Jump to content

Talk:CASSIOPE

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability of the launch vehicle, separate from the CASSIOPE payload

[edit]

This particular launch, the sixth launch of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, will be the first launch of the substantially upgraded Falcon 9 v1.1 version of the rocket. Therefore the launch will include a number of launch mission firsts, including:<ref name=nsj20130327> {{cite news |last=Foust|first=Jeff |title=After Dragon, SpaceX’s focus returns to Falcon |url=http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/03/27/after-dragon-spacexs-focus-returns-to-falcon/ |accessdate=2013-04-05 |newspaper=NewSpace Journal |date=2013-03-27 }}</ref>

  • first use of the upgraded Merlin 1D engines, generating approximately 56 percent more sea-level thrust than the Merlin 1C engines used on all previous Falcon 9 vehicles
  • first use of the significantly longer first stage, which was lengthened to accommodate the larger propellant talks needed to carry propellant for the more powerful engines
  • the nine Merlin 1D engines on the first stage are arranged in an octagonal pattern with eight engines in a circle and the ninth in the center
  • first launch from SpaceX' new launch facility, Space Launch Complex 4, at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, and will be the first launch over the Pacific ocean utilizing the facilities of the Pacific test range.
  • first Falcon 9 launch to carry a satellite. Each prior Falcon 9 launch was of a Dragon capsule or a Dragon-shaped test article, although SpaceX has previously successfully launched a satellite on the Falcon 1, Flight 5 mission.
  • first launch to have a jettisonable payload fairing, which introduces the risk of an additional separation event.
  • AND a very unusual propulsive landing test of the first-stage booster AFTER the completion of the boosters' mission of adding altitude and velocity to the second stage/CASSIOPE payload: the first stage of the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will conduct a propulsive-return over-water test after the second stage with the CASSIOPE payload separates from the booster. As part of the test program for the SpaceX reusable rocket launching system, the CASSIOPE mission first stage booster will do a burn to slow it down and then a second burn just before it reaches the water. SpaceX intends to conduct such tests on every Falcon 9 v1.1 launch vehicle and "will continue doing such tests until they can do a return to the launch site and a powered landing. ... [They expect several] failures before they 'learn how to do it right.'"<ref name=nsw20130328> {{cite news |last=Lindsey|first=Clark |title=SpaceX moving quickly towards fly-back first stage |url=http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/spacex-moving-quickly-towards-fly-back-first-stage.html |accessdate=2013-03-29 |newspaper=NewSpace Watch |date=2013-03-28 }}</ref>

It is, essentially, a new rocket, albeit developed off of the base technology and architecture of the previous Falcon 9 rocket.

As a result, the launch vehicle itself is particularly notable on this mission, arguably more than the satellite payload. Since WikiProject Spaceflight article guidelines generally call for launch vehicle info to be included with the payload article, and that seems appropriate at this point in time, I have:

  • added the notable launch vehicle material in a separate section of the CASSIOPE article, and have
  • created a REDIRECT for Falcon 9 Flight 6.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that the information about the Falcon 9 v1.1 launch vehicle should go into its own article (falcon 9 flight 6). This info should be split from this article. This article would only note the type of launch vehicle (with a link to the falcon 9 article) and the launch date. DANDE has its own article and makes no mention of the launch vehicle. Normally a satellite's launcher and the flight are non-notable, hence not worthy of their own Wikipedia article, but because its the first flight of the launch vehicle, with notable attempt at first stage recovery, the launcher in this case is notable. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be enough information to justify an article, otherwise it could potentially go into a new Falcon 9 v1.1 article. That said, maybe we need to review WP:LAUNCHES and see if there is a better way to handle launch information. Multiple-satellite launches are becoming much more common, so as long as it isn't to the detriment of articles on the payloads themselves, as seen in the Antares issue a few months ago, maybe we need to consider revising the project guidelines. I strongly disagree with the IP's suggestion that all launch information should be removed from this article - even if there is a separate article/section in the rocket's article regarding the launch, a summary should still be present here. --W. D. Graham 12:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under ordinary Wikipedia guidelines re notability and verfiability, this first launch of the newly designed Falcon 9 (F9 v1.1) is clearly sufficient to justify its own article. The only reason that all the information is in this article, the CASSIOPE payload article, is because of our normal standard practices in WikiProject Spaceflight to have articles on the satellite/payload, but not on the launch vehicle, as articulated in WP:LAUNCHES. I realize that this mission could be the exception that is envisioned in that essay, but have not been willing to try to push the exception in this case, when I observed a lack of consensus to do so on previous, even more notable, spacecraft launch vehicles (e.g., the first private rocket to ever make it into Earth orbit (in 2008, Falcon 1 Flight 4, which redirects to Ratsat). I have seen no other editors, to date, propose an exception based on WP:LAUNCHES. If a consensus develops here that this is that exception, I'll be happy to split the article.
In the meantime, a revisit of WP:LAUNCHES has been discussed; so perhaps we ought to hold off for a bit to let that discussion take its course, and see if new/revised guidelines are developed that might assist us in considering what to do on this article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in that the launch/rocket is notable, but I believe that the details are best explained in its own article at Falcon 9. A brief paragraph in this article should suffice. I will conform to the consensus in this page. Also, I apologize for not reading this talk page before my major edits a couple of days ago. It was enthusiasm, not defiance. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of "Secondary payload nanosats" section

[edit]

This article is about the CASSIOPE mission, which has nothing to do with secondary payloads other than that the secondaries had to get permission and will be flying on the same rocket. Having them listed almost seems like they're part of the CASSIOPE mission. I think that list is very good and interesting, but it should be included in a launch (or launch manifest) article (if one exists) rather than on a satellite mission article.

