Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manned Orbiting Laboratory/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2020 [1].

Manned Orbiting Laboratory

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC) and Hog Farm (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, a US military space program of the 1960s. Much of it was shrouded in secrecy until 2015, when the National Reconnaissance Office began declassifying documents about it. This has enabled a comprehensive article to be written. In many ways, the MOL was harbinger of things to come, insofar as they spent a billion bucks with little to show for it. However, the article delivers a good deal to the reader. It contains a comprehensive account of the way that "black" projects were funded. There is also a food for thought about the relative roles of humans and automated systems. And about the US military space program, which was eclipsed by its NASA counterpart, but was, and remains, important. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

Per ACR (t · c) buidhe 11:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "single-use laboratory" Does this mean only used once or used only for.a single purpose?
    The former. Adjusted the wording to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at The Pentagon" I would lower case the The.
    MOS:THECAPS is unclear on this point, but lower cased following the styling used in the Pentagon article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The laboratory module was 19 feet (5.8 m) high and 10.0 feet (3.05 m) in diameter." is "long" a better word than "high"?
    Maybe. The astronauts would used it in an upright orientation. The psychological importance of giving each module an "up" and "down" was not yet appreciated, and would come from later experience with space stations. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The laboratory module was divided into two sections, but there was no division between the two, and the crew could move freely between them.[48]" maybe "partition" for "division"?
    Good idea. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Bays 1 and 8 contained storage compartments; ..." Is this description of the whole module or the "upper" part? Because you then go on to describe the "lower" part.
    Yes. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Congressman George P. Miller from California, convened a special session on the MOL Program on 7 February 1966." I might say "hearing" not session.
    Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The government then went ahead and condemned the land under eminent domain, compulsorily acquiring 14,404.7 acres (5,829.4 ha) from the Sudden Ranch and 499.1 acres (202.0 ha) from the Scolari Ranch for $9,002,500 (equivalent to $55.3 million in 2019)." I might scrap the word "compulsorily" as implied (and I'm not sure it's commonly used in AmEng in that context, at least, I've not seen it so)
    An American would understand "condemned" as meaning just that; I just put it in for the non-American reader. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the Gemini B eparated an for a sub-orbital reentry, the MOL mockup continued into orbit and released three satellites. was released onto a suborbital trajectory during launch." I've been correcting typos as I come to them but I'm not 100 percent certain how this should read, so I'll leave it for you.
    Don't know what happened here. I have rewritten this bit: The adaptor connecting the Gemini spacecraft to OPS 0855 contained three additional spacecraft, two OV4-1 satellites, and an OV1-6 satellite. The Gemini B spacecraft separated for a sub-orbital reentry, while the MOL mockup continued into low Earth orbit, where it released the three satellites. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have. Interesting read, especially with the work I've been doing on Apollo.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG

[edit]
  • Can the MOL training caption be more descriptive? What is he doing?
    Probably not what you first thought. He is testing the foot restraints used to anchor the astronauts to the workstation. Added this to the caption. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Department of Defence ??? Zuckert, Eugene (25 August 1962). "Memorandum for Director, Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) Program – Subject: Authorization To Proceed With MOL Program" (PDF). Department of Defence. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
    Changed to NRO. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is going on here with page nos? Systems Program Office. p. 2-2. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
    Common practice in military documents. Numbering is per section, so the page numbers are like 2-5, 3-2 etc. This allows you to update a section without having to reprint the entire document. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check ref order throughout, eg, ... based upon the trove of documents released by the NRO and with interviews she conducted with Abrahamson, Bobko, Crippen, Crews, Macleay, and Truly.[155][127]
    Hate that. Reordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s all for now; I will read after I am assured on sourcing. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two remaining questions above (Mark Wade, and toilet image caption), SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the query about Mark Wade’s website, what makes this source reliable? http://www.russianspaceweb.com/site_info.html There is a sentence cited only to this source, and a page that Mark Wade has taken down. Why would he have taken down the Almaz page on a still-active site? Also, fn 103 uses Wade’s name as author, while the others do not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't assume that. The Almaz ref was an old part of the article that I cut back drastically. When it moved, a bot automatically added the archive link. If you check the site, you'll see that it has been greatly expanded. Replaced references with ones to ESA and NASA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Hi C&C, any progress on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot. I will get this done today. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
  • "on 21 January 1963" should be changed to "by 21 January 1963" or just "in January 1963" – source says the agreement was reached "in a series of meetings ... over the weekend of 19–20 January"
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notes


References

I will add more in the next few hours. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is it for me. I made a bunch of changes without asking. Feel free to undo. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: perfectly satisfied. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy review: Support as of 11-27-20

[edit]
Copy review by Neopeius

Since source is being done and my skill lies in editing, I am reading through for errors and inconsistencies. There aren't many so far (as expected of an A/GA!)

Here's what I have thus far. I will continue until I am done.

Background: 1st paragraph *Superfluous comma before ", as"

On further reflection, you're right! :)

5th paragraph

7th paragraph

Even though the link goes to manned and there's no reference to military in that article? Not doubting you, just wondering about the discrepancy.
It looks as if it is supposed to be Military Orbital Development System (capitalized), and the page on Wikipedia is wrong (copying an error in a NASA SP). So capitalization is in order, and at some point, someone might fix that Wikipedia page.

