Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Space Race

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

@JustinTime55: Wow! Good on you for taking on such an arduous project. As excellent a job as you've done on it, I am concerned at its length (150K; 14000 words). Wikipedia guidelines strongly suggests reducing to <100K or 10000 words. I'd be happy to help. Can you hit me up on Discord and we can discuss? I am on the spaceflight channel, and we can go from there. --Neopeius (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

WP Discord Server

Talk:Ingenuity (helicopter)#Meters (feet) or feet (meters) and dating (i.e. February 20, 1961 or 20 February, 1961 etc.)

...as well as American style dating on American space missions ('April 19, 2021' or '19 April, 2021) - does consistency or a guideline exist? I'm personally not sure, and the user that brought the meter-or-feet question gives me, at least, a chance to find out. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandenberg Air Force Base listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Vandenberg Air Force Base to be moved to Vandenberg Space Force Base. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich

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

John Young quote inclusion

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

My Draft

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

Assesment

Can someone please assess Super Heavy (rocket stage)? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Changing from “Resupply missions” to “ISS logistics”

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

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

Examples:

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

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

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

RfC on the Ham and Enos photos on the Chimpanzee page

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

Notability guideline for spacecraft

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

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

Mariner program

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

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

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_8#Category:Spacecraft_by_launch_system. fgnievinski (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Templates to convert Mars mission time to earth time

Hello, I created prototype templates to convert Mars mission time to earth time. For the Mars 2020 mission the raw images are tagged with Sol and mean local solar time. For curiosity mission they have an iso time stamp, including time zone. Basic template is User:Schrauber5/testMarstime. Derived templates are

Test page were this templates are used is User:Schrauber5/testMarstime2. Some part of the discussion is also at my talk page. Any comment (shall this be be a normal template, is it correct, is this OR) are welcome. Schrauber5 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to worry about WP:OR because unit conversions fall under WP:CALC. That is, unit conversions are not original research because they involve trivial, routine calculations that do not expand or synthesize information gathered from reliable sources.--Cincotta1 (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
At the moment the discussion at WT:No_original_research#Add_time_zone_shift_as_example_for_routine_caculation? is not confirming that.--Schrauber5 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I was not aware that this was that hotly contested, thanks for the link. I will read the discussion and chime in if I have anything to add.--Cincotta1 (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Category tree considered for deletion

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

Mariner 1

Hello, all!

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

Thank you!

P.S. This is all @Tisnec:'s fault -- I'd been putting off diving into the deep end until he got me interested in the Mariners again... :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Addendum: I've put it up for GAC if anyone wants to take it on. --Neopeius (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Units of thrust used in articles about SpaceX launch vehicles

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

Being largely away from editing these days, I was not aware of the changes and associated discussion. I would join the dissenting editors in preferring the SI unit kN, which allows easy comparison between various launch systems. — JFG talk 12:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Lynk Global

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

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

Discussion at Karman Line

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

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

Astronautix.com a reliable source?

Mark Wade's site has been brought up in many FACs, with the self-published nature of the site considered a strike against its reliability. Mark Wade is a reliable source, per the American Astronautical Society's History Committee. I have found errors in his work, but no more, and not more egregious, than I've found in "reliable" sources including encyclopedias and the NSSDC. That said, I tend to use other, more direct sources when I can, but I would not disqualify something from Featured status for citing his work. :) --Neopeius (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with nothing you've said, Neopeius, especially the serious attempt to find other more direct sources whenever possible. That said, the place to have this discussion is on the reliable sources noticeboard if you want anything to stand up when later discussed on various spaceflight-related Talk pages. (and then, if you do that, come here, and INVITE spaceflight editors to the topic discussion on RSN). Just my 2 cents. N2e (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The RSN has ruled that it is a reliable source; but FAC requires high quality reliable sources. What makes a reliable source "high quality"? Nobody knows; it is decided by consensus on a case-by-case basis. Spaceflight editors are required at FAC, not RSN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Where is the discussion of Mark Wade at RSN? Just for my morbid curiosity... :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)::::Not much: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190#Johnston's Archive - self published site. TJRC (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Other discussions, not at RSN: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 4#Use of astronautix.com - reliable source? and Talk:International Space Station/Archive 13#Sourcing problem: astronautix.com Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, these predate the HistCom's awarding of the Ordway Award. If a committee of the top space historians in the country (including NASA's historian, the NASM historian...and also me ^^;;) consider a fellow reliable, then who (the hell) are we to argue? :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Lithobraking

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

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

It appears that the following happended:

  • The term appeared in a cartoon in 2004
  • Someone created a wikipedia article in 2004
  • People copied the article
  • A video game from 2015 used the word (inspired by wikipedia?)
  • The word become more popular because of the video game

I discovered all this because someone translated the article to German. The deletion is discussed right now in de.Wikipedia. Do you think this article can remain in en.Wikipedia? --Kallichore (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Coming for us in 2021: new methods of spaceflight will mean new descriptive terminology will be needed

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

That number is going to now rise rapidly!

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

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

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

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

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

I do think it would be useful to think about how we, as Wikiproject Spaceflight participants, might suggest we address the topic. One alternative is to just let it get dealt with on any article pages where it comes up. But my sense is there is probably a better way, and it could be valuable for the project for us to discuss this topic proactively. Interested in what others think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Plainly we should decide whether to honor the FAA ruling on "astronaut". The companies interested in that will undoubtedly have a different view and will present astronaut pins.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
That is clearly one term of interest, and it is currently being rather robustly discussed on the Talk:Commercial astronaut page.
The question asked in this section is rather more general. Would it be useful and improve the encyclopedia to think/discuss the broader issue amongst a number of spaceflight-interested editors, where history is now (or is soon going) to invalidate certain legacy terminology in spaceflight? So far, it would seem perhaps not, and we'll just muddle through these discussions on an article-by-article basis, which is certainly the default approach. N2e (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Daemen

Alerting of a deletion nom. Oliver, we hardly knew ye. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

And why should we have known him? When you put a pointer to a deletion discussions on a project page, it is supposed to be neutral and unbiased. You should not add comments like "we hardly knew ye" Fcrary (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"China’s national Satellite Internet project"

We don't currently have an article on this topic "China’s national Satellite Internet project", which is a quote from a recent SpaceNews article.[1]

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

If this is a planned megaconstellation as it would appear, rivaling the OneWeb satellite constellation or Starlink, then we will clearly want to develop a decent article summarizing the basic facts? Does anyone here read Chinese? ... and perhaps might be willing to search for additional public pronouncements from the Chinese press on the topic? Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I expect we'll get more information when this project gets actual hardware and not just plans. The linked article has some basic information about the constellation design. --mfb (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jones, Andrew (27 July 2021). "Chinese rocket company Space Pioneer secures major funding ahead of first launch". SpaceNews. Retrieved 27 July 2021.

Mir

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

Style guide

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

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

Please review these drafts ASAP!

Wikiproject Spaceflight currently has 3 drafts that have been waiting for review for 6 months (Draft:List of Thor DM-21 Agena-B launches, Draft:List of Thor DM-18 Agena-A launches, and Draft:List of Thor DM-18 Able launches). This is an absurd amount of time! The next oldest AFC submissions are only 3 days old. Can someone please review these articles ASAP? Thanks in advance. @AngusWOOF: @Bkissin: @Curb Safe Charmer: @AntanO: @DanCherek: @Ken Tony: @KylieTastic: @Paul Carpenter: @Sam-2727: @Umakant Bhalerao: @Qwerfjkl: @Clearfrienda: @-Zai-: @MrOllie: @OkayKenji:

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

NASA Astronaut Group 2

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

"astronaut wings"

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

Soyuz mission patches

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

Talk discussion on NASA Astronaut Group 4 article

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

Apollo 16

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

Inspiration4 patch

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

SpaceX Starship peer review

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

Relevant entries in OpenStreetMap

Use the "overpass turbo" link in the upper right corner for details / coordinates

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

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

WikiProject SpaceX

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

StarshipSLS, to me that just seems too corporate, like it should be covered by a non-specific project about commercial space exploration. We wouldn't want to have "WikiProject Blue Origin" too. And "WikiProject Virgin Galactic."— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
cf Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/SpaceX working group
Eh, wouldn't it be better to be a WP:WikiProject Elon Musk ? Then it could cover Tesla, the AI project, the Hyperloop proposal, The Boring Company, PayPal. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX on Commons

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

Requested move at Talk:List of Thor DM-18 Able launches#Requested move 15 September 2021

