how I feel about that. My gut feeling is it shouldn't be there - it sticks out like a sore thumb next to the other entries - but it 'does' say 'US' human spaceflight programs, not 'US government', so I'm unsure of what to do. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 23:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how no-one spoke up, I went ahead and removed it from the list. Maybe we can set up a new template for commercial programs if required in the future. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 20:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Paul Haney, voice of mission control at NASA
I just created an article for Paul Haney, the voice of mission control for NASA during the Gemini and Apollo programs. Thriley (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal AstroCrete --> Lunarcrete
There is a merge discussion at Talk:Lunarcrete to merge AstroCrete to Lunarcrete. AstroCrete does not appear to be have sufficient independent notability and could instead be dealt with in a section in the existing article Lunarcrete. The previous merge proposal received zero comments and was closed as no consensus so I am re-listing and posting at relevant wikiprojects to attract some comments from interested editors. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyamorph (talk • contribs) 08:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

GAR of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Artem.G (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == URFA/2020 review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. If comments are not entered on the article talk page, they may be swept up in archives here and lost. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Glynn Lunney
 * 2) Joseph Francis Shea

Space tourist vs. private astronaut
Over at Larry Connor, an IP editor and I are disagreeing over how to qualify Connor — the last two edits Special:Diff/1135040559 and Special:Diff/1135900258 summarize the disagreement. I would appreciate if we could receive a bit of attention from editors more experienced with space travel articles, so we can solve the matter. Thank you! Ariadacapo (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC
Could we get some more eyes on this RfC. NickCT (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

FAR
User:Desertarun has nominated Glynn Lunney for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Desertarun (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Question : Where to link to "resources" page ?
As mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight&diff=1046937877&oldid=1046937739, created this page for OSM data resources (and others) : Resources_for_editors --> where to link to it on the overview page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dulliman (talk • contribs) 11:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Added to project page. TJRC (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Problems with robotic spacecraft articles
There was a long-lasting problem that several overlapping articles existed simultaneously, all mostly unsourced and about the same stuff. Now, space probe, robotic spacecraft, etc are merged into one (still bad) article Uncrewed spacecraft. But there are still several articles that are problematic, and should probably be redirected to the main one.

First one is List of uncrewed spacecraft by program. It's completely unsourced, miss many spacecraft, and is just wrong in many aspects. For example it says that 'Space observatories' is a program, and lists a number of space telescopes there. Or that 'Mars missions' is a program and lists some NASA Mars missions there. The whole list looks like a bad version of List of Solar System probes and List of space telescopes, so it should probably be purged and redirected to smth like Lists of spacecraft.

Second article is Cargo spacecraft. It's basically a list and tells almost nothing about, well, cargo spacecraft. I think it can be renamed to List of cargo spacecraft (though this Comparison of space station cargo vehicles already exists), with Cargo spacecraft redirected to a section of the main Uncrewed spacecraft article.

Any thoughts or comments on this? I don't know how active this project is, but don't want to proceed with such changes purely by myself. Artem.G (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Be bold and do what you need to and ping this project if you run into difficulty.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * What Wehwalt said. We're a pretty active project, but not overly organized. :) But happy to give advice and reviews when needed. --Neopeius (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you both! I merged Cargo spacecraft to the main uncrewed spacecraft article, and redirected the list. If there are any concerns, pls ping me here! Artem.G (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

SpaceNews citations
I would like to propose that SpaceNews citations be avoided if at all possible. I have not encountered anything suggesting that they are in anyway an unreliable source, but at the time of writing, spacenews.com is excluded from the Wayback Machine and that creates a problem for citation longevity. So I propose that in instances where another reliable source can be easily found, it is used instead. askeuhd (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration and improvement on Space Food article
Hi everyone,

I have been trying to improve the Space Food article (Space food). It's currently listed under the "articles for improvement" page (Articles for improvement/Articles).

I have been working on improving this article the last few weeks such as adding more sources, reorganising content for better readability, adding more technical content to provide further explanations and context for the readers etc.

The article is currently Class C - Mid Importance on the Spaceflight WikiProject. I am trying to improve the article and perhaps even raise its class. Would anyone be interested in collaborating together on this?