:(and I'll throw in my two cents about Mark Wade's site -- he hasn't updated it in a while, it's not completely accurate, and there are no citations on it. I use it when there's nothing else, but it's about the bottom of reliable-enough sources I use for WP. It's also not as good as it used to be (he cut out a lot of detail about fifteen years ago for some reason). Anatoly Zak of RussianSpaceWeb has a better reputation, as does Gunter Krebs and Andrew LePage (who does show his work), and Jonathan McDowell's (Jonathan's Space Report) is better still; indeed, Jonathan compiled the appendix for one of my invaluable books on Corona. NSSDC has the virtue of being NASA-run and public domain, but they have spurious information on there sometimes too. When faced with a number of conflicting sources, I often have to make a judgment as to which one(s) to include in an article.)

I've removed all references to Gunter Krebs and Anatoly Zak. But I have a bigger problem with Wade. It is used by fns 48, 51 and 54, and I have no replacement for them. He sourced from a report by McDonnell-Douglas and I don't have it. Also: what is your book on Corona? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Wade's all you got, Wade's all you got. Like I said, he's my minimum, but I'll still use him. The book is Eye in the Sky: The Story of the Corona Spy Satellites by Dwayne A. Day, John M. Logsdon and Brian Latell (publisher, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1998, isbn=1-56098-830-4, oclc=36783934.
It's already on my book shelf! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a perfect reference, but I'm using it as I go through the Discoverers, at least for my first pass, getting them up to C. Then I'll do a deeper dive and bring them up to B.

@SandyGeorgia:, @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planning

2nd paragraph

  • "The United States Under Secretary of the Air Force and the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Brockway McMillan, asked the NRO Program A Director (responsible for the Air Force aspects of NRO activities), Major General Robert Evans Greer, to look into its potential reconnaissance capabilities"
Suggest "look into MOL's potential reconnaissance capabilities."
Adopted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3rd paragraph

*"In February 1969 the MOL was given a Key Hole designation as KH-10 Dorian.[32]" :1) I'd put a comma after 1969

Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2) Key Hole is not explained. Some context vis. a vis. Corona, Gambit, etc. would be useful.
Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4th paragraph

5th paragraph

  • "He also noted that while the notion of satellites passing overhead was accepted, a crewed space station might be a different matter,"
How about "He also noted that while nations might not object to satellites passing overhead, a crewed..."
Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7th paragraph

  • Evans had previously worked with Schriever in the USAF Ballistic Systems Division.[39] He had been the Discoverer/Corona program manager, and had supervised SAMOS, MIDAS and SAINT, together with the early communications and weather satellite programs.[40][41]
Under Schriever? If so, perhaps a semicolon before [39] rather than a period. If not, perhaps "He had also been the Discoverer/Corona program manager.." Or "He had previously been" or "After that, he had been..." Right now, the context isn't clear.
The satellite work was not under Schriever. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "also". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8th paragraph

  • Schriever retired in August 1966,
From what? From this job? From the Air Force? From work, period?
From the Air Force. Added. He played a lot of golf. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Evans.
Ditto. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

9th paragraph

  • who had the authority to obligate NRO funds.
allocate? I've never heard obligate used this way. Funds can be obligated, but as security, not budget.
Obligate is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10th paragraph

  • The President had announced two contractors:
For what?
MOL. Added Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

*Contract negotiations with General Electric were also completed around this time, and it was given $4.922 million (equivalent to $30.2 million in 2019), all but $0.975 million (equivalent to $5.99 million in 2019) of it in black funds.[46]

, and the company was given
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(it's a great article, by the way -- I'm just being F.A. nitpicky)

@Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

@Hawkeye7: Other than the 7th paragraph (which I think should have "also" to disambiguate that Evans didn't work for Schriever, we're looking good! --Neopeius (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

@Hawkeye7: I will get back to this. Busy week. :) --Neopeius (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I'm afraid I'm less enamored of the Modules section, which I suspect preceded your active involvement:

  • First paragraph: suggest you have an introductory sentence explaining that MOL consisted of a single workspace divided into two unpartitioned sections before diving into physical dimenstions. It's nice to know what the thing is for before giving specs.
    Moved the the second sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, paragraphs 1 and 2 could use a general clean-up and reorganization.
  • Paragraphs three and four might be better served in a section preceding "Station" called "Planned Operations". Let's understand what MOL was supposed to do (there's brief discussion in background, but this more detailed stuff really doesn't belong in the same area as the physical description of the spacecraft).
    Done. A new section has been created on Planned operations. This involved moving the "Astronauts" section above it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 3

  • The Dorian camera is not explained at all. I'd have an introductory sentence describing the main equipment of the station -- it sounds like the Dorian is the primary surveillance system.
    Dorian is just another name for the MOL. Unfortunately, all the details about the camera are still classified by the NRO and redacted in the documents. 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph 4

  • "45 percent more efficient" at what? film usage? Target identification? Being able to save a few pounds of film at the expense of thousands of pounds of workshop doesn't seem a good trade-off. :)
    No, it's a great trade-off. Film is cheap but spacecraft launches are incredibly expensive. An automated spacecraft had to return its film to Earth when it run out. (In Corona, that was the end of the mission and the spacecraft; Hexagon could return film at regular intervals.) At 45 per cent more efficient, you might save the USAF one launch in three, which would work out to around $200 million per mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this section (recommended to be two sections) needs a bit of work and expansion before I'd sign it off as FA. It's really the heart of the article since it describes exactly what MOL would have been had it come to fruition.