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

(Related to this discussion at a user talk page) I have made a number of edits to articles due to a change in the FAA definition to Commercial Astronauts that occurred recently. One of the edits I made was reverted and a discussion occurred over Category:New Shepard astronauts and Category:New Shepard passengers. (The former was discussed more as the latter was recently created by myself.) Now, with the launch of the Inspiration4, I have more questions than answers and am unsure if I should be changing the half-dozen or so articles with Category:Commercial astronauts to something else or leaving it and adding related categories to the articles. What is the best procedure at this time? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Commercial astronaut is clear, they are professional astronauts working for a commercial entity, instead of a military or other governmental one. They are separate from civilian astronauts as the press sometimes calls them (such as on the Inspiration4 flight), who do not work for a living as astronauts. Instead of "astronaut", just call them "space travelers", and then we don't have to worry whether they fall into one of the FAA mandated categories, military categories, NASA categories, cosmonauts, spationauts, taikonauts. We then subcategorize space traveler into professional astronauts, space tourists, mission specialists, and other, as needed. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds reasonable and seems simple enough. Thank you for this advice.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

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

NS18

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

Active spaceflight editor CactiStaccingCrane

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

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

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

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

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

Here's all the reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/SpaceX working group CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Confusion with list of space agencies

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

Wiki Science Competition 2021

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

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

Astronaut categories up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 10. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rocket

Hey, so I just revised the template to use Wikidata extensively, fix some bugs and future-proof quick patches. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

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

SpaceX Starship GA reassessment

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

Since the science fiction Wikiproject seems inactive (concerning for Wikipedia) wanted to inform the project that good faith editor @TompaDompa: is and has been in the process of deleting and often neutering fiction about spaceflight articles. See the page history of Stars and planetary systems in fiction, the article Uranus in fiction before and after, although they did save the page from deletion), and many others. These pages present historical articles of cultural trends, interests, and completeness of factual information. Could the Wikiproject get involved? Thanks. I can see removing obscure items with no sources and without articles, but things like the famous Tintin album about his Moon travel, which has plenty of sources at its own page, are being deleted from Moon landings in fiction. Too many other examples to list. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yikes, I know WP:AGF but some of these are really egregious and pissing me off. Boiling down a whole list (even one with quite a few unsourced items) to "Uranus was discovered in 1781 and has rarely been featured in fiction since then" (current opening of Uranus in fiction) is ridiculous! I'll see if I can start to find any sources for some of the removed items, but it would be great to get more people from this Wikiproject involved. Goshawksonlyfly (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm guessing I was meant to be pinged, but I wasn't (the template and the signature need to be added with the same edit). Anyway, the issue at hand is that consensus is opposed to TV Tropes-style lists of appearances of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever with entries that are based solely on WP:Primary sources. Consensus is also opposed to basing the content of such articles on WP:Secondary sources about the works themselves, as opposed to sources about the overarching topic of the article (i.e. X in fiction/popular culture/whatever), see MOS:POPCULT. This is not something I came up with on my own, this has been discussed pretty thoroughly (the current text of MOS:POPCULT is the result of fairly lengthy discussion about how best to handle this kind of material). For some specific examples of TV Tropes-style lists being rejected in favour of prose articles based on proper secondary (and/or tertiary) sources, see WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. Simply fixing these massive and widespread issues with the articles that remain, in the same way we have fixed such issues before with similar articles, seems a lot more sensible to me than dragging a bunch of articles to WP:AfD to relitigate this separately for every single article.
As for Uranus in fiction specifically, the cited sources on the topic explicitly say "Uranus' remote location ensured that it was rarely featured in speculative fiction" and "Uranus is little discussed in traditional sf. Stanley G Weinbaum's "The Planet of Doubt" (October 1935 Astounding) is one of the rare stories set on this world.", respectively. I can add "comparatively" to the opening sentence, but I want to point out that this comes from the sources, not my personal assessment. If you can find sources that would allow us to expand the article while still abiding by the sourcing requirements put forth by MOS:POPCULT, that would be great; ideally, we would be able to turn it into a WP:Featured article. TompaDompa (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my confrontational tone earlier - I realized quite soon after publishing the earlier section that I could have thought through it a little more. Thanks for taking the time to type this up, I think I generally agree with what you've laid out re: MOS:POPCULT. Goshawksonlyfly (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a good example of how extensive this culling has gotten, many entire pages being axed even if (and this is the major point) some of their relevant entries have a Wikipedia page one click away that has multiple sources. Over and over again, across the spectrum of space related popular culture items. Wikipedians have created one of, if not the, internet's historical record of literature and film about the human race's ideals, dreams, and imaginings of off-planet exploration. A heritage collection for future generations of readers and editors. Many of the removals have been good ones, trivial mentions of a poster hanging on a wall and such, but If even one of the removed listings is about the topic and has a linked page with references then the entire article edits should be reverted to sort them out. I can see removing items with no articles or references, and very trivial mentions. But MOS was not designed to do good faith harm to such an amazing collection. Notice should probably be made to other Wikiprojects who might also have concerned editors. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Providing sources is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores material. You say the entries are relevant, and that might even be true, but that's not for us to say but for WP:Reliable sources about the overarching topic (e.g. Moon landings in fiction) to say, which is something that has already been discussed thoroughly resulting in the current phrasing of MOS:POPCULT. The community has rejected having these kinds of TV Tropes-style lists that merely provide examples in favour of prose articles about the topic in question. The way I usually put it is that we don't want list of rainy days in London, we want climate of London (and the essay WP:CARGO puts it thusly: Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. (There are some elephant jokes in elephant joke, for example.) But simply amassing huge piles of them doesn't make an analysis. What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research that is forbidden here.)).
A good example of this is Earth in science fiction, which was nominated for deletion back when it was just a list of examples (see WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination)), but was rewritten as a prose article and is now a WP:Good article thanks mainly to User:Piotrus, whom I gave a WP:Deletion to Quality Award as a result. The benefit of doing what I'm doing—replacing the lists with prose articles where I can and redirecting them where I cannot—instead of deleting them first (as with WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction) is that the edit history is retained in case anybody wants to write lists like these over at e.g. TV Tropes or Wikia. TompaDompa (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Justified or not, these massive deletions are also breaking links from other articles. If you're going to make these changes, you should also go through and fix all the links. This includes, but is not limited to Stars_and_planetary_systems_in_fiction#Omicron_Persei_(Atik) in Omicron Persei. The articles may or may not be improved by these deletions, but please don't make a mess in the process. Fcrary (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The last time I checked, TompaDompa was removing unreferenced fancruft and replacing it with some reliably sourced analysis. I'll review the examples provided here when I have more time, but please don't criticize editors for cleaning up accumulated years of garbage that dominate so many science fiction topics (which instead of providing an analysis of the topic are kitchen sink unreferenced lists of trivia). Should the project get involved? Yes, and I recommend awarding a barnstar to TompaDompa for their cleanup efforts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC) PS. I had time to look at Uranus in fiction before and the current version is clearly superior. What's the problem? That unreferenced trivia was removed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Fine, but if someone really cares about clearing out that sort of junk, maybe List of adjectivals and demonyms of astronomical bodies deserves some attention (or deletion.) It's basically just a list of the names of planets, asteroids, etc. with the names converted to the linguistically correct, adjectival form. And in most cases, there are no reference nor any indication that anyone has ever used the listed adjectival form. Talk about an unreferenced list of trivia. I was thinking of nominating it for deletion, but then I realized that it's linked from all the articles about all those planets, moons, etc. And I didn't want to manually clean up all the broken links. Maybe someone with a script to clean up broken links could handle it. Fcrary (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
When I saw that the Tintin Moon journey comic, which has an article, was removed from the Moon landings in fiction page, then I knew that excess removal was underway. Any page which has an article which includes good references should not be removed from these culture collection articles and should be put back. That will now require a group effort, and yet the editor is continuing to remove and lessen Wikipedia's collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Diff please. Was that fact referenced to an independent source? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
No. TompaDompa (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:SpaceX South Texas launch site#Requested move 27 November 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SpaceX South Texas launch site#Requested move 27 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Assessment of CXBN, CXBN-2, and List of spacecraft deployed from the International Space Station

Hello all, could someone assess the articles CXBN, CXBN-2 and List of spacecraft deployed from the International Space Station and perhaps mark them as patrolled? I created then and would like a third party to review them. Thanks in advance! :) Nigos (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Done! I cannot mark it as patrolled though, because I don't have that right. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Nigos (t c) 02:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship peer review

I just gonna left the peer review here for anyone to log their concerns about the article. Cheers.