Note* I originally posted this message on the article talk page but there wasn't much activity so posting here instead. Very keen to work with others to get it improved!

Thanks!

Starlights99 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Euclid
FYI File:Euclid Structural and thermal model.jpg has been nominated for deletion This is a photo of an engineering model of the spacecraft. It is to be deleted as it can be replaced as representation by an artist's rendering of the spacecraft -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Translational Research Institute for Space Health article needs review
Hello everyone,

I have drafted an article for the Translational Research Institute for Space Health, a long-time redlinked page and the country's only institute dedicated to space health. Is someone available to review and help me get the page live? It has been awaiting review since last fall and has already been through a round of edits since then.

Thank you so much in advance! Catherine Tyson (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Separate Article For Space probe
I've seen a Space probe article was redirected. This is very similar to content removal. I think info about a space probe should be on the relevant article, since there are many types of a crewed spacecraft. For example, a Space telescope, is very different from a space probe. Space probe and Space telescope are both uncrewed spacecraft. 195.5.3.58 (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said before, nothing was removed, but redirected to more general article. There article on space probe was almost completely unsourced, saying nothing more than it is a type of uncrewed spacecraft. Very few sources are available on space probes in general, and there is no need to have a separate article that reads like a dictionary term "space probe is a type of an uncrewed spacecraft that explores bodies other than Earth." Same is applicable to cargo spacecraft. As for space telescope, it's a very special type of uncrewed spacecraft, with vast literature available on the subject. Artem.G (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why sources weren't added on Space probe article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.5.3.58 (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because I see no reason for a separate article? I asked you several times to provide better sources, if you want to improve the article you can start doing it. The old article is bad, see reasons above. If you can do better, do it! Otherwise, let's see what other editors think. Artem.G (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You can add sources from articles about some of space probes. Or create a list of space probes. For example, what one is the farthest, or how long can it last. This is a reason of separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.5.3.58 (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is already a List of Solar System probes, no other list of space probes is needed. Artem.G (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If there's already a list of space probes, then, on Space probe article, please add sources about distances between the Sun and farthest space probes (this is an example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.5.3.58 (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like Artem.G beat me to saying "the list you suggest here already exists elsewhere, namely List of Solar System probes, List of uncrewed spacecraft by program and List of space telescopes, and are already linked in the section to which the redirect points". I personally think the article as it was met the deletion criteria for its lack of citations, approximate duplication of existing topics, and lack of encyclopedic content. A merge and redirect was the best outcome. I understand that it can be frustrating to see work moved, modified, or deleted, but remember the project, not any individual contributer, owns this content so we shouldn't be afraid move, modify, delete material to comply with the project's policies and guidelines and manual of style.


 * Certainly there is room for improvement. If you think the stand-alone article can be salvaged, I would recommend expanding section to which it currently points and spin-off an article after it is well-cited, clearly establishes a distinction between its topic and others that already exist, and describes the topic in an encyclopedic tone. You are certainly welcome to ask for help and comments here and at relevant article talk pages, but ultimately if you want these changes done the imperative is on you, you cannot demand that Artem.G or anyone else make them for you (I'm sure there is a guideline or policy which elaborates this concept, though I can't find it.)--Cincotta1 (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

New Article for SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)
Help expanding it and a review would be appreciated! &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship has an RFC
SpaceX Starship, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – Jadebenn (talk ·&#32;contribs ·&#32;subpages) 08:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Engine infoboxes
Combustion engines are used in many applications - Aerospace, automotive, marine and industrial. Some articles on them have infobox templates; infobox aircraft engine (aviation), Infobox engine (automotive) and Infobox rocket engine (spaceflight). Wikipedia's wider community has a consensus to merge infobox templates where possible. Various aircraft infobox templates are being merged, and the question has arisen, should the aero engine infobox be merged in with them, or would it be better to merge and extend the existing engine infoboxes? There is an ongoing discussion here, which you are invited to join. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