Sorry to be so exacting! ^^;;

@Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I will work on the Astronauts section tonight. The article is already looking much better (I've a feeling that astronauts should succeed rather than precede the operations, station, and spacecraft section, though it's a little tricky since the astronauts are for more than one program. Either way, it's modular, so we can decide when everything's proofed). --Neopeius (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astronauts

Selection

To provide prospective astronauts for the X-15 rocket-powered aircraft, Dyna-Soar and MOL programs, the USAF created the Aerospace Research Pilot Course at the USAF Experimental Flight Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

  • Consider incorporating this sentence: "The USAF Experimental Test Pilot School was renamed the Aerospace Research Pilot School (ARPS) on 12 October 1961." into the prior one. Perhaps "...at the USAF Experimental Flight Test Pilot School (renamed Aerospace Research Pilot School (ARPS) on 12 October 1961)..."
    Re-worded Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was attending the classes? This ARPS section only seems relevant in that MOL astronauts had to be graduates of these classes.
    The school trained pilots to be test pilots. The section is about the process of selection of MOL astronauts, which goes a bit beyond the simple requirement, as the ARPS also had a role in selection.

When it came to selecting astronauts for MOL

  • How about "When MOL astronaut selection began"

the commandant of the ARPS, Colonel Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager, advised Schriever to restrict selection to ARPS graduates. The program did not accept applications; 15 candidates were selected and sent to Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, for a week of medical evaluation in October 1964. The evaluations were similar to those conducted for the NASA astronaut groups.[50][51]

  • This is fine, I think.

For the first three NASA astronaut groups in 1959, 1962 and 1963, the USAF established

a selection board to review candidates

before forwarding their names to NASA. The Chief of Staff of the USAF, General John P. McConnell, told Schriever he expected the selection of MOL astronauts to follow the same procedure.

A selection board was convened in September 1965, chaired by Major General Jerry D. Page. On 15 September, the selection criteria for MOL was announced.[52] Candidates had to be:

Qualified military pilots; Graduates of the ARPS; Serving officers, recommended by their commanding officers; and Holding US citizenship from birth.[52]

  • Fine.

In October 1965, the MOL Policy Committee decided that MOL crew members would be designated as "MOL Aerospace Research Pilots" rather than astronauts.[53]

The names of the first group of eight MOL pilots were announced on 12 November 1965 as

  • at

a Friday night news dump to avoid press attention. To prevent their return to the Navy, as would normally have occurred on their graduation from ARPS, Finley and Truly stayed at ARPS as instructors until the announcement:

  • This is confusing. Were Finley and Truly prevented by superiors in the program? Was this their own idea?
    Truly says:

    The Air Force was afraid, and they were probably right, that if the Navy had given me a set of orders back to the fleet, the chances were they’d never have seen me again. So Yeager… advised the Navy that Finley and I had been identified for the first crew, but the crew hadn’t been publicly announced. So to keep their hands on us, we were kept at Edwards the next year as instructors in the Test Pilot School.

    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major Michael J. Adams, USAF Major Albert H. Crews Jr., USAF Lieutenant John L. Finley, USN Captain Richard E. Lawyer, USAF Captain Lachlan Macleay, USAF Captain Francis G. Neubeck, USAF Major James M. Taylor, USAF Lieutenant Richard H. Truly, USN.[52] Around this time, the USAF began selecting a second group of MOL pilots.

This time applications were accepted. Selection occurred at the same time as for NASA Astronaut Group 5, with many applying to both programs.

Successful candidates were told that NASA or MOL chose them, with no explanation.

Over 500 applications were received, from which the names of 100 candidates were forwarded to USAF headquarters. The MOL Program Office selected 25, who were sent to Brooks Air Force Base for physical evaluation in January and February 1966. Five were selected. The names of the second group of MOL pilots were publicly announced on 17 June 1966: Captain Karol J. Bobko, USAF Lieutenant Robert L. Crippen, USN Captain C. Gordon Fullerton, USAF Captain Henry W. Hartsfield, USAF Captain Robert F. Overmyer, USMC.[50][56] Bobko became the first graduate of the United States Air Force Academy to be selected as an astronaut.[57]

Eight other finalists

had not yet completed ARPS. One was already attending; the other seven were sent to Edwards Air Force Base to join Class 66-B. They would be considered for the next MOL astronaut intake.

The MOL Astronaut Selection Board met again on 11 May 1967, and recommended that four of the eight be appointed. The MOL Program Office announced names of those selected for the third group of MOL astronauts on 30 June 1967: Major James A. Abrahamson, USAF Lieutenant Colonel Robert T. Herres, USAF Major Robert H. Lawrence Jr., USAF Major Donald H. Peterson, USAF.[50][58

I'll do more later, but I'm pushing through again! :) @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Training

MOL astronauts knew that the program would be a space laboratory for military experiments, but did not learn of its reconnaissance role until after selection; they were advised to resign if they disliked the classified aspect.

They received security clearances, and were introduced

to Sensitive Compartmented Information such as Dorian, Gambit, Talent (material obtained from US manned overflights) and Keyhole (intelligence obtained from satellites)—what Truly described as "two space programs: the public, what the public knew and astronauts and all that jazz, and then this other world of capability that didn’t exist".[59][60]

He later recalled that "When I was introduced to the program, it was stunning. It was almost magic ... I marveled that the government could pull off what was right before my very eyes."[59]

  • It scans oddly to suddenly have a personalized narrative where things had been 3rd person before (and WP avoids quotes where possible). Moreover, these two quotations seem misplaced -- the dual nature of MOL is discussed earlier. The only connection to the astronaut section is these utterances were made by an astronaut. Finally, the quotes seem rather superfluous, not adding much to the information conveyed.
    Deleted second quotation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Phase I of crew training was a two-month introduction to the MOL program in the form of a series of briefings from NASA and the contractors. Phase II lasted for five months, and was conducted at the ARPS, where the astronauts were given technical training on the MOL vehicles and their operation procedures. This training was conducted in classrooms, in training flights, and in sessions on the T-27 space flight simulator. Phase III was continuous training on the MOL systems and providing crew input to them. The pilots spent most of their time in this phase. Phase IV was training for specific missions.