SpaceX Starship

This article is more-or-less done now and I want to nominate it at featured article candidate once everything is polished. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by User:Leijurv:

Edit: All my comments were as of this revision.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has never read this article before, I'm going to read through it, pretending as if I've forgotten everything I know about Starship.

Starship is a fully reusable launch vehicle developed by American aerospace company SpaceX I'm not sure about "developed". It feels weird because while, so far, they have just done development, it is intended for more. Perhaps "designed and manufactured" like Falcon 9? Perhaps "operated" like Atlas V? Also okay might be "under development".
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. It is not mass-produced yet, so manufactured isn't quite right. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: I've used "under development" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Kudos on what you're doing right now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
with the ultimate purpose of assisting Mars exploration and colonization "assisting" is definitely the wrong word, maybe "enabling" or "permitting"?
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Upon its debut, Starship will be the largest and most powerful rocket ever constructed. I find this a little confusing. What exactly is a "debut"? How will we know when it has "debuted"? It has been constructed, unveiled, selected by NASA, part of it has flown, etc? Is it not already the largest rocket ever constructed?
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
all powered by Raptor rocket engines and burning liquid oxygen and liquid methane propellant I think "all" should be "both", and "and burning" should be something else, maybe "that use" or "that burn" or "using".
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
In July 2019, a test vehicle named Starhopper performed the first hop at SpaceX's Starbase facility. I think this fails to explain why this is important. What is a "hop"? Why does the name of the test vehicle matter? Perhaps instead something like "In July 2019, a prototype vehicle achieved stable flight and hovering with a Raptor engine, at the Starbase facility" would be better.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The first complete Starship spacecraft prototype was SN8, which crashed upon landing on 9 December 2020. Again I think this focuses on the wrong things. "SN8" doesn't matter. Somehow this only mentions that it crashed, without mentioning the important part which is that it flew! You can infer that it flew, but it isn't clear unless you already know how Starship works.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
These developments sparked many concerns about SpaceX's treatment of surrounding residents and the environment. I think we (cacti and myself) already agree on this, so not much to say here. Regardless, this is worded clunkily and I'm not sure it belongs in the lede.
 Done, removed Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Little competition between launch providers emerged before private spaceflight became more established. Phrased awkwardly. Beginning with "little" is strange. I'm not sure I even understand what it's saying. Is it saying that there was no competition between... countries... before private spaceflight, or what?
 Done, reworded to show it is in the US context Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Specifically, within the United States, preference for existing contractors made competition even more difficult for companies. Replace "companies" with "new entrants" or something like that, maybe "startups"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Only in the early 2010s when the commercial sector grew when a substantial amount of competition begun. This is not valid grammar. Perhaps "Only in the early 2010s did a substantial amount of competition begin, alongside the growth of the commercial sector"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Since at least 2009, SpaceX recovered the first stages of several early Falcon 9 flights to develop its reusable first stage. Needs more explanation. What is the Falcon 9? Perhaps something like "SpaceX has been striving for reusability since at least 2009 with its previous launch vehicle, the Falcon 9, by attempting to recover and eventually reuse its first stage". Also link to Falcon 9.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The launch vehicle can be used to launch almost any space payload, instead of being specialized for only one facet of spaceflight. I think this needs a link, footnote, or some other kind of explanation for what it means to be "specialized" to one "facet" of spaceflight. What's a "facet"? Is this trying to say that other rockets have.... limited payload fairing sizes? limited orbital injection capabilities? limited number of stages? an inability to refuel in orbit? All those might be true, but I don't know which.
Not too sure about this either, CactiStaccingCrane any ideas? Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nigos Hmm... what I'm trying to say is that Starship can virtually do anything, like lunar and Mars landing, space station, small sat + big sat launcher, etc. Not sure how to phrase it. Maybe "sector of space industry"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done, finally. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Both the Starship spacecraft and the Super Heavy booster are powered by the Raptor rocket engine, burning liquid oxygen and liquid methane. I understand why, but this has now been said 3 times in a short timeframe. Perhaps that could be reduced to 2. I don't feel strongly though, it might only work this way.
 Done, removed the part about oxygen and methane Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Methane was chosen as Starship's propellant because it is cheaper, burns more cleanly, and can be produced on Mars via in-situ resource utilization. Perhaps throw in a "among other reasons" or "for reasons such as", because I don't think it's quite this simple. There's also ease of storing, volumetric density, and specific impulse.
 Done, added "among other reasons" Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
All Raptor engines should be able to fire many times, possibly up to a thousand each, late into manufacturing phase,[18] and have their engine nozzle regeneratively cooled. Perhaps rephrase "All Raptor engines have their engine nozzle regeneratively cooled and should be able to fire many times, possibly reaching a thousand firings as a long term goal"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
In an interview with Tim Dodd, Elon Musk, SpaceX's CEO and chief engineer, stated that Remove. The reader has no use for this information, and it doesn't make the article better, rather more confusing.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
SpaceX will build many variants SpaceX intends to build many variants
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The sea level-optimized engine has a throat to exit area of 1:34,[19] while the Raptor Vacuum variant is equipped with a nozzle extension, increasing its throat to exit area to 1:80. The sentence about specific impulse is okay because it links to specific impulse, and that's a standard metric by which to judge rocket engines. However, this sentence about throat to exit area, is probably too much detail. I might remove it, probably belongs on the Raptor page.
 Done, removed Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Each is fed either with a mixture containing mostly liquid oxygen or a mixture containing mostly liquid methane. Perhaps replace "One is fed with an oxygen-rich mixture, and the other is fed with a methane-rich mixture." And perhaps combine with the next sentence, connecting with a "therefore" or some such.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Without propellant, Super Heavy's mass ranges from 160 t (350,000 lb) to 200 t (440,000 lb). Slightly confusing. The dry mass will not actually range, it will be an exact figure. There is only a range due to present day uncertainty. Perhaps rephrase "Super Heavy's dry mass (without propellant) is expected to be between" or something like that.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Four grid fins are installed above Super Heavy and controlled by electric motors, powered by batteries. They are not above super heavy, they are on super heavy near its top. "above super heavy" makes me think they are on starship.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Unlike the first stage of Falcon 9, the grid fins on Super Heavy can only rotate in one axis and cannot retract. Confusing to read. The F9 grid fins can retract and spin, these can just spin. It should be more clear that the "rotate on one axis" and "retract" actually refer to the same motion. Perhaps something like "the grid fins can only rotate, they cannot retract like those on the Falcon 9"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
For attitude control at space For attitude control in space
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Residents at nearby Brownsville may experience more than 60 dB A-weighted noise levels,[24] comparable to the loudness of a normal conversation. Add a comparison like this to the earlier 90db. Perhaps compare to the db of an airport.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The spacecraft can hold 1,200 t (2,600,000 lb) of propellant,[9] spliting into two main and two header tanks. Each tank in a type either holds liquid oxygen or liquid methane. Confusing. "tank in a type" is icky. Also "spliting" is missing a second "t". Perhaps: "Starship splits each variant of propellant into two tanks, a main tank and a header tank, for a total of four tanks to store its 1200 T of propellant". Meh. I don't really know how to make it sound great, but it's worth thinking about.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nigos Better: Each types of propellant have two dedicated main and header tanks, for a total of four tanks storing 1,200 t (2,600,000 lb) of propellant. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
These header tanks are used to store propellant for landing the spacecraft with its engines. Worth rephrasing to add an interesting tidbit, in my opinion. Perhaps "Header tanks are needed to store the last bit of fuel needed to flip the spacecraft and land vertically with its engines."
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Two are mounted at the nose cone and called forward flaps and the other two are mounted near the bottom and called aft flaps. Rephrase "Two forward flaps are mounted at the nose cone, and two aft flaps are mounted at the rear."
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Starship's heat shield is composed from many surface-mounted black tiles with some room to accommodate thermal expansion. They are mostly shaped into hexagons and mounted directly to the spacecraft, and should be able to withstand atmospheric entry multiple times. Rephrase "Starship's heat shield is composed of many hexagonal black tiles mounted directly to the spacecraft. The tiles are mounted with some room to accommodate thermal expansion, and should be able to withstand atmospheric entry multiple times."
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Starship is expected to have 1,100 m3 (39,000 cu ft) of storage volume, far larger than any spacecraft ever built. Might be worth mentioning the second place rocket, how much does it have, in comparison?
 Done @Leijurv: I would compare it to Apollo command and service module. Doing the math, that would be 180 times. However, in my opinion, this is pretty misleading, as it would imply that you can fit 500 people to Starship since the CSM can hold 3. I might try with something that's closer to Earth, let's say a typical commercial building elevator volume, which is now about 150 times. That would be easier to picture, and much easier to image imo. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The spacecraft is expected to experience about 2 g of side and downward acceleration, and up to 6 g of upward acceleration during liftoff. Why is there both downward and upward acceleration for liftoff?
Source said so :) No really, look at the source, it really said so. Cannot argue that. Also,  1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny :D CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Well I can argue that it doesn't make sense as-written (and yes, I am also saying that the cited source doesn't make sense as-written). What does that actually mean and how could it be rephrased so that it makes sense to the average person? Leijurv (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
It is difficult... I really have no idea how. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 Not done because other alternatives sound way off. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Reading the source, and from my own experience in engineering, I believe is expected to is a false interpretation of the provided information and misleading in this context. First, the provided figures in the starship user manual are maximum limits - they are not necessarily nominal values, they are there so a payload designer knows the maximum possible loads their structures must withstand. Second, this information is in the context of vibration analysis - the ship's vibration may briefly cause transient downwards acceleration. I think the sentence as written is misleading; most readers probably just care about average accelerations over long timespans, if at all. I suggest striking this sentence as well as the following one about sound pressure inside the fairing. A fully contextualized set of numbers would be distracting and only useful to payload designers. Troy Trombone (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done, it makes sense as these figures can be misleading. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Troy Trombone, thanks for joining Wikipedia, it really does help to have people like you to rectify facts. I'm just an average spaceflight enthusiast :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Starship cargo variant will feature a large door replacing conventional payload fairings, which can capture, store, and return payloads to Earth Confused by this, isn't it more important to bring payloads to space, than capture and return them? Shouldn't that use case be mentioned first?