First Earthlings - fruit flies - in space, July 9 1946 or February 20 1947?
Seems like a key moment in space travel history when fruit flies in space, the first Earth beings launched into space, flew. But there are two conflicting initial suborbital dates mentioned in Wikipedia - July 9, 1946, on U.S. flight 7 of the V-2 rocket and U.S. V-2 flight 20 on February 20, 1947, where flies were launched into space and safely returned to Earth. Sources for both claims are provided. Which fruit flies were the accurate claimants, the July 9 1946 crew or the February 20, 1947? There is a source mentioning a July 19, 1946 flight but that one only went three miles up before failing. From what I could tell the 1947 date is important because it was the first time Earthlings were safely recovered after a space flight, but the July 9, 1946 date seems probable as the initial flight of the flies into space. The page Animals in space would have to be changed if the 1946 date holds up. Any definitive information? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope We have spacecraft with light speed
I wish. Zulfikar Chaniago (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Manned vs. Crewed/Piloted Spaceflight
Some of the new terminology being used seems to be a polarizing and somewhat controversial topic among space enthusiasts in this day and age. I also realize this is NASA's new, preferred expression more so than that of Wikipedians who happen to frequently write about NASA and space exploration. While I can appreciate the use of "crewed" (and also sometimes "piloted") as a more gender-inclusive version of "manned," it does also sound kind of excessive in a lot of respects. Even during the latter half of the 20th century, female pilots and workers/scientists at NASA still used "Manned," whether or not they regarded it as sexist. Should manned be permanently and almost entirely replaced by crewed? Maybe not.

While I'm more than in favor of bringing in more diverse groups of people to organizations like NASA and elsewhere, I really think this (gender identity/identity politics) issue should be left alone. Also, while NASA is largely doing the right thing to appeal to more (especially marginalized) groups of people, I personally think they are making a bit too big a deal about this, especially when NASA should still be focused on endeavors like cooperation with groups such as ESA, CSA and JSA, as well as competition with the Chinese Space Program and what's left of the Russian Space Program. Wiscipidier (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong venue for changing current Wikipedia practices on this matter, per WP:CONLEVEL. As I noted at Talk:Human spaceflight, the correct venue would be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. TompaDompa (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, my friend, thank you for moving me along some more. We should get to the right place very soon. Wiscipidier (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Wiscipidier

Pale Blue Dot photo, I think that text is wrong
In our article Timeline_of_first_images_of_Earth_from_space,

text for the Pale Blue Dot photo says -

>The Pale Blue Dot is the first image of Earth from beyond all of the other Solar System planets.

As I understand it, that is incorrect: The photo was taken near Saturn and was not taken "from beyond all of the other Solar System planets".

If appropriate, could someone please go to Timeline_of_first_images_of_Earth_from_space and edit?

Thanks - 189.122.241.196 (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Requesting input on the merger of two articles
I propose a merger of space sunshade and space mirror (climate engineering). It was already brought up over a decade ago, but wasn't acted on purely because of no activity over 4 years (between 2012 and 2016). Since then, there has still been no good reason to keep these rather small, low-traffic, highly overlapping articles separate. I hope that requesting input from more members will allow us to settle this faster now.