Simulators were developed for each of the different MOL systems. There was a Laboratory Module Simulator, Mission Payload Simulator, and Gemini B Procedures Simulator.

  • How about combining these sentences with a colon, omitting "there was"?

Training was conducted in a zero-G environment on a Boeing C-135 Stratolifter reduced-gravity aircraft.

A Flotation-Egress trainer allowed the astronauts to prepare for a splashdown and the possibility of the spacecraft sinking.[61] NASA had pioneered neutral buoyancy simulation as a training aid to simulate the space environment. The pilots were given scuba diving training at the U.S. Navy Underwater Swimmers School in Key West, Florida. Training was then conducted on a General Electric simulator on Buck Island, near St. Thomas in the US Virgin Islands. Water survival training was conducted at the USAF Sea Survival School at Homestead Air Force Base in Florida, and jungle survival training at the Tropical Survival School at Howard Air Force Base in the Panama Canal Zone. In July 1967, the pilots underwent training at the National Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington, DC.[62]

  • fine

@Hawkeye7:, would you mind pinging me when you've implemented changes? It will keep me on track. Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the first group of eight MOL pilots were announced on 12 November 1965

Major Michael J. Adams, USAF

Major Albert H. Crews Jr., USAF

Lieutenant John L. Finley, USN

Captain Richard E. Lawyer, USAF

Captain Lachlan Macleay, USAF

Captain Francis G. Neubeck, USAF

Major James M. Taylor, USAF

Lieutenant Richard H. Truly, USN.[52]


The announcement was made as a Friday night news dump to avoid press attention. To prevent their return to the Navy, as would normally have occurred on graduation from ARPS, Finley and Truly remained at ARPS as instructors until the announcement:[54]

--

  • Further down,

"to Sensitive Compartmented Information such as Dorian, Gambit, Talent (material obtained from US manned overflights) and Keyhole (intelligence obtained from satellites)—what Truly described as "two space programs: the public, what the public knew and astronauts and all that jazz, and then this other world of capability that didn’t exist".[59][60]"

Since the casual reader may not remember that Truly was one of the astronaut candidates from up above (and in a different subsection), how about "1st group astronaut candidate Richard Truly described as..."

Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planned operations Reconnaissance From the MOL's regular 150-kilometre (80 nmi) orbit, the main camera

  • "the station's main camera" (one issue here -- this is the first mention of the camera; perhaps a paragraph preceding this one stating the basic reconnaissance equipment mounted on MOL?)

had a circular field of view 2,700 meters (9,000 ft) across. At top magnification it was more like 4,200 feet (1,300 m).

There is only the mention that Kodak had been contracted to make one, not any description of camera equipment.

*How about "across, though at top magnification, the field was limited to…"

This was much smaller than many of the targets that the NRO was interested in, such as air bases, shipyards and missile ranges, so the astronauts would have limited time to respond as the MOL passed over them.

The astronauts would search for targets using the tracking and acquisition telescopes, which had a circular view of the landscape about 12.0 km (6.5 nmi) across, with a resolution of about 9.1 meters (30 ft). The main camera would focus on the most important targets, providing a very high resolution image. The aim was to have the most interesting part of the target in the center of the image; due to the optics used, the image was not as sharp around the edges of the frame.[64]

While surveillance targets were pre-programmed and the camera could operate automatically, astronauts could decide target priority for filming. By avoiding cloudy areas and identifying more interesting subjects (an open missile silo instead of a closed one, for example), they would save film,[65] the major limitation, since it had to be returned in the small Gemini B spacecraft. In cloudy areas like Moscow, it was estimated that the MOL would be 45 percent more efficient in its use of film than an automated satellite system through the ability to react to cloud cover, but for sunnier areas like around

the Tyuratam missile complex

, this might be no more than 15 percent. Nonetheless, Tyuratam was the sort of target that MOL was intended for.

Of 159 KH-7 Gambit photographs of the

area, only 9 percent showed missiles on the launch pads, and of 77 photographs of missile silos, only 21 percent were with the doors open.

The analysts identified 60 MOL targets in the complex. Only two or three could be photographed on each pass, but the astronauts could select the most interesting ones on the spur of the moment, and photograph them with greater resolution than Gambit. It was hoped that valuable technical information would thereby be obtained.[64]

The Air Force expected that Block II of the space station, expected to be available in July 1974, would add image transmission and geodetic system targeting. Astronauts would perform infared, multispectral, and ultraviolet astronomy when they had time during an extended mission duration on twice-annual flights.[66] After Block II, the program hoped to use MOL to build larger, permanent facilities.

A planning document depicted 12-man and 40-man stations, both with self-defense capability. It described the 40-man, Y-shaped station as a "spaceborne command post" in synchronous orbit. With the "key requirement – post attack survivability", the station would be capable of "Strategic/tactical decision making" during a general war.[67][66]

  • fine

@Hawkeye7:, Tag! --Neopeius (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Spacecraft A couple of general notes on the spacecraft section, which is largely fine in so far as it goes:[reply]

  • We never are really told what the Gemini B will be used 'for' -- a prefatory paragraph explaining what Gemini was and its chronological context, and then how it would be used to bring astronauts to and from MOL (would it do anything else? Retrieve satellites? Be used to rescue stranded astronauts in other programs?) would be useful. There should be shorter versions of this prefatory paragraph in the lead and in the Background sections where Gemini B is mentioned.
    Added a sentence about NASA Gemini. The use of Gemini B is described in the first paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section talks about things that were deleted for Gemini B -- were any Gemini Bs actually built or was this all conceptual? If the latter, clarification of such in the language would help.
    Gemini B spacecraft were ordered, but I cannot find any evidence that they were delivered. Gemini spacecraft No. 2 was refurbished an a Gemini B spacecraft.