 Done Oops, fixed.
Another possibility is to mount the payload on to the inside of the payload bay's sidewalls I don't understand this. Given the previous sentence that this is "another possibility" to, it reads as if one option is to have a payload door, and another option is to have trunnions. That doesn't make sense, wouldn't you need a payload door in either case?
 Done, wording fixed Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
can be made to adapt for missions can be adapted for missions
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
delta-v budget, or range I understand the intent, which is to explain to the reader that delta v budget is like the range of a spacecraft, but I think it can be phrased better. Perhaps "delta-v budget, which is similar to an operating range" or something?
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
As of October 2020, the Rocket Cargo program is the only dedicated program that research this mode of transport, funded by the United States Transportation Command. research -> researches
 Done
A space analyst highlighted risks involved in point-to-point spacecraft travel such as conflict escalation due to misunderstanding. I have no idea what this means. Does it mean that it could be interpreted as a hostile attack? A nuclear strike? Or what?
Starship's reusability and stainless-steel construction has influenced the Terran R[44] and Project Jarvis.[45] Obviously you're meant to click on the links, but per WP:EASTEREGG we can make it a little easier on them, perhaps "has influenced other rockets such as Terran R and Project Jarvis" so the reader knows they're rockets.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The firm further explained that both projects are very intertwined, since improvements in launch capacity and cost will improve Starlink and vice versa. Maybe "since improvements in launch capacity and cost can be applied to Starlink satellite launches, and Starlink profits can be fed back into Starship development"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Starship may enable very large science payloads "may" -> "would" or "should"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
One such example are the To avoid the weird grammar of "one are", perhaps "For example, the" and then at the end "could be made possible by Starship"
terraformation of Mars The article says "terraforming" and I think that is the more common word, perhaps use that here too
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
He also often made many over-optimistic near-term development timelines and pressures his employees to achieve them. Change of tense, "has often made" is past tense but "pressures" is present tense. Change "pressures" to "pressured", or change "made" to "makes" (but not both, haha).
Nevertheless, Musk had acknowledged There is no event to anchor the "had" to, so this doesn't make sense. Probably just "musk has acknowledged"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
fuel Starships and sending the settlers back to Earth. Perhaps "fuel Starships to return the settlers to Earth." But perhaps "settlers" isn't right, because if you return you aren't a settler just a visitor, maybe?
 Done, changed to generic "people" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
However, methane production via the Sabatier reaction is very energy inefficient, requires an extensive thermal management system, and the resultant methane must be purified before use. This feels like it needs a sentence after it, maybe like "For these reasons, the Sabatier process is not used on Earth for economic reasons, but it will be the only option on Mars"? Perhaps, I'm not sure.
with the workforce primarily made from nearby residents I'm not sure this makes sense to say, it seems obviously and necessarily true.
 Done, removed Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The build site is Starship's production line, where many prototypes are built simultaneously at facilities. "at facilities" doesn't make sense, maybe just delete it?
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Most of the vehicles' raw materials are delivered as rolls of steel, where they are unravelled, cut, and welded into steel rings. The "where" doesn't make grammatical sense, perhaps instead use ", then unravelled"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The vehicle may launch from one of two orbital launch complex there "complex" -> "complexes"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
there, each consists Replace comma with semicolon
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
eight tanks, three Replace comma with colon
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
cover about the development program cover the development program
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
However, some residents of Boca Chica Village and Brownsville have criticized Starship development claiming that SpaceX had conducted test flights along with infrastructure construction without explicit permission by government agencies,[67] the forced sale of houses, and noise pollution.[68] The last Oxford comma with the "and" doesn't make sense. "Claiming that SpaceX the forced sale of houses" doesn't work. Perhaps ", forced them to sell their houses, and caused noise pollution".
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Two tank farms holding liquid methane or liquid oxygen would be placed at launch complex's first and second corner, while its last corner would host a road, heading toward Starship's launch and landing site. Unclear what "first corner", "second corner", "last corner" means.
NASASpaceFlight.com, a space news website with a dedicated column for Starship, analyzed potential advantages of mitigating of sonic booms from residential areas and increasing launch frequency of the Starship tanker variant, vital for refilling spacecraft in orbit. This sentence is missing the "so what". What was the conclusion of the analysis? Are there advantages? Feels like this needs a ", and they concluded that the offshore platforms could be vital in making Starship rapidly reusable without causing unacceptable noise disruption to onshore communities" or some such.
cut off, just before the stages "just before" -> "then"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
delta-v budget or range Same comment as above ^ for this "budget or range" phrase.
 Done, removed as it was explained earlier in the article already Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
For destinations with a substantial atmosphere, Add "such as Earth, "
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
after atmospheric entry Starship's body faces windward Starship's body faces windward after atmospheric entry
thereby changing the amount of aerodynamic drag exerted and its terminal velocity. Probably worth saying the direction, not just "changing", it should say "increasing drag and decreasing terminal velocity". Maybe even go above and beyond and say why we want to do that, how the heat shield will reflect heat, etc
A thesis analyzed that the belly flop maneuver can reduce the g-force exerted to astronauts and spent propellant. Reduce it from what? What's the alternative? Are the G-forces comparable to landing in other kinds of spacecraft? Are they within human tolerances?
Minutes before touchdown, it is predicted Sorry to say it, but this entire paragraph looks like WP:PRIMARY/WP:OR to me. Do we have WP:RS saying that this analysis is valid? It looks like this is just directly cited to a primary source analysis paper.
propellant at the main tanks "at" -> "in"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
difficulties at pressurization "at" -> "with"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Starship development has been described as iterative and incremental and often contrasted against Blue Origin's New Glenn[77] and NASA's Space Launch System development.[78] Ehhhhhhhhhh, the "often" feels like WP:WEASEL. I don't know. Maybe it's fine. It feels a bit too... fanboy, I guess.
Removed "often" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
to collect vast amounts Remove "vast", it borders on WP:PEACOCK
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
had led to many prototypes' explosion haS led to many prototypeS exploDING
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
another space vehicle The article uses "spacecraft" or "launch vehicle", I don't think "space vehicle" works that well.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
launch vehicle, able to put I think this would read better as "launch vehicle that could put" or "launch vehicle capable of putting"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
booster was going to have Again, reads a bit better as "booster would have". Same goes for "spacecraft was going to have nine"
 Done, change to "would have had" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
other than getting from the government Not valid, perhaps just remove "getting"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
sea level-optimized Just a random note, should this be sea-level-optimized? I know that's weird, but it feels a bit better since "level-optimized" feels like "one thing". Idk.
I'm not too sure about this Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Besides ferrying crew Perhaps "Besides" -> "Beyond" or "In addition to"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
rather for getting more Missing a phrase, perhaps "rather it was intended for getting more"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
In September 2018, the dearMoon project Link to dearmoon
 Not done, it was already linked earlier in the article (lede and the commercial section)
and be paid for by Awkward, perhaps it could be just ", paid for by"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The spacecraft, containing Maezawa along six to eight artists, Missing a word, maybe "alongside" or "along with". Also "containing" should be maybe "bringing" or even "ferrying". Honestly maybe just reword the whole thing, something like "In September 2018, the dearMoon project was announced, to be funded by (descriptive phrase like "billionare" or something) Yusaku Maezawa. During a presentation to blah blah, a revised design of the Big Falcon Rocket was presented, that would have blah blah blah. Maezawa, along with six to eight other artists and SpaceX pilots, will fly a free-return trajectory around the moon, to 'create amazing works of blah blah next generation'"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
During the presentation, Musk revised the He did not revise it during the presentation, so maybe instead "During the presentation, Musk detailed the revised"
Seems to have been already done.
Starhopper is the first prototype to "is" -> "was"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
and hopped up to about Mention it was untethered this time. Are there any copyright-allowed photos that could be added too? Also it's worth explaining that by "hop" it means a controlled hover at low speed, otherwise it might make people think of a ballistic trajectory (which is much more normal for a rocket).
 Done, looking for photos Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Leijurv: Is it alright if I link to external media instead? Nigos (talk | contribs) 15:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure! Leijurv (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
presentation, where Musk is the main speaker Awkward, maybe just "presentation given by Musk"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
unlike carbon composites of unlike the carbon composites used in
The switch's rationales are The rationales for the switch are
The company in January 2020 purchased two oil drilling rigs from then-bankrupt Valaris plc for $3.5 million each, planning to repurpose them as offshore spaceports. Link to SpaceX Starship offshore platforms somewhere in here
Notably, its third engine fire test splashed the molten pad below. Does this mean "melted the pad below"? Or was it already molten from unrelated causes? :)
but it crashed to the pad while still moving downward fast but it crashed into the pad, still at high speed
performing almost identical flight path performing an almost identical flight path
as debris from the explosion make the surrounding area dangerous "make" -> "made". Or rephrase entirely, maybe "posed a danger to the surrounding area"
which it would have which would have
two sub-orbital launch pad two sub-orbital launch pads
tank farm storing propellant "tank farm for storing propellant" or "tank farm to store propellant" or "tank farm that stores propellant"
to a city named Starbase "to" -> "into"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
authority power and potential abuse for eviction Add commas: "authority, power, and potential abuse for eviction"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
although leaned by its crushed legs "by" -> "due to" Also explain more, that some legs got crushed on one side or whatever, maybe include a picture?
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
with one possible cause is a rupture in propellant tank "is" -> "being"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
the same maneuvers by prior prototypes "by" -> "as"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
then in-construction "in" -> "under"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
the first complete Starship launch vehicle "complete" isn't really correct, perhaps "full-scale" or "full height" or "stacked"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
In a report sent by SpaceX to the Federal Communications Commission Sentence is missing something like "SpaceX explained the planned trajectory of the first orbital flight of the Starship system in a report sent..."