Discussion goes on space sunshade talk page. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl bot
The User:Qwerfjkl (bot) has auto-catalogued a number of spaceflight-specific articles as belonging to the Astronomy WikiProject. This is happening because it uses ORES. I'm gradually getting them changed over. Gotta love robots making more work for humans, yes? Praemonitus (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Task completed (for now). Praemonitus (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The Discussion for AI in Rockets
As we know that rockets are developing in an ever increasing speed, there is need for AI in rocket science. This refers to the ability for the rocket to take decisions on it's own at and during an LoS. Let's try to figure out the best! I'l be writing letters on major updates. Let's make it happen. HypeEditor (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Duplicated lists?
There is a featured List of space telescopes, and additionally List of X-ray space telescopes and List of proposed space observatories, both looks to be duplicates of sections of the first list. Should they be merged into the main list? I see no good reason to have three lists (two of them mostly unsourced) instead of good-sourced and well-organizes one list that we already have. Any thoughts on this? Artem.G (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Kennedy May 25, 1961 speech
Realized that John Kennedy's 1961 speech to a joint session of Congress calling for sending a man to the Moon and bringing him safely back to Earth doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Although it is covered a bit in the "We choose to go to the Moon" article it probably should have its own due to the momentous shift in national and civilizational priorities regarding space exploration. Thoughts on a fuller article? I could put up a stub but not do it full justice, does anyone else want to give it a go before a stub is placed. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! There is the french article fr:Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs. Artvill (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Reinstate "manned"
Except for the fact that "manned spaceflight" is gender-neutral (like in many other languages, in English "man" not only means a male human but can mean "human" of any gender, and the term "womanned" doesn't exist), the term (un-)manned is critical for stating whether a spacecraft is actually flying with people on board or not. If you're talking about a "crewed spacecraft" or a "human spacecraft" you're talking about a spacecraft that is able to fly people into space and usually does so. It doesn't necessarily mean that a crewed spacecraft is actually flying with a crew right now however, i.e. flying manned. A crewed spacecraft may fly unmanned, such as Mercury-Redstone 1A, Apollo 4, Crew Demo-1 and Boe-OFT. When you say a spacecraft is manned, things are clear. Therefore, WP should be allowing for the term "manned" as much as for "crewed". And WP doesn't seem to like the term "human" either for whatever reason. "Human" should be allowed too in order to include space tourists who are passengers rather than crew. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm personally sympathetic to that position, but consider the language in MOS:GNL.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm proposing a change to the MOS:GNL policy as "manned" is gender-neutral. And since it allows for "human" already I have no idea why you and the other user insisted so much on reverting my edits in the Apollo articles. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree. If NASA uses crewed instead of manned, it's okay by me. I use "robotic" or "automated" for craft not designed to have people in them, which I call "crewed". I know it can seem more cumbersome, but you get used to it.--Neopeius (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Notability of suborbital spaceflight
Galactic 02 flew yesterday and it looks like we've finally reached an era where commercial spaceflight (if only for a few minutes) is ordinary. At what point do we stop creating new articles for every suborbital flight and every astronaut? Every crew member of Galactic 02 currently has their own article, but they're really starting to stretch the notability guidelines ("second person diagnosed with Parkinson's disease to fly to space" etc). Jpatokal (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Bump. Galactic 03 flew a few days ago and the notability of its passengers will keep dropping. Jpatokal (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree there don't need to be an article on each space tourist. Reaching space (leaving the Earth's atmosphere) is a great fate, as is summiting Mt Everest. Yet, most people who successfully climb Everest don't have an article, so there doesn't need to be one for every spacefarer either. There also needs to be done something about that list on the right in suborbital spaceflight. Virgin Galactic is planning to go to space every month and Blue Origin wants to return to manned spaceflight next year. Eventually, the list would have more than twelve spaceflights per year. As for articles on spaceflights, I guess instead of making one per each spaceflight one could create articles like "List of SpaceShipTwo flights in [year]" or "List of manned suborbital spaceflights in [year]". Glasfaser Wien (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's the same reason I stopped tallying suborbital flights in the [YEAR] in Spaceflight series after 1965. It's also why I won't be giving the suborbital space dogs their own articles either.--Neopeius (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sputnik 2
For some reason, someone last year gave Sputnik 2 a "C" rating. I guess there's a temptation to give the Top Importance articles as high a rating as possible. Nevertheless, half of it was uncited, and it was ungainly and ugly. I spent today fixing it, and it went from 60% C probability per Rater to 90% B.

Anyway, just fishing for compliments since it's my first Vital spaceflight article. :) I'll go for GA soon. --Neopeius (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliability discussion on Encyclopedia Astronautica
A "Request For Comment" (RFC) Reliable sources/Noticeboard has been started to rate it as


 * Option 1: Generally reliable
 * Option 2: Additional considerations
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable
 * Option 4: Deprecate

Please participate in it. Ilenart626 (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. :) tl;dr--sometimes it's all we have. When it's not, use something else. But don't aggressively deprecate articles that use it. --Neopeius (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. &#x0020;This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Virgin Orbit and Matthew Brown
Hello! Please check Virgin Orbit. A businessman, Matthew Brown, tried to buy the company before the bankruptcy, but a ref doubts his qualities as a businessman and claims that there are attempts to edit Wikipedia from IP address in Dallas, Texas (WP:AUTO). A new IP range from Fort Worth, Texas (so near Dallas), Special:Contributions/2600:1700:FE4A:1400:28FE:30:7044:1D33/64 continues to edit wiki by removing refs and the expression "questionable businessman", and adding a Linkedin post which is a response to Tim Fernholz's article on Quartz, written by Matthew Brown. Thanks. Best regards ! Artvill (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

