Talk:2006 in spaceflight

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Spaceflight: Timeline of spaceflight High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the timeline of spaceflight working group.

Successful so far

Does that mean "We haven't heard anything went wrong" or "We know that it is working as of now" ? Military and Chinese satellites will often have nothing in the public domain about failures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.23.132 (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interlinks

I think the list should be linked from the various space agency articles, e.g., ESA, NASA, ... -- Robocoder 16:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suborbital in spaceflight list

I was wondering why the the spaceloft XL suborbital flights are included in this list. They go into space with regards to altitude but don't achieve orbital speeds. If you include such suborbital flights you also have to include other sounding rocket flights (such as Maxtor) and ICBM test launches, IMHO.

Sub-orbital is not a disqualifying factor - the advice on WP:LSY is to include anything that crosses, or is intended to cross, the Karmain line. The only reason there are no other sub-orbital flights is because the main reference of these missions only goes up to 2005. If you can find information on other sub-orbital flights, then there is no problem with adding them. There are sub-orbital flights in some of the older articles, such as the early '60s, etc. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this text necessary?

_{The lists are maintained by the Lists of Spaceflights by Year WikiProject, but all users are, of course, still free to edit and improve them, but please refrain from making major edits without discussing them on the talk page, or WikiProject talk page first.}

I realize that the text is in small type, but this will not bode well with our mirrors. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Might be a matter to discuss on the wikiproject talk page. It may be possible to move them onto the talkpages. --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit

I am in the process of modifying this article to be centred around the spacecraft rather than the rocket. Please do not edit whilst this is in progress. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 12:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a preview of the new layout - should be ready soon, all comments welcome:

Launch Date/Time	Launch Vehicle	Launch Site	Launch Contractor	Payload	Operator	Orbit	Mission/ Function	Re-Entry/ Destruction	Outcome	Remarks
January 19 19:00 GMT	Lockheed Martin Atlas V (551)	LC-41 Cape Canaveral	ILS	New Horizons	NASA	N/A	Flyby of Pluto and KBOs	N/A	Successful so far	First probe to visit Pluto
January 24 01:33 GMT	H-2A	Tanegashima	NASDA	Daichi (ALOS)	NASDA	LEO	Observation satellite	Still in Orbit	Successful so far
February 15 23:35 GMT	Yuzhnoye Zenit 3SL	Ocean Odyssey Pacific Ocean	Sea Launch	EchoStar 10	EchoStar	Geosynchrous	Comsat	Still in Orbit	Successful so far
February 18 06:27 GMT	H-2A	Tanegashima		MTSAT 2	Japanese Government		ATC and weather satellite		Successful so far
February 21 21:28 GMT	M-5 (M-V/Mu-5)	Uchinoura	NASDA	ASTRO-F (Akari)	Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency	Infrared astronomy satellite.		Still in orbit	Successful so far
February 21 21:28 GMT	M-5 (M-V/Mu-5)	Uchinoura	NASDA	Cute-1.7+APD				Still in orbit	Successful so far
February 28 20:10 GMT	Chelomei Proton	Baikonur	ILS	ARABSAT 4A	ARABSAT	Comsat	Intended: Geosynchrous	February 28, 2006	Failure	Upper stage malfunction.
March 11 22:33 GMT	Aérospatiale Ariane 5 ECA	ELA-3, CSG (Kourou)	Arianespace	SPAINSAT	Spanish Government	Military comsat	Geosynchrous	Still in Orbit	Successful so far
March 11 22:33 GMT	Aérospatiale Ariane 5 ECA	ELA-3, CSG (Kourou)	Arianespace	Hot Bird 7A	Eutelsat	Comsat	Geosynchrous	Still in Orbit	Successful so far
March 22 14:03 GMT	Orbital Sciences Pegasus	L-1011, Vandenberg AFB	Orbital Sciences	Space Technology 5 (X3)	NASA	Study Earth's Magnetosphere.	LEO	Still in orbit	Successful so far
March 24 22:30 GMT	SpaceX Falcon 1	Omelek	SpaceX	FalconSat 2	US Air Force Acadamy	Plasma research satellite.	Intended: LEO	March 24 22:31 GMT	Failure	Rocket lost power shortly after launch. Probable engine fire.
March 30 02:30 GMT	Soyuz (A-2)	LC-1, Baikonur	RFSA	Soyuz TMA-8 3 Cosmonauts	RFSA	LEO - docked to ISS	Still in orbit	ISS Expedition 13	Successful.	First Brazillian in Space

GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking nice, but for missions that failed during launch, couldn't you state it as a T+X time? I think T+10 seconds or similar would be more useful than a date/time that only shows a minute's difference.Night Gyr 20:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll incorporate that. GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some errors in the table (now corrected)

I've just spent the last hour correcting the table here (as there were lots of formatting errors) and I put in more exact links, like LEO instead of LEO, etc. But I can see that all the other list of spaceflights pages have similar problems. I don't think I'm going to edit them all (as it's mind-bogglingly boring), so I suggest others attempt to correct these types of errors in the other pages. --Hibernian 14:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirect states that Wikipedia Policy is that redirects should not be bypassed unless they are broken, or redirect to a redirect page. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you’re saying, Do you think that it is better to link to a Disambiguation page than to the actual article?

What would be the point of that? How is LEO more useful to readers than Low Earth orbit? (I would think it is fairly useless to link to LEO, particularly as that is a Big disambig. page, and frankly it's very confusing to anybody who doesn't know what L.E.O is.)

--Hibernian 04:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not one of Wikipedia's redirect policy, but rather its disambiguation policy, which clearly states that When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page. It is likely that someone visiting a list of spaceflights and clicking on a particular orbit type link would probably not expect to be redirected to a disambiguation page listing famous people named Leo, and abbreviations for owls, Pakistani terrorist groups and newspapers belonging to the Louisville alternative press scene. Daen 13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. Editors should take the time to link to the exact pages instead of just to the abbreviations, which only takes you to the disambiguation pages. I hope people will do this in future, so that we don't have to go through the laborious task of re-editing it. --Hibernian 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that was a redir. I have no problem with it then. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007 launches

A number of 2007 launches are creeping into the table. I don't have the spare time right now, but if someone else hasn't beaten me to it over the next four hours I'll move the offending entries into the 2007 table. Daen 09:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved three entries to the 2007 page. I didn't move the AMC-14 launch to the 2007 page (it was written in the table as 2007) because quite a few sites (example) say that AMC-14 is due to launch in August (with date TBC). I can't actually find any sources that say that the launch will be in 2007, but if someone can find a recent source, please feel free to move the AMC-14 launch to the 2007 page. DarthVad e r 22:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done that man! Yesterday was just another day of over-optimistic time estimates for me ... Daen 10:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TacSat-2 outcome

I'm not too happy about this being listed as a "spacecraft failure", because the spacecraft performed well, but could not return imagery because of a dispute between the US Navy and NRO. Seeing as the spacecraft operated correctly for its anticipated lifetime, can we consider it a successful flight despite the politics? --G W… 00:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20080110TDY02309.htm
- In 2006 in spaceflight on 2011-05-26 02:23:26, 404 Not Found
- In 2006 in spaceflight on 2011-06-14 21:56:41, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://h2a.mhi.co.jp/en/RSC/mtsat2/press/rsc.pdf
- In 2006 in spaceflight on 2011-05-26 02:23:26, 404 Not Found
- In 2006 in spaceflight on 2011-06-14 21:56:51, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]