And there's an nice, even, 100 bullet points.

 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hope this helps! :) Leijurv (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll fix this once I'm able to do so Nigos (talk | contribs) 09:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

A few more by proxy (credit to SYNSG)

another SpaceX facility at Florida Say where in Florida (Coca)
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The company in January 2020 purchased two oil drilling rigs from then-bankrupt Valaris plc for $3.5 million each "then-bankrupt" isn't great, maybe "during their bankruptcy proceedings"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
After the Mark series, SpaceX named subsequent prototypes with the prefix "serial number" or "SN", followed by the serial number awkward
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Newer prototypes would feature minor improvements over the last version if you're going to say "named" you can just say "featured"
No prototypes between SN1 and SN4 were flown, between February 2020 awkward
SN1 bent and then burst buckled then burst
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
SN2 was repurposed to be a test tank "to be" -> "as a"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
and SN4 exploded after its fifth engine fire "fire" -> "firing"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
the company started accelerating the construction of manufacturing and support infrastructure at Starbase, such as large tents, stations, and repurposed "started accelerating" -> "accelerated"
Seems to be done.
When linked together, these facilities effectively become a production line unclear meaning
 Done, clarified (i hope) Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Leijurv (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, addressed all issues. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by User:SYNSG:

  • Starhopper is the first prototype to operate a full-flow staged combustion cycle rocket engine the source cited here doesn't actually mention this claim, only stating that "this was the first time a large rocket engine burning liquid-methane propellant made a significant flight", which is unrelated to the combustion cycle. roughly the same claim is made earlier in the article (The Raptor engine is the only operational full-flow staged combustion cycle) with an appropriate source, perhaps reuse that citation. also, saying it's the "first prototype to operate..." is a bit misleading, it's the first prototype to fly. as mentioned earlier in the article, FFSC engines have been tested on stands before.

SYNSG (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Will find source for the claim,  In progress. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Meta-comments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

This makes me a lot less confident for the article to pass FA. This does not mean that the reviewers are bad, not at all! It is just that there are so much stuff needing to be done. My prediction that an editor would not be enough is spot-on here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I also cannot contribute much anymore, since I am going to have a hectic schedule near Christmas. See you guys later, and hope that Wikiholism don't kick in :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Watchlisting this for the time being. I know someone off-wiki who is interested in SpaceX and who might have input on missing information etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for being involved here, feel free for them to fact check anything :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, folks. I haven't edited Wikipedia in ages but I am effectively the space blogger on TV Tropes. I can look over this and give my comments but bear with me since I'm not used to the markup. Fighteer (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Fighteer: Feel free! You can learn the markup here: Help:Wikitext. Once you get used to this, it becomes pretty easy to use. Do keep in mind the verifiability policy before adding or removing content, it is really important to sort out speculations! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nigos: Wait a sec... A comment by @Hurricane Noah in the article's previous FAC said this: There's quite a bit of relevant scholarly sources out there that aren't included. For example, I saw one related to future landing sites on Mars. Should we include them? For Noah: What do you mean by that comment? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
We could include them in the mission section Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
[1] You will need to look through these and find any relevant ones that need to be added. NoahTalk 13:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done, to the best possible extent. I am poor and many resources being paywalled pretty heavily. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the article's compliance of the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Many of the sections presented have its own article and the featured article criteria has this counted, so this is important problem to solve. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This is just my opinion and I tend towards more "comprehensive" in terms of information content, but I don't think the sections are unnecessarily long and detailed. Imma ping SandyGeorgia too for a different perspective, since they tend more towards "summary" than I. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see anything of concern length-wise; the overall article length is fine, and the sections which have sub-articles are not excessive. Should the article grow considerably, tighter summaries may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia I just gonna play safe and use the summary style instead of the inverted pyramid, as the topic is expected to grow a ton in the future. The summary style is not just "summarizing" in the guideline in my view; it makes sure that the reader can understand the topic when jump into sections, i.e. read Starship history first before design. I would think of this as writing the lede of a brand new articles, with some exceptions. Is my interpretation of the guideline correct though? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by User:Fighteer (talk):