{talk}Subscript 70.34.172.122 (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Tiangong & Shenzhou program (mainly Shenzhou 12-17) grammar & oddities
Hello! The article for the Tiangong space station and the articles for every Chinese Shenzhou mission from 2021 onwards (Shenzhou 12, Shenzhou 13, Shenzhou 14, Shenzhou 15, Shenzhou 16, and to an extent Shenzhou 17) have some oddities and inconsistencies with other pages covering the Shenzhou program's earlier missions, and in the case of all but two of them, significant English grammar issues. Wanted to alert you all since I'm still something of a rookie as an editor (only just made an actual account recently) and didn't want to jump in without input or at least notice.

Here's the big stuff I could find:


 * In the articles for Shenzhou 12-17, the "Spacecraft properties" section of the infobox lists "Spacecraft" and then simply names the mission. This is not present in any article about Shenzhou 1 through 11, and feels redundant to list at all.
 * In the articles for Shenzhou 12-17, also in the "Spacecraft properties" section of the infobox, manufacturer China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation's name is written out fully, while in the articles for Shenzhou 10 and 11 it is abbreviated to CASC, and in the articles for Shenzhou 1-9 it is not listed at all. In the main Shenzhou spacecraft article, the manufacturer is listed as the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST), which is a subsidiary of CASC. Which is more correct to list? As for abbreviation, I favor fully writing out the name, whichever it may be, and listing the manufacturer on pages where it is not currently listed.
 * The articles for Shenzhou 12-15 all contain a "Spacecraft" section which states, without any citation, that the Shenzhou spacecraft is "based heavily" on the Soviet/Russian Soyuz spacecraft. This is incorrect, and conflicts with the main article about Shenzhou which itself has a section highlighting the differences between the two designs. The formatting on these sections is also inconsistent, with the image showing a diagram of Shenzhou's layout being out of place on the pages for Shenzhou 12, 13, and 15. In addition, these sections should probably have a Main Article link to the Shenzhou spacecraft page for ease of access.
 * In the articles for Tiangong and Shenzhou 12-15, the grammar is incorrect in a significant number of places.
 * Sections of the articles for Shenzhou 12-15 still refer to now-past mission events and program plans in future tense.
 * Shenzhou 12's article contains program information throughout, as well as a section on International participation in the Tiangong program, which would be better suited to the main article about Tiangong.
 * Shenzhou 12 and 13's articles both have a section entitled "Aftermath", which should probably either be re-titled to something less negative, or more probably removed entirely and integrated with the main mission summary.
 * Shenzhou 13's article uses the word "national" in its second paragraph when discussing a spaceflight record, where "Chinese" should be used to indicate the record was one set for a Chinese spaceflight.

My plan, pending any input or objections, is to go through and re-format the Shenzhou 12-15 articles entirely, using the Shenzhou 17 page as a guide in terms of general formatting and grammar while retaining the greater detail the articles already include. I also plan to give the Tiangong space station article a copyedit pass for grammar. As for the quirks with the infoboxes and Shenzhou's manufacturer, I'm open to suggestions. Thank you in advance for any guiding input! 4thGalilean (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chandrayaan programme
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chandrayaan programme that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

List inclusion criteria
Hello! I recently splitted List of Germans relocated to the US via the Operation Paperclip and List of Germans transported to the USSR via the Operation Osoaviakhim from the main articles. Several thousands of Germans were involved in both programs, and certainly not everybody is notable enough to be included here. Currently, both lists include (1) people about whom we have articles, (2) people about whom there are articles in other languages (mainly in German), (3) red links and probably not really notable people mostly sourced with astronautix.com, where usual entry is just German engineer in WW2, member of the Rocket Team in the United States thereafter. Worked in aerodynamics, later returned to Germany.