@Hawkeye7:, Tag! --Neopeius (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecraft

The Gemini spacecraft originated at NASA

as a development of the Mercury spacecraft, and was originally called Mercury Mark II. The name "Gemini" was chosen in recognition of its two man crew.[73] The NASA Gemini spacecraft was redesigned for the MOL and named Gemini B, although the NASA Gemini spacecraft was never referred to as Gemini A.[74] The astronauts would fly into space in the Gemini B capsule, which would be launched together with the MOL modules.

Once in orbit, the crew would power down the capsule and activate and enter the laboratory module. After about one month of space station operations, the crew would return to the Gemini B capsule, power it up, separate it from the station, and perform reentry. Gemini B had an autonomy of about 14 hours once detached from MOL.[75][76] Like the NASA Gemini, the Gemini B spacecraft would

splash down in the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans and be recovered by the same Department of Defense spacecraft recovery forces used by NASA's Project Gemini and Project Apollo.[77] NASA had a paraglider under development to enable a Gemini spacecraft to land on land, but was unable to get it working in time for Project Gemini missions. In March 1964, NASA attempted to get the USAF interested in using the paraglider with Gemini B, but after reviewing the troubled paraglider program, the Air Force concluded that it still had too many problems to overcome, and turned down the offer.[78]

The MOL laboratory module was intended to be used for a single mission only, with no provision for a later mission to dock and reuse it. Instead, its orbit would decay and it would be dumped in the ocean after 30 days.[77]

  • How about "30 days after mission completion, the MOL's orbit would decay, and the station would crash into the ocean." Also, was the deorbiting manual or baked into the initial orbit? Which ocean?
    Source doesn't say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Externally Gemini B was quite similar to its NASA twin, but there were many differences. The most noticeable was that it featured

a rear hatch for the crew to enter the MOL space station. Notches were cut into the ejection seat headrests to allow access to the hatch. The seats were therefore a mirror image

of each other instead of being the same. Gemini B also had a larger diameter heat shield to handle higher energy reentry

from a polar orbit. The number of reentry control system thrusters was increased from four to six. There was no orbit attitude and maneuvering system (OAMS), because capsule orientation for reentry was handled by the forward reentry control system thrusters, and the laboratory module had its own reaction control system for orientation.[75][76]

The Gemini B systems were designed for long-term orbital storage (40 days) but equipment for long duration flights was removed since the Gemini B capsule itself was only intended to be used for launch and reentry.

It had a different cockpit layout and instruments. As a result of the Apollo 1 fire,

the MOL was switched to use a helium-oxygen atmosphere instead of a pure oxygen one. At takeoff, the astronauts would breathe pure oxygen in their spacesuits while the cabin was pressurized with helium. It would then be brought up to a helium-oxygen mix.[75][76] This was an option that had been provided for in the original design.[79] Four Gemini B spacecraft were ordered from McDonnell, along with a boilerplate aerodynamically similar test article, at a cost of $168.2 million (equivalent to $1004 million in 2019).[80] In addition, in November 1965, NASA agreed to hand over Gemini spacecraft No. 2 and Static Test Article No. 4 to the MOL program.[81]

Gemini B specifications Crew: 2 Maximum duration: 40 days Length: 3.35 m (11.0 ft) Diameter: 2.32 m (7 ft 7 in) Cabin volume: 2.55 m3 (90 cu ft) Gross mass: 1,983 kg (4,372 lb) RCS thrusters: 16 by 98 newtons (3.6 lbf × 22.0 lbf) RCS impulse: 283 seconds (2.78 km/s) Electric system: 4 kilowatt-hours (14 MJ) Battery: 180 A·h (648,000 C) Reference:[75] Gemini B layout

  • All fine.

@Hawkeye7:, Tag! --Neopeius (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC) @Neopeius: All done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space station

  • I'd swap the order of the two paragraphs. Also, this section could use a prefatory paragraph explaining what the MOL is -- like, is it a Titan 3 top stage? A hollowed out Agena? Or is it purpose built? Also, the first sentence opens up with "the laboratory module", as if there's more than one module. Is there any difference between "the laboratory module" and "the space station"? @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not swapping the paragraphs around, as it currently follows a logical order. I cannot see how anyone could think that the MOL was not purpose built, but added exp;licit statement to that effect.
You can't? :) Discoverer was made from an Agena. Skylab was made from a Saturn upper stage. Indeed, under Test Flight, there is the sentence "The flight consisted of an MOL mockup built from a Titan II propellant tank," which suggests operational MOLs would have been as well. That's what I meant by explaining whether the MOL was purpose built from scratch or adapted from an exisiting structure. The sentence you added doesn't actually explain that.--Neopeius (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(this remains an outstanding issue -- the line "The purpose-built laboratory module" is not what I was looking for; rather, something along the lines of "The laboratory module, adapted from a Titan II casing to fit on the Titan III booster" (or whatever is in line with the facts).