CamelNotation (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you. Right now the article has way too much focus on the launch vehicle, as well. Really maybe should split and have a 'Falcon 9 flight 6 article' separately. This article would note that it was on that flight, and the secondary payloads could be referenced in the flight 6 article, or if they're important enough, they may have their own article as well. The POPACS mission and one of the other secondary payloads(DANDE) have very similar missions. Basically they're both studying the effect of space weather on atmospheric drag on satellites in low earth orbit. maybe these two could be combined into their own article. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary payloads are summarized (for those that are sufficiently notable to have their own article) or covered (for those that aren't) in this article, quite simply, because of historical precedent on a large number of launch vehicles, and due to the WP:LAUNCHES essay.
As noted in the section above, there has been talk of revisiting and revising WP:LAUNCHES, so if you are interested, go to the Discussion area at WikiProject Spaceflight to see what comes of that, or please consider participating in the discussion if it gets formally proposed. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article clearly needs to be split. The Cassiope satellite certainly is notable on its own and deserves its own article, but so does the launch vehicle. Frankly, this is a travesty of an article especially now that the launch has happened. I should have been paying better attention here --Robert Horning (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robert. See the previous Talk page section, also. I think you'll find general agreement (certainly from me, and I infer from WDGraham's comment, probably from him as well).
But it has not happened yet simply because of WP:LAUNCHES and no editor has (yet) proposed a split. If you want to be that editor, then I would encourage you to be that editor, and start a new section below with your proposal. (note, some editors have discussed splitting the launch away from CASSIOPE; others have suggested having no secondary payloads in this CASSIOPE article. so you'll want to think about what specific and tractable proposal will address these concerns.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BRD discussion on recent reversion

[edit]

I had recently added the following paragraph to the lede, all duly summarizing sourced information in the body prose of the article.

Following the completion of the mission of the first stage of the launch vehicle, the booster was used after the mission for a booster descent and recovery flight test. Although the first stage was not recovered, significant test data was acquired, and the test was considered to be a success.

User:Huntster Reverted that addition with the edit comment:

I apologise, but this article is about the satellite, not something generic about the overall launch. I just can't see this material being justified for the lead.

So let's Discuss it per WP:BRD.

The post-mission controlled descent flight test that SpaceX did after the first-stage boost—when the booster would ordinarily be discarded—is arguably the most notable aspect of the entire flight, or perhaps the second most notable aspect since this was the first flight of a new model rocket for SpaceX. It is adequately discussed, and sourced, in the body of the article. And the lede is not already too many paragraphs per WP:MOS: four are allowed; the one I added was only the third.

Moreover, this aspect of the launch vehicle is covered in this particular article because their is not a separate article on the launch itself. Falcon 9 Flight 6 redirects to this article. Which is exactly what the WikiProject Spaceflight guideline WP:LAUNCHES requires.

So, until someone creates a separate article to cover the launch separate from the mission, I reckon that this article is exactly the article where this material should be covered. And if it is covered here, per WP:LEAD, the lede should summarize the material and breadth of the entire article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the edit summary, because this article is about the satellite and not the launch, I don't see how the material is appropriate for the lead, regardless of it being part of the launch vehicle's mission. I'm additional unsure whether the Falcon test has any place in the article other than an aside mention, for the same reason. Seems like SpaceX reusable launch system development program is the most appropriate location for this, and it already has a subsection. Of course, I am interested in others' opinions. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address your point, but then let others weigh in: The article is not merely about the CASSIOPE primary payload. It is, quite clearly, about that, plus the secondary payloads, plus the launch vehicle and this specific launch event. As the article stands today, the lede simply does not adequately summarize the content of the article. Nevertheless, the article does contain the Title of the primary payload, per the guideline at WP:LAUNCHES. So there will be, necessarily, some cognitive dissonance between the title and the broader content. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Huntster's revert. The recovery attempt of the launch vehicle was incidental to the launch of the satellite. Remember the article is about the satellite, not the launcher. Recovery attempts can be discussed in the article for the Falcon 9 rocket. They are incidental here. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be completely true if this was indeed an article about the satellite. However, Wikipedia's format on sat launches is that the entire launch, from start to finish, goes under the title of the primary payload. All secondary payloads and notable launch events need to be included in this article, since it is *their article* as well. That's just the way Wikipedia is structured. — Gopher65talk 15:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That the recovery attempt was not part of the lead means that it is not part of the article's main topic as per Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Lead section. The topic of Falcon 9 reuse has it's own article, in fact. That's where it would be appropriate to include the information. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument against editing the lede to put in XYZ information boils down to "XYZ information isn't in the lede right now, so therefore XYZ information doesn't belong in the lede, otherwise it would be in the lede". Articles have to evolve over time, otherwise they'd all still be stubs:).
As for the reuse article, you're right, that is the main article for that subsection of this article. All general information about Falcon 9 reuse belongs there. But just as every detail of every Falcon 9 flight isn't on the Falcon 9 page, every detail of every flight of falcon 9 reuse doesn't belong on the main reusable rockets page. That's what flight sub-articles are for. Each falcon 9 flight has its own page where such information can be placed. As per convention, those flight articles are named after the primary payload. eg, SpaceX CRS-3 and CASSIOPE. That is were details belong, not on the main general discussion of the topic. Otherwise you end up with really "busy" main pages! — Gopher65talk 20:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well its been a few months since I looked on this Talk page. It appears that no consensus emerged to remove the information on the post-launch test from the lede. So I take that as the material on the notable (first ever attempt, etc.) information on the ocean-landing test of the first stage following the launch can remain the article, as it is within scope of the article, even if it is not per the much more narrow name of the article (which is a result of a project-wide naming convention for all launches), per the sources that support it. N2e (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CASSIOPE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CASSIOPE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:CASSIOPE&oldid=1200685064"