Talk:Atmospheric satellite

This redirect is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

Mass surveillance

Atmospheric satellite is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance

Military history: Aviation / Technology

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Scope of article

I suggest that the scope of content of this article be limited:

to be narrower than the broad concept of unmanned aerial vehicles
to omit most details that are specific to individual aircraft types (Pathfinder, Helios, etc) that have their own Wikipedia articles

—RCraig09 (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's GOCE then?

The article says:

To date, all atmosats have been unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

GOCE was a conventional (orbital) satellite that orbited within the atmosphere, using an ion engine to provide continuous thrust to offset aerodynamic drag. Does it qualify as an atmospheric satellite? I think so. –PointyOintment (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The GOCE article says it orbited at >150 miles — above the atmosphere like a conventional Low Earth Orbit satellite, not an atmosat. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not an "atmospheric satellite" as the rest of the world uses the term, as it did not use aerodynamic lift. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose that Geostationary balloon satellite and High-altitude platform station be merged into Atmospheric satellite. These are all small articles and all deal with atmospheric satellites of one kind or another. As yet, there is not enough verifiably significant material out there to justify more than one article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose They're obviously distinct principles. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In what ways are the geostationary balloon satellite and high-altitude platform station not examples of atmospheric satellites? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Observation. The structure and inter-linking of the Wikipedia articles should be determined by careful analysis of the reliable-source definitions of the various crafts. There might be a generically defined craft whose definition encompasses more narrowly defined craft. The WP article for the generically defined craft should have short summaries of the more narrowly defined craft, which in turn might warrant their own detailed articles. (Sorry, I don't know enough to render this analysis.) —RCraig09 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definitely merge Geostationary balloon satellite into Atmospheric satellite, unless the balloon article can be substantially expanded; this kind of fragmentation doesn't really help the reader. A merge of High-altitude platform station could be a bit more complex; the article is quite messy, as it is now; most of it could be merged, although the information on the specific projects by Lockheed could belong elsewhere (its own article as experimental aircraft type?) --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Observation. Also mind High-Altitude Long Endurance and High-altitude balloon which may also need to be integrated into one unified article with the others mentioned above. To me it appears as if many of these different names are just marketing language of different companies. With the renewed commercial interest in these vehicles by e.g. Google loon, Facebook Aquila, Zero 2 Infinity, World View Enterprises, ... this area of WP could really need some major facelift. Space.chris (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If lighter-than-air and heavier-than-air sections become too large, it will be a good time to split.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The HAPS article is more detailed, but much of what it says would be true of any atmospheric satellite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ostrich (talk • contribs) 15:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. Taking into consideration RCraig09's thoughts from above the following structure seems reasonable to me:
- Atmospheric satellite (to be merged with content from high-altitude platform station and High-altitude long endurance)
- high-altitude balloon (to be merged with content from Geostationary balloon satellite) Space.chris (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For high-altitude balloon and Geostationary balloon satellite,

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For Atmospheric satellite (to be merged with content from high-altitude platform station and High-altitude long endurance),

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

"Atmospheric satellite" or "pseudo-satellite" seems to be much less employed than "HAPS" (high-altitude platform station), used by the ITU and the industrial group HAPS Alliance. If there are no objections, I'll change the name.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]