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC) @Neopeius: Wind it up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

@Hawkeye7:I think you meant to type, "Wind it up, please." :) Since others have put in their input, it is going more quickly. I will be done today or tomorrow. --Neopeius (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, that is what I meant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spacesuits

The MOL program's requirements for a spacesuit were a product of the spacecraft design. The Gemini B capsule had little room inside, and the MOL astronauts gained access to the laboratory through a hatch in the heat shield. This required a more flexible suit than those of NASA astronauts. The NASA astronauts had custom-made sets of flight, training and backup suits, but for the MOL the intention was that spacesuits would be provided in standard sizes with adjustable elements. The USAF sounded out the David Clark Company, International Latex Corporation, B. F. Goodrich and Hamilton Standard in 1964.

That's my only comment for this section. Moving on. --Neopeius (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities

Launch complex

The military director of the NRO, Brigadier General John L. Martin Jr. suggested

Easter Island

In the event of an abort, the Gemini B spacecraft could have come down in the eastern Pacific Ocean. To prepare for this contingency,

  • How about "To prepare for the possibility of a Gemini B abort from orbit into the eastern Pacific Ocean" (Fewer tense issues, clarifying that it wouldn't be a launch abort.)
    I don't think that's right. It was a launch abort, what the Space Shuttle people would have called a transoceanic abort landing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for this section. --Neopeius (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test flight

An MOL test flight was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex 40 on 3 November 1966 at 13:50:42 UTC, on a Titan IIIC, vehicle C-9.[98] The flight consisted of an MOL mockup built from a Titan II propellant tank, and Gemini spacecraft No. 2, which had been refurbished as a prototype Gemini B spacecraft.[83] This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice, albeit without a crew.[99] The adapter connecting the Gemini spacecraft to the laboratory mockup contained three additional spacecraft: two OV4-1 satellites, and an OV1-6 satellite.

There was only one issue with this section -- I did add a link to the second Gemini capsule since it has its own article. This is going faster than I'd thought. --Neopeius (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public Response

Delays and cost increases

Within weeks of the Johnson's announcement of the MOL program,

Since this was now unlikely, McNamara saw no reason to continue with the original budget. Brown examined the schedules, and

  • delete comma before "and"
    Conjuntive comma is correct here.
Different comma -- the one after "Brown examined the schedules"

agreed upon for fiscal year 1969.[112] To meet this,

the date of the first qualification flight was pushed back still further, to December 1970, with the first crewed mission in August 1971.[110][111]

Contracts were signed in May 1967.

Cancellation

A few months after MOL development began, the program also began developing an automated MOL that replaced the crew compartment with film reentry vehicles. In February 1966, Schriever commissioned a report examining humans' usefulness on the station. The report, which was submitted on 25 May, concluded that they would be useful in several ways, but implied that the program would always need to justify the cost and difficulty of the MOL versus a robotic version. Although it did not fly until July 1966, the authors were aware of the capabilities of the KH-8 Gambit 3.

It could not achieve the same resolution as the Dorian camera on MOL,[115] and the automation necessitated a longer development time and added weight.[116] The Dorian camera had a resolution of 33 to 38 centimeters (13 to 15 in), could remain in orbit longer, and carry more film than earlier spy satellites.[117] As automated technology improved,

On 7 June 1969, Stewart ordered Bleymaier to cease all work on Gemini B, the Titan IIIM and the MOL spacesuit, and to cancel or curtail all other contracts. The official announcement that the MOL was

Legacy

MOL might have been the world's first space station.[67]

  • This is an ambiguous statement that could mean many things ("Had it flown as scheduled, it would have been the world's first space station." or "MOL was possibly the world's first space station project to make it out of the planning phase."?). It also doesn't lead into the rest of the section well..

Al Crews believed that automated systems were probably superior, and said that when he saw high-resolution photographs from Gambit 3 he knew that MOL would be canceled.[115][118] "Looking back now", he said in 2014, "it's obvious that our country had decided to put everything into the civilian part of the space program".[119] Some believed that MOL should have launched astronauts before the optics were ready.[130][131] Abrahamson later agreed that his and other MOL astronauts' advice to fly the first mission fully operational was a mistake. He learned while serving as Deputy Administrator of NASA in the early 1980s that launching anything, even "an empty can", made cancellation of a project less likely.[67][110]

  • I'd put this paragraph at the end of Cancellation, where it fits much better.
    Moved into the previous section, abit further up.

Following the decision to cancel MOL, a committee was formed to handle the disposal of its property,

Work on Space Launch Complex 6 was 92 percent complete.

The spacecraft used in the only flight of the MOL program

In July 2015, the NRO declassified over 800 files and photos related to the MOL program.[160] It produced

I ended up finishing the article. Please implement the final changes, and then I'll do one last read-through pending signoff. Thank you for your patience. --Neopeius (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I see only the five following issues outstanding, which I'm reiterating here because they'll get lost in all the strikethrough (I will know for next time to quote only the essential text):

Background

7th paragraph

  • "military orbital development system" -- do you mean "manned orbital development system"?
    "Military" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though the link goes to manned and there's no reference to military in that article? Not doubting you, just wondering about the discrepancy.
    It looks as if it is supposed to be Military Orbital Development System (capitalized), and the page on Wikipedia is wrong (copying an error in a NASA SP). So capitalization is in order, and at some point, someone might fix that Wikipedia page.--Neopeius (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Astronauts

Selection

  • When it came to selecting astronauts for MOL

How about "When MOL astronaut selection began"--Neopeius (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planned operations

Reconnaissance

From the MOL's regular 150-kilometre (80 nmi) orbit, the main camera

  • "the station's main camera" (one issue here -- this is the first mention of the camera; perhaps a paragraph preceding this one stating the basic reconnaissance equipment mounted on MOL?)
    The camera has already been mentioned above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

had a circular field of view 2,700 meters (9,000 ft) across. At top magnification it was more like 4,200 feet (1,300 m).