  • Are we discussing Starship and its Super Heavy booster in the present or future tense? Using the future tense implies that the statements will shift to present (and past where applicable) at some point. Using present tense implies that various claims and statements have already occurred. For example: It is the largest and most powerful rocket ever constructed. To me, an enthusiast, this implies that it is currently operational. It is also an absolute statement that would need to be revised should a larger and/or more powerful rocket be created. I wouldn't write it that way, but this may be in keeping with Wikipedia's general guidelines. Further, the grammar in this article is all over the place, with a confusing mix of past and present tenses.
  • The ambiguity between Starship (referring to the upper stage) and Starship (referring to the entire launch vehicle) presents a challenge for economical writing. I blame SpaceX for this, but c'est la vie. For example, The first complete Starship spacecraft prototype achieved flight appears to use "spacecraft" as a qualifier but this is nowhere in use in SpaceX's own public documents nor in media coverage. I see that the distinction is made in the Design section, which a reader would need to examine in order to clarify the introduction. I would prefer "upper stage", as that is the primary role of the vehicle, but I will cede the point if this has already been decided.
  • In the Background section: partly because of numerous technical and political challenges. "partly" and "numerous" make the language feel cluttered. I would remove "partly" and better enumerate the challenges.
  • by attempting to recover and eventually reuse the first stage of Falcon 9, its previous launch vehicle. Can be read to imply that Falcon 9 is no longer in service, an inaccurate claim.
  • I suggest adding a paragraph describing the philosophy behind Starship in terms of the economic value of a fully reusable launch vehicle. I'll draft it when I have the occasion.
  • The link to environmental impact statement in the Starbase section implies that the FAA has required an EIS for the site when in fact only an environmental assessment is being performed. Since the EA process is incorporated in the EIS article, a pothole might be used to avoid confusion.
  • Portions of this article are redundant with SpaceX Starship development, creating a risk that inaccuracies may be introduced if one of them is edited but not the other. Further, that latter article has tags for original research and excessive detail. We should either merge them and clean them up or shift the detail over to that article.
  • If I understand Wikipedia policy (MOS:TIES) properly, units and vocabulary in this article, including the Wikidata sidebar, should use American spellings since SpaceX is a US company and operates in America.
    • @Fighteer: Thank you for reviewing the article! About Wikidata, it is extremely difficult to change its spelling, because it is supposed to be unified and someone chose metre over meter for that. Otherwise, I will try to fix up all of the issues that you and Leijurv addressed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
      • @CactiStaccingCrane: You're welcome. I'm still making some more observations but need to get to sleep soon. A compromise on the Wikidata issue might be to use SI abbreviations for units, as I've seen in other articles, to avoid the spelling conflict. Fighteer (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
        I will try my best at that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
        Actually, you should not have a wikidata infobox on any featured article. Why not? Wikidata is much more vulnerable to vandalism than Wikipedia is, apparently. Also, if the Wikidata is vandalized it won't show up in your watchlist so you may not notice. (t · c) buidhe 15:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
        I'll fix that tomorrow once I'm able to. Nigos (talk | contribs) 16:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
        I disagree. The wikidata infobox has references and vandalism can easily be fixed just as added. Changes can be seen and reverted by just clicking a few buttons and adjust its value. In my experience, it is not that often (3 during 3 months) as the vandal typically add either too-early-elon-announcement on Twitter or "69420" things. @Huntster quite often patrol the page so there should be no problem. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
        The reward here outweigh the risk of vandalising, and I don't really see a huge problem after wikidata is set up. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
        You'll hate me for this, but I'm going to vehemently disagree with this. Despite mostly working on Wikidata now, I strongly believe that using WD for Infoboxes should absolutely never be done for complex situations like what we have here. Wikidata items are not the end-all be-all. They are just as susceptible, if not more, to vandalism, and they are inflexible. As a knowledge storage device, WD is very useful; as a supporting service to other projects, it is not. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
        Well, it won't cut it when the article starts to translate to other languages, for example, Vietnamese or Simple English. IF left as is, the infobox would be soon out-of-date. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
     Done, addressed all issues. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

We can always use the Wikidata infobox on simplewiki and vnwiki Nigos (talk | contribs) 06:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Urve

First look at a source review. Version looked at.

  • General comment: Some FAC regulars believe that sources should all be standardised in terms of capitalization of titles; this doesn't matter to me, but it is a consideration. Compare citation 78 (title case) to 16 (sentence case). Make of this what you will.
  • Cite 14, not sure if faa.gov is relevant; it's just the technical hoster of the document. If you want to include FAA in the citation, maybe Federal Aviation Administration is better than just faa.gov.
  • Good - all of the pipes (|) have been removed from site titles
  • Spot check and specifics. Based on first instance of the sources only, did not check repeated uses.
    • Reference 2: Good
    • Reference 6: where is "Raptor Vacuum" in this? I don't see it being said that it's part of Starship
    • Reference 7: don't see "its design can change rapidly" supported
    • Reference 12: Good. Probably better to compare it to the Space Shuttle than "many". You can say that there are plans to have redundancy, and that the Moon and Mars wouldn't support an escape mechanism - that's why there's not one.
    • Reference 13: OK.
    • "On SpaceX's website"? You can say "According to SpaceX" instead. This reads weirdly and the precision (a website vs. a press release) isn't necessary
    • Reference 17: OK.
    • "like all conventional rockets": One concern people may have is editorializing. Why do we need to say this? It's obviously true, but the effect it has it it diminishes the complaints by saying they're to be expected. Which may or may not be true, but I don't think we should be giving that impression.
    • Reference 24: does not say black AFAICT
    • Reference 29: Don't see this information there
    • "It is formally defined by a whitepaper" - "in a whitepaper" is better, but I'm not sure it matters
    • Reference 33: There's too much information in the source that I don't understand to check for accuracy, please verify all details yourself
    • Reference 21: theses are not generally high-quality reliable sources unless the author has become a respected academic in that area of study
  • General comment: I dislike Space.com (mixed scores at RSN), but probably OK for this article.

Have to go now, will pick up at section "Variants" when I'm able to Urve (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I have less time than I thought, so if I can find some, I'll return to this. I will say that if this is nominated soon, I will either not comment or oppose on stability and probably sourcing. The spot checks I've done are concerning, because even though I'm not looking through every source, there are still problems with source-text integrity. I did some informal spot checks that I haven't written down, and several aren't supported by the citations.
I think after this peer review is done, we need to find a stable version of the article that does not have significant prose, sourcing, or layout issues. Then sit on it for a couple weeks. Then nominate it. The dozens/hundreds of edits a day are very hard to keep up with in a peer review, and especially a FAC, because the versions we review will quickly become outdated and we have to entirely start over with all of the additions/removals. My two cents. I'm disengaging from this for now. Urve (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! I will self source check the article for all ref, since this ratio of bad ref is concerning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by User:Ahecht (talk):

I did some copyediting to the article, but it is nowhere near FA status. It needs to be VERY careful about differentiating between what Elon Musk claims the rocket will be able to do, and what the rocket actually can do. As I write this, the Starship portion can do nothing more than fly on three engines to 10km and land, and the booster has done nothing other than a fit check (and even then, while all the engines were installed, they weren't all plumbed in). Any claims of performance or size need to be qualified with the fact that a complete flyable rocket has not yet been built, and that Elon Musk has a long history of stating aspirational goals as facts. I fixed the sentence The rocket consists of a Super Heavy booster stage at the bottom and a Starship spacecraft at the top, making it the tallest and most powerful of all., but you have to be very careful of using statements like that without (a) qualifying them as planned, (b) dating them (as of when?), and (c) avoiding non-specific and non-encyclopedia language such as "most powerful of all" (all what?).

@Ahecht: It's pretty difficult to work on these stuffs, where everything changes everyday. I should have picked another article when joined Wikipedia... Anyways, thanks a lot for your comments, and I will try my best to improve the prose to the best of my ability. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane Yeah, this article is a great start, but it's hard to do a Featured Article on an unstable subject. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ahecht  Done, hunted to the last facts. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by User:StarshipSLS:

@CactiStaccingCrane The article is very well written. I made some edits for clarity. I also agree with the above statement from User:Ahecht that Elon Musk often puts aspirational goals as facts. I also reccommend avoiding using Elon Musk's tweets as references and instead using articles from NASASpaceflight and other similar news agencies. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@StarshipSLS Thanks for the compliments. I have removed all space.com and Musk tweets from the article, and I will skim the article again for checking and rephrasing goals. Also, welcome back! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane Thanks for the welcome! The reason I haven't been editing lately is that I've been busy with my spaceflight website. Because of this website, I will likely be editing Wikipedia on and off, so I may not reply right away when you message me on Wikipedia, so the best way to reach me would be via Discord. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 01:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@StarshipSLS Ah, alright. Good luck at working at your website! I hope that the materials inside Starship's Wikipedia page would help you partially with that goal. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! @CactiStaccingCrane StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 01:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a Good Article Review at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

New cable transport system

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

GA Reassessment notice

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

FAR for Christopher C. Kraft Jr.