Born: 1912-10-19. Birth Place: Munich.

German expert in guided missiles during World War II. Member of the German rocket team, arrived in America under Project Paperclip on 16 November 1945 aboard the Argentina from La Havre. As of January 1947, working at Fort Bliss, Texas. Living in Grunewald, Germany in 2004.

Country: Germany, USA. Bibliography: 1980.

As we definitely don't want to have a list of 1000+ names, should (3) be removed? What do you think? Artem.G (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

X-ray telescope article merge
Hello there! There are three articles that I think should be merged as their scope is mostly the same: X-ray telescope, X-ray space telescope, and X-ray astronomy detector. The second article also has a long list, that mostly duplicate List of X-ray space telescopes, and the list itself is mostly a duplicate of List_of_space_telescopes. What do you think? Artem.G (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested merge for two early spaceflight categories to a third category

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

Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 15, please have a read, thanks. A question for this Wikiproject should be when do single-year "...in spaceflight" categories start. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Category:1940s in spaceflight was created. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 05:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The section above was closed as "Done."

Requested move at Talk:Escape velocity
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Escape velocity that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Lunar landers navbox

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

Request for comments (at User talk:Sdsds/Sandbox/Lunar landers navbox) regarding: User:Sdsds/Sandbox/Lunar landers navbox. (sdsds - talk) 22:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merged with User:Cincotta1/sandbox/Commercial Lunar Payload Services template and moved to mainspace as Template:Lunar landers. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk)

The section above was closed as "Done."

Electric power and zumm photo shoot meshing
miki electric guitar solo travel to hearing back 41.116.238.11 (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Fritz von Opel in various space related articles
There is a discussion regarding the above topic at WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. You are invited to provide your reviews and comments. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Military Orbital Development System
Military Orbital Development System has been proposed for merging with Blue Gemini. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

NRHO
After making some edits to Near-rectilinear halo orbit I rated it for this WikiProject as class=Start, importance=Low. Either of those are debatable. In particular since Artemis 3 is planned for NRHO rendezvous does it warrant importance=Mid? (sdsds - talk) 23:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Delisting of STS-74
Per Talk:STS-74, the article on the STS-74 Shuttle-Mir mission is no longer considered a WP:GA. Some work there to improve the article would be useful. (sdsds - talk) 22:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for STS-74
STS-74 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See below at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight (sdsds - talk) 22:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hoppers
The encyclopedia could be improved by creating an article on hopper-style exploration vehicles. The Hopper (spacecraft) article currently describes a previously proposed orbital launch system. Perhaps a stub like User:Sdsds/Sandbox/Hopper (space exploration) makes sense? (sdsds - talk) 23:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Move Starlab Space Station to Starlab (space station)
I don't think renaming Starlab Space Station to Starlab (space station) would be controversial, but would appreciate hearing here any supporting or dissenting opinions. (sdsds - talk) 02:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposed for EagleCam
Wikiproject members may be interested in the discussion at Talk:IM-1 (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Gaganyaan
Listing the articles related to the Gaganyaan missions, including two drafts for further development:


 * 1) Gaganyaan-1
 * 2) Draft:Gaganyaan-2
 * 3) Draft:Gaganyaan-4
 * 4) Gaganyaan crewmembers