The camera was already mentioned back in the "Initiation" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
There is only the mention that Kodak had been contracted to make one, not any description of camera equipment.--Neopeius (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Permit me to quote from the detailed description of the camera in the NRO document dump: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space station

  • I'd swap the order of the two paragraphs. Also, this section could use a prefatory paragraph explaining what the MOL is -- like, is it a Titan 3 top stage? A hollowed out Agena? Or is it purpose built? Also, the first sentence opens up with "the laboratory module", as if there's more than one module. Is there any difference between "the laboratory module" and "the space station"? @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not swapping the paragraphs around, as it currently follows a logical order. I cannot see how anyone could think that the MOL was not purpose built, but added explicit statement to that effect.
    You can't? :) Discoverer was made from an Agena. Skylab was made from a Saturn upper stage. Indeed, under Test Flight, there is the sentence "The flight consisted of an MOL mockup built from a Titan II propellant tank," which suggests operational MOLs would have been as well. That's what I meant by explaining whether the MOL was purpose built from scratch or adapted from an exisiting structure. The sentence you added doesn't actually explain that.--Neopeius (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (this remains an outstanding issue -- the line "The purpose-built laboratory module" is not what I was looking for; rather, something along the lines of "The laboratory module, adapted from a Titan II casing to fit on the Titan III booster" (or whatever is in line with the facts).--Neopeius (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not adapted from a Titan II casing, it was built from the ground up. There is an image of it under contruction. I did wonder whether the Gemini B spacecraft would be refurbished NASA ones like the prototype, but they weren't; they too were built from the ground up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delays and cost increases Since this was now unlikely, McNamara saw no reason to continue with the original budget. Brown examined the schedules, and

I made a change. :) The consecutive ands were clunky. Anyway, I'm satisfied. Heck of a job, and thank you for bearing with me. Support. @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open five weeks and has only attracted one support. The nominators may wish to contact those who have so far and/or see if they can engage further reviewers. Ping me if you think that it would be useful for me to add it to Urgents. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ykraps

[edit]

I have no knowledge of the subject so apologies in advance for any stupid questions.

Lead

  • Although it is clear by the second paragraph, I would perhaps mention when this was, sooner? The Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) was part of the United States Air Force (USAF) human spaceflight program during the 1960s (for example).
    Added "in the 1960s". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The MOL program was announced to the public on 10 December 1963 as an inhabited platform to prove the utility of putting people in space for military missions..." - I read this as if its military purpose was openly admitted. Is that correct?
    President Johnson said:

    This program will bring us new knowledge about what man is able to do in space. It will enable us to relate that ability to the defense of America. It will develop technology and equipment which will help advance marred and unmanned space flights. And it will make it possible to perform their new and rewarding experiments with tlat technology and equipment.

    So there was an admission that it had a military purpose, but not what the specific purpose was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine then.--Ykraps (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have an inkling that this is one of those stupid question but what is satellite reconnaissance? Is it the use of a satellite to reconnoitre or is it reconnoitring other satellites? If it's the former, I would be inclined to say, its use as a reconnaissance satellite.
    The use of a satellite to reconnoitre. I doubt if switching the words around will help much, but done. The readers could click on the link I suppose. Just kidding.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:)
  • "...all of whom eventually flew in space on Space Shuttle". - Can we say when? ...between x date and y date or during the 80s and 90s, for example.
    The first mision was flown by Crippen in April 1981. With STS-6 in 1983, all seven had flown. Thereafter the commanded missions, the last being STS-61A in 1985. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not knowing much about the subject, I find myself clicking on links just to find out when things occurred. Is it possible to add some sort of time frame throughout the last paragraph, or will this make it too messy?
    Added some dates to the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "Starting in 1956, the United States had conducted...." - This doesn't sound grammatically correct to me (although it might be). Since 1956 the United States had conducted or Starting in 1956 the United States began conducting... perhaps?
    Deleted "had". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works.--Ykraps (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 18 August 1958, Eisenhower decided to give responsibility..." - Was this the date he came to the decision and he didn't actually give responsibility until a later date or did he transfer responsibility on that date? If the latter, I would be inclined to just say, "On 18 August 1958, Eisenhower gave responsibility..."
    This is when he decided. Re-worded to clarify this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but no funding was forthcoming..." - Do we know why?
    No. The source says: "When OSD’s budget guidelines were released in September, however, the proposed USAF project was left unfunded. A reclama was subsequently rejected." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then we can't add anymore.--Ykraps (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Initiation.--Ykraps (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initiation

  • ".....asked the NRO Program A Director (responsible for the Air Force aspects of NRO activities)" - I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be better to flip this, "...asked the NRO Director responsible for the Air Force aspects of NRO activities (Program A)".
Scrap that. I can see why that would create further problems.--Ykraps (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the wake of the President's announcement... ...at the Los Angeles Air Force Station in El Segundo, California", is some sentence. Consider splitting up. Perhaps start a new sentence after Program 632A.
    Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astronauts

Spacecraft

Gemini B specifications

Space station

Spacesuits

  • "...a full prototype with cover garments was delivered in March 1969". The cover garments were never completed. – If they were never completed, how were they delivered in March 1969?
    Corrected. Should have been "without". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Facilities.--Ykraps (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities

  • "The loss of a MOL..." - Per previous comment, this should be an MOL.