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

"Return to launch site"

The redirect Return to launch site (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion. Is there a suitable target to repoint this to? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Space Shuttle abort modes#Return to launch site; The only uses I know for the term is when a Space Shuttle uses powered pitcharound after an emergency shortly after take-off.--Cincotta1 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"Last flight" entry for active rockets

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

I think it's useful in some cases. For example, the Angara A5 made its first flight in 2014, but didn't fly again until 2020. During that time, the "last flight" field was a useful indication that, while technically in service, it wasn't in active use. For launch vehicles which fly many times a year, I guess we can just leave the field blank if keeping it up to date is a problem. Fcrary (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with Fcrary. --Neopeius (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
What do you think of just using the year for these cases? It shows that the rocket is in active use, and it limits updates to the beginning of the year. --mfb (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Dates and times section in the style guide

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

@Ergzay: Thanks for removing that. This is not an issue a project can just decide for itself. Further, project members shouldn't be edit warring to use DMY dates where articles have used MDY dates in the past, as User:CRS-20 is currently doing at Space Shuttle. BilCat (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, for the love of Pete. I should have known. --Neopeius (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Mentioning you as you made the original change that I removed. I looked at the referenced page and there was zero consensus on using DMY format, only for using UTC. Because of those changes a user has been going around to every single US spaceflight article and converting them to DMY and the damage is now significant and difficult to revert. Ergzay (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
That is not the case. The style guide does not violate WP:DATERET. DATERET applies to existing articles. Article style should not be changed without consensus. Edit warring is unacceptable. The NASA style guide specifies DMY. [2], which is why the project guide recommends it. But it applies only to new articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
No, you cannot override WP-wide guidelines at the project level, even for new articles. BilCat (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, but this is not the case. No WP-wide guidelines are being overridden. MOS:DATETIES: In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The exceptions need to be decided at the MOS level, not the project level. BilCat (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? It reads to me like the MOS says In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles then brings up the US military in a for example. This reads to me like an "including but not limited to the US military", where the military is just one example of a topic with a customary date format. (joke): I think, if your interpretation is that that should be a complete list, the text there in the MOS for example, articles on the modern US military should be replaced with this applies only to articles on the modern US military </joke> Leijurv (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The "customary usage" for NASA-written articles is the MDY format so MDY should be used. Ergzay (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you have something that says that this NASA page is official in some way? It appears hidden away on the site and I can't find anything linking to it. More-so, it goes against NASA's general publishing everywhere else in it's material where MDY format is always used. More-so, the date format used historically when NASA historical events occurred was also MDY format. You say edit warring is unacceptable and I agree however I would not call "restoring pages" as edit warring. I agree that pages that are already MDY should not be changed. However changing DMY pages back to MDY pages after they have been changed is acceptable in my opinion. Ergzay (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
After reading that NASA style guide, I don't think it is applicable. It specifically says it is about what "NASA history authors, editors, proofreaders, and printers" should do. And in the later text, it's pretty clear it's about what people writing histories of NASA work should do. That means it's not applicable to NASA media relations or PIO publications, and those publications are not consistent about date formats. Fcrary (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Here is some suggested wording for the style guide: "Dates should be in the date format used by the launching company or country if the company does not specify or use a specific format. If the mission or object is international then day-month-year format (7 July 1983) should be used." Ergzay (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
While that sounds fine to me, couldn't someone just as easily claim that this still violates MOS:DATERET, just as much as the previous wording did? Since this recommends a different standard than the MOS (the MOS only recognizing "national ties", while this refers to the date format used by the launching company, or DMY in the case of no strong national ties). Leijurv (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Launch Control Center#Requested move 19 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Launch Control Center#Requested move 19 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Expert needed at SpaceX Starship

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

NERVA

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

Crystal balls

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

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

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

My edits should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

FAR notice on Hubble Space Telescope

Article about to be dethroned with issues noticed [3]. 2001:4455:30B:6C00:45B7:D10F:374A:178A (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

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

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

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

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

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

Wikipedia:Constellation program

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

error

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

Judith Resnik

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

Featured Article Save Award for Christopher C. Kraft Jr.

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

Are space tourists astronauts? Are they flying "missions"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:True but now the questions is what do we call them Commercial Astronaut, Spaceflight participant or Space tourist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpenz (talk • contribs) 00:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Tourists. The FAA stopped its silly commercial astronaut wings program after five months: No more commercial astronaut wings: FAA ceases program with arrival of 'space tourism era'. We should only use commercial astronauts for actual professionals, like Charles D. Walker or any other salaried modern equivalent with actual training and a role. Tourists are tourist, same as Space Mountain ride just a bit more expensive. --StellarNerd (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I would say the fact that the spacecraft is automated is irrelevant. Many astronauts have flown as "mission specialists" or "payload specialists". Their role had nothing to do with operating the spacecraft. Similarly, I think it's irrelevant whether they are paid by the government, someone else, or unpaid. (And I find it odd that you consider being on a "mission" relevant, or that a "mission" has to be a task assigned by others. That certainly isn't the normal usage of the word.) For the distinction between an astronaut and a tourist, I think the primary distinction should be what they do in space. If they're simply along to enjoy the ride, clearly they are tourists. But if they're doing some sort of useful work, they're not just tourists. Even if they aren't highly trained or specialists in the sort of work they will be doing. Note that the current NASA administrator is an "astronaut" even though he was just a Congressman who use his political influence to get a ride on the Shuttle and did an infamously inept job of conducting some experiments during the flight. So in terms of the people you mention, we should be discussing what they did during the flight. If they decided it was important to have a doctor on board and therefore included one, then that doctor would be an astronaut not a tourist. So I would certainly say Ms. Arceneaux was not just a tourist. On the Polaris Dawn mission, Mr. Isaacman will do an EVA, which is a first for a Dragon flight and testing new hardware, so he also shouldn't be considered a tourist. Fcrary (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

:I Agree, Inspiration4 and Axiom Mission 1 are great examples they all deserves the Commercial Astronaut title. I'd argue that the sub-orbital spaceflights like Blue origin and Virgin Galactic are all tourist expect maybe the pilots of Virgin galactic who actually have to fly the spacecraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpenz (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § NPOV issues in some sections at Space Race

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

need help

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

Sally Ride

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

Artemis 1 improvement

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

Is spacefacts.de a reliable source?

I'm doing the GA review for Ravish Malhotra, which cites spacefacts.de several times. Can anyone here provide information that would help us decide if it's a reliable source? (In fact it would be great if there were a subpage of this project listing reliable and unreliable sources.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Previous discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 273#Spacefacts in 2019 and Portal talk:Spaceflight#spacefacts.de reliable source? in 2021. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks; looks like a definite no. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Seems like we got that question sorted, Mike Christie.

Importantly, I think it also shows that the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the right place to have new discussions on spaceflight-related sources and get a determination as to whether a particular source is, or is not, considered an unreliable source. Have seen some editors on spaceflight articles making their own private determinations and just pulling sources in articles, without taking it to RSN. This can become a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than editor consensus about source quality. N2e (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but I also think the project-specific discussions can be very useful as not everyone at WT:ALBUMS, for example, necessarily watchs the RSN. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Times and dates

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

Digging deeper, I see that the event is described here [4] as occurring at "12:18 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time on Aug. 2, 1971" - which would be 7:18 pm Central Daylight Time on August 1 - if we assume 'Houston/Mission Control' time, or 8:18 pm Eastern Daylight time if we assume 'Kennedy Space Center' time. Not being deeply invested in technical details of how space flight times are presented, I can see the confusion myself. Is there a standard? Do we just put everything on UTC, or do we use the clock used by NASA or other space agencies for their own timelines? Pointers, guidelines, casual standards - any information would be greatly appreciated! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Formally, U.S. launches generally use UTC/ZULU time (greenwich mean time) in formal control systems supporting launch. The practical/popular information that is advertised has been converted to EST/EDT for East coast launches like Cape Canaveral and Wallops or PST/PDT for Vandenberg, etc. From a citation perspective, most news articles, etc will likely identify the local time observed at the launch site. The disparity you identify is real and is more apparent when, for example, a NASA astronaut is launched from Baikonur. With a timezone differential of about 11 hours, the locations spend almost half of every day using different date stamps. Russians would generally ID time of launch (or return) from that region where time advertised at NASA mission control in Houston would likely conform to the US central time from a public affairs perspective. Both are accurate, just dependent on the geography of the one reporting the time. My view, use the local time at the point of the event when a terrestrial one (like a launch). For space activities (on station), use the station clock which is greenwich mean time (called UTC or ZULU).SpaceHist65 (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the guidance. I can imagine with so many variables (as well as tendencies of patriotic inclinations), forcing a formal format for such things would probably not be feasible. But this gets me in the right direction. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

New section on Adopt an Astronaut?