Pinging ISRO-interested members and anyone else who may be interested. Erick Soares3 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * calling some of the people who have been creating the biographies. Erick Soares3 (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ok, will try LakhnawiNawab (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks erick , will try and see if we can get more sources to cite them . Also do we have confirmation of a third gaganyaan test flight ? ThanX RAZOR-X (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * erik Draft:Gaganyaan-3 is now live RAZOR-X (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Draft:Gaganyaan-3 RAZOR-X (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @4-RAZOR 01 and LakhnawiNawab Thanks! I think that the crewed mission should soon be good enough for the main page - but it will take some time before G-2 and G-3 are ready... Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Calling ! What do you think? Erick Soares3 (talk) 16:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Erick Soares3 for mentioning me.
 * I think the main article: Gaganyaan statisfies the current demand of information.
 * But if we have enough bulks of information available specifically for articles closely related and inclusive to it as you listed above, I think we can go ahead👍🏻 Editor8220 (talk) 17:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * so we will keep em as drafts till the actual missions will launch ... Good..
 * Any opinion on a page titles List of gaganyaan missions? RAZOR-X (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Editor8220 You're welcome!
 * Personally, I think that at least G-4 has enough information to enter main space as a stub — specially in comparison to missions that are about to happen, like Shenzhou 18, SpaceX Crew-8 and SpaceX Crew-9. For much, I think we could use a "background" section, telling in short how the crew was chosen and how their training in Russia/India went.
 * @4-RAZOR 01 I would let everything at Gaganyaan until it needs to be split into its own page. Erick Soares3 (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * K RAZOR-X (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For anyone interested, I got this picture at the PM Narendra Modi Youtube Channel (ISRO video uploaded in Creative Commons): File:Gaganyaan crew at Russia.jpg. I wanted to upload the video, but the Video2Commons is glitched right now. Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Calling who may be interested. If Pace has time, would be great if you could contribute to the following discussion: Articles for deletion/Angad Pratap. Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:RLV Technology Demonstration Programme
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RLV Technology Demonstration Programme that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

History of spaceflight article needs development
History of spaceflight was supposed to be a well-developed article, but apparently it was neglected for 2 decades of its existence. I just nuked a massive listcruft that lists every single mission as a subheader and use excerpt to fill out the content. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Neopeius, you may be interested in this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I reverted the large scale undiscussed removal of spaceflight programs - it's pretty much what the article is about. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it is an unsustainable cluster and the content should be deleted to make space for new content. All of these programs, in one way or another, has been mentioned in the main body of the article. Also, could you stop watchlisting my edits? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Luckily I have many crossovers with you on my watchlist (no, my watchlist doesn't include "CactiStaccingCrane contributions"), as do probably many other wikiproject members. You have a tendency to go into a feature article, such as today with Venus, and almost totally rewrite the lead. I didn't check Venus because I know you revert my reverts, usually for no reason, and I would ask that others look these over, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly encourage editors use the talk page for articles when making or contemplating certain kinds of changes. Large removals or additions of text; also changing section header text. Expanding a bit on each:
 * There's no hard limit on article size. Obsolete material can/should be updated or removed, or marked as needing update. Somewhat by convention if material has been tagged 'update needed' for an appropriate length of time and no update happens it gets removed.
 * Section headers were tricky already, and as wikipedia technology changes are getting trickier still. They served as anchors for redirects and links from other articles. At a minimum proper article maintenance involves assuring any such links still work. The new wrinkle involves 'excerpt' functionality where whole paragraphs from an article or section get transcluded into other articles. Changes that could break those deserve extra caution. If there's urgency; move fast and break things. Then as a courtesy, mention the reason for the urgency in talk page discussion.
 * (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see WikiProject Deletion sorting/Spaceflight for some major topics nominated for deletion
Emphasis on two new deletion attempts which may be of added interest to members of this WikiProject (not everyone marks the sorting page on their watchlist). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Flags for astronauts
A user removed the flags in Boeing Crewed Flight Test and there is some discussion on their talk page, but we use these flags in hundreds of articles. I prefer keeping the flags (and adding them back for the CFT). What do others think? --mfb (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Maungapohatu's is selective and subjective: when the astronaut is representing a country the flag is highly relevant; not so much when the flag is simply showing an astronauts citizenship. Yet consistency it would be nice to keep all flags. IMO, NASA astronauts certainly represent the USA. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 07:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Dyson_sphere
After a protracted argument on the Dyson sphere talk page that seemed to be going nowhere, I decided to consolidate and restate the basic issues concerning this section in general, and one particular instance that has proven especially vexing, as I see them. I hope that members of this and other related WikiProjects might weigh in and give their opinions. P Aculeius (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Duplicated lists for Mars missions
There is this List of missions to Mars, and there are three lists that are mostly duplicates, List of Mars landers, List of Mars orbiters, and List of artificial objects on Mars. I think both can be safely redirected to the main list without any loss of content, with a little merge from the third article (section on garbage on Mars). What do you all think? Artem.G (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed: having all four lists is ridiculous Redacted II (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)