Rochester

  • "....of test chambers, built at a cost of $32,500,000" - No 2019 equivalent cost?

Test flight

  • "This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice,..." - So this was the second time?
    Yes, this was the second time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be me but I'm struggling to understand what this means. Are we saying that previously a different spacecraft intended for humans, flew in space once and then MOL came along and flew in space twice? Also, if 3 November 1966 was its second flight, when was its first? Sorry if I'm being a bit dense.--Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article says: The flight consisted of an MOL mockup built from a Titan II propellant tank, and the refurbished capsule from the Gemini 2 mission as a prototype Gemini B spacecraft. This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice, albeit without a crew.
    The spacecraft (Gemini spacecraft No. 2) was the one used by the Gemini 2 mission. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! The capsule from a previous mission was reused in this mission. Gotcha. I still had to read it several times before the penny dropped but as neither of us have a suggestion to make it clearer, let's move on.--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Public response.--Ykraps (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Legacy. Hope to finish off tomorrow.--Ykraps (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • "No Space Shuttle was ever launched into a polar orbit". - If none ever flew from SLC 6, doesn't it go without saying that none ever went into polar orbit? Or is this sentence not relating to SLC 6?
    No it doesn't go without saying. As mentioned earlier in the article, it is possible to launch from Cape Canaveral and fly a dog leg over the Atlantic. But this would dramatically reduce the payload. After the Challenger disaster, the USAF switched to using Titan IV. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that sentence was directly related to the previous one which was discussing launches from SLC 6 exclusively.--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the test flight section, refurbished capsule and Gemini spacecraft are duplicate links. In the Legacy section, low earth orbit is a duplicate link. If you don't have the tool, get it. It's really useful for long articles.
    I have the tool. I have removed the low earth orbit duplicate link. The other fooled the tool; the first appearance is in the gallery in the spacecraft section, so I have not removed it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, and that explains why I couldn't find the first instance of refurbished capsule.--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that about wraps it up for me.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I'll copyedit as I read; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • The first couple of paragraphs of the "Background" section aren't quite in chronological order; any reason not to move the Wright Air Development Center paper down below WS-117L and the U-2 flights?
    An artefact of tyhe organic growth of the section. Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention Corona in the first paragraph, then say "Discoverer (also known as Corona)" a couple of paragraphs later. If Discoverer is the main name by which we're going to refer to it I'd make this "Discoverer (then known as Corona)" on first mention, or "also known" on first mention if the two names are really interchangeable.
    You can see the reason for this in the discussion above. The two refer to the same project, but Discover was the public cover for Corona. Changed so that Corona is used throughout. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dyna-Soar would be launched into orbit by a Titan III booster. Suggest rephrasing to make it clear this is about the plan, not about what would actually happen -- perhaps "Under the revised plan, Dyna-Soar would be launched into orbit by a Titan III booster." Though do we really need to know what kind of rockets never got used for a different project? It might be OK to cut both mentions of the Titan boosters from this paragraph.
    Changed to "was to be"; the reason for this comes later, when it is revealed that MOL would use Titan III. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded slightly because of the parallelism with the start of that paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • an agreement on cooperation on Project Gemini: I'm not sure what "Project Gemini" refers to here. Is this just the Blue Gemini project name? Or does it refer to Blue Gemini's incorporation into a larger overall Gemini project?
    Linked. Expanded this a bit. Project Gemini refers to NASA's project. In this article is always prefixed with "NASA" to make this clear. The idea was not to incorporate Blue Gemini into NASA Gemini but the reverse: McNamara sought to take over NASA Gemini. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, clearer. Tweaked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOL therefore became a semi-secret project, with a public face but a covert reconnaissance mission, similar to that of the Discoverer/Corona spy satellite program. If I understand the sequence of events correctly, this might be better as "MOL was therefore a semi-secret project..." since security would have been tightened before the very first press release on 10 December 1963.
    Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a date for the Soviet decision to develop Almaz?
    Yes we can. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not something I'd oppose over, but the constant parenthetical inflation-adjusted amounts are distracting. This sort of thing is very helpful for a handful of numbers in an article, but I count 58 instances of "equivalent to $". What would you say to a sidebar, probably a table -- or perhaps even some inline text with an associated table -- that gives the inflation-adjusted equivalents of $1M, $10M, $100M, and $1B, so the reader can refer to it when curious without having the flow interrupted? As I say, I know this is unorthodox so I'm not going to withhold support, but this is an awful lot of parenthetical interjections.
    Agreed. Every time I left one out someone asked for it. I will think about it. A problem is that they cover a long period of time. Perhaps it could be in a popup. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was decided to complete the construction and tests, but not install AGE: as far as I can see you only use this abbreviation twice, once a long way further up the article. I had to go hunting for it. I'd suggest just making it "aerospace ground equipment" in both cases.
    Done as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As usual, a detailed, well-written, and fascinating article. A couple more minor points above that don't impact my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye, very minor comments on such a comprehensive article...

I've been looking at this for a few days and lots of changes have already been made. I have tried to remove those ffom my list but sorry if I've missed any. That's it from me. Thanks for yet another amazing article. JennyOz (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yet another fabulous review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have 2 new minor suggestions...
  • the basic equipment of a satellite reconnaissance equipment - remove "a" or make possessive?
  • aerodynamically similar test article - wlink Test article (aerospace)?
Very happy to add my support! JennyOz (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory/archive1&oldid=991613261"