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

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

Updated NASA Article - seeking comments

Signficantly updated NASA Article to add "the other parts of NASA" which comprise over 40% of NASA's annual budget. Still working on several items but seeking advice from knowledgeable editors on a couple of things. Article is quite large in size with the additions. Looking for areas of removal and/or trimming. See items below. Looking for feedback/consensus from knowledgeable editors to make removal decisions

  • NASA#Near Earth Object Detection (1998–present). There is a paragraph in this section that is comparatively quite scientific (starts with "One issue with NEO prediction..."). The material comes from a direct copy of the Near Earth Object#Size distribution article section on 7 October 2019. It is out of place in a NASA article. It fits well where it is found (and has been updated) in the NEO article. Seeking comments/consensus on removal of the very detailed math paragraph. I have already updated the section and aligned it to Planetary Defense. I think that is sufficient for a NASA article. A new user demanded the return of the paragraph days ago so I complied in order not to get into an edit war. There is discussion on NASA Talk page. The user doesn't have an opinion; just decided to do a significant revert for edit count (given the lack of opinion on the topic). I found the direct copy from 2019 and that to me makes believe the info is un-necessary in this article given the subsection links to NEO anyway. Please provide comments. Thanks
  • Removal of small NASA#Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic subsection. Material is out of date. NASA has not done a very good job publishing updated guidance that is easily referenceable. I think like most, everyone is easing into a mostly normal operational condition without formal "removals" of guidance overall. Important section during the early and height of pandemic. I offer that it is OBE at this point. Proposing to remove it. Please provide comments.
  • NASA#Budget of NASA. NASA has been comparatively doing quite well in recent budget years. This seemed to be trying to state a need for more funding. The data in the paragraph is dated (I updated a survey but the financial information graph is 10 years old). There is also a more detailed article where perceptions could be addressed. Is there a reason to keep this given the Budget information at the front of the article? Please comment.
  • NASA#Use of the metric system I am old enough to appreciate the discussion and recall the Mars flight failure due to the metric english problem. that said, I don't think this is a current issue anymore. Possible to delete? Any thoughts?
  • NASA#Past Administrators while the info is interesting, I understand seeking re-assessment of the article in the direction of a Good Article recommends an article size far less than 250K. Is this section worth the space allocated? Thoughts?

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

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

The article is only 79 KB. We use prose size to calculate the size of an article, not Wikitext. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Comments
  • Near Earth Object Detection is fine as it is now, but it should have main article hatnote to point the reader to the main article for more information
  • I would like to see the metric use retained
  • Support the deletion of the COVID section.
  • I would reinstate the first sentence of "Perceptions on NASA's Budget" about the historically high percentage during Apollo, and perhaps the graph. I don't think people care much about the 2018-2021 budgets though, and would be inclined to remove that.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Improvements on C-Class Articles

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

Review needed for red-link page for Translational Research Institute for Space Health

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

Feedback for Draft New Article?

Hello, I’m an employee at Greg Wyler’s new satellite communications company, E-Space. I’ve been working on a draft for an article about the company in my Sandbox [5] to submit to the official Articles for Creation queue for a review there, but before I do that I was wondering if anybody here might be willing to give me feedback on the draft? Thanks for your time! Talex000 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

2022_YG

2022_YG needs help. Possibly {{WikiProject Spaceflight |importance=High}} (sdsds - talk) 06:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Local Time Vrs UTC

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

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

Should the Polaris Program be included in listings of US human space flight programs?

I noticed it was included in Template:US human spaceflight programs and I'm unsure how I feel about that. My gut feeling is it shouldn't be there - it sticks out like a sore thumb next to the other entries - but it 'does' say 'US' human spaceflight programs, not 'US government', so I'm unsure of what to do. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as how no-one spoke up, I went ahead and removed it from the list. Maybe we can set up a new template for commercial programs if required in the future. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Paul Haney, voice of mission control at NASA

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

Merge proposal AstroCrete --> Lunarcrete

There is a merge discussion at Talk:Lunarcrete#Proposed_Merge_of_AstroCrete_into_Lunarcrete_(2) to merge AstroCrete to Lunarcrete. AstroCrete does not appear to be have sufficient independent notability and could instead be dealt with in a section in the existing article Lunarcrete. The previous merge proposal received zero comments and was closed as no consensus so I am re-listing and posting at relevant wikiprojects to attract some comments from interested editors. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyamorph (talk • contribs) 08:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

GAR of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

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

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. If comments are not entered on the article talk page, they may be swept up in archives here and lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. Glynn Lunney
  2. Joseph Francis Shea

Space tourist vs. private astronaut

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

RfC

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

FAR

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

Question : Where to link to "resources" page ?

As mentioned here https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight&diff=1046937877&oldid=1046937739, created this page for OSM data resources (and others) : Resources_for_editors --> where to link to it on the overview page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dulliman (talk • contribs) 11:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Added to project page. TJRC (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Problems with robotic spacecraft articles

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

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

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

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

Be bold and do what you need to and ping this project if you run into difficulty.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
What Wehwalt said. We're a pretty active project, but not overly organized. :) But happy to give advice and reviews when needed. --Neopeius (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both! I merged Cargo spacecraft to the main uncrewed spacecraft article, and redirected the list. If there are any concerns, pls ping me here! Artem.G (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

SpaceNews citations

I would like to propose that SpaceNews citations be avoided if at all possible. I have not encountered anything suggesting that they are in anyway an unreliable source, but at the time of writing, spacenews.com is excluded from the Wayback Machine[1] and that creates a problem for citation longevity. So I propose that in instances where another reliable source can be easily found, it is used instead. askeuhd (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration and improvement on Space Food article

Hi everyone,


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


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

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


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


Thanks!


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

Euclid

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

Translational Research Institute for Space Health article needs review

Hello everyone,

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

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

Separate Article For Space probe

I've seen a Space probe article was redirected. This is very similar to content removal. I think info about a space probe should be on the relevant article, since there are many types of a crewed spacecraft. For example, a Space telescope, is very different from a space probe. Space probe and Space telescope are both uncrewed spacecraft. 195.5.3.58 (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

If there's already a list of space probes, then, on Space probe article, please add sources about distances between the Sun and farthest space probes (this is an example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.5.3.58 (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Artem.G beat me to saying "the list you suggest here already exists elsewhere, namely List of Solar System probes, List of uncrewed spacecraft by program and List of space telescopes, and are already linked in the section to which the redirect points". I personally think the article as it was met the deletion criteria for its lack of citations, approximate duplication of existing topics, and lack of encyclopedic content. A merge and redirect was the best outcome. I understand that it can be frustrating to see work moved, modified, or deleted, but remember the project, not any individual contributer, owns this content so we shouldn't be afraid move, modify, delete material to comply with the project's policies and guidelines and manual of style.
Certainly there is room for improvement. If you think the stand-alone article can be salvaged, I would recommend expanding section to which it currently points and spin-off an article after it is well-cited, clearly establishes a distinction between its topic and others that already exist, and describes the topic in an encyclopedic tone. You are certainly welcome to ask for help and comments here and at relevant article talk pages, but ultimately if you want these changes done the imperative is on you, you cannot demand that Artem.G or anyone else make them for you (I'm sure there is a guideline or policy which elaborates this concept, though I can't find it.)--Cincotta1 (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

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

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

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

New Article for SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)

Help expanding it and a review would be appreciated! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship has an RFC

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

Engine infoboxes

Main page: Template talk:Infobox aircraft § Discussion related to Infobox aircraft engine and parameters:

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

First Earthlings - fruit flies - in space, July 9 1946 or February 20 1947?

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

I hope We have spacecraft with light speed

I wish. Zulfikar Chaniago (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Manned vs. Crewed/Piloted Spaceflight

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

While I'm more than in favor of bringing in more diverse groups of people to organizations like NASA and elsewhere, I really think this (gender identity/identity politics) issue should be left alone. Also, while NASA is largely doing the right thing to appeal to more (especially marginalized) groups of people, I personally think they are making a bit too big a deal about this, especially when NASA should still be focused on endeavors like cooperation with groups such as ESA, CSA and JSA, as well as competition with the Chinese Space Program and what's left of the Russian Space Program. Wiscipidier (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for changing current Wikipedia practices on this matter, per WP:CONLEVEL. As I noted at Talk:Human spaceflight#Manned vs. Crewed/Piloted Spaceflight, the correct venue would be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. TompaDompa (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Pale Blue Dot photo, I think that text is wrong

In our article Timeline_of_first_images_of_Earth_from_space,

text for the Pale Blue Dot photo says -

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

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

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

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

Requesting input on the merger of two articles

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

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

Credibility bot

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

Qwerfjkl bot

The User:Qwerfjkl (bot) has auto-catalogued a number of spaceflight-specific articles as belonging to the Astronomy WikiProject. This is happening because it uses mw:ORES.[6] I'm gradually getting them changed over. Gotta love robots making more work for humans, yes? Praemonitus (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Task completed (for now). Praemonitus (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The Discussion for AI in Rockets

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

Duplicated lists?

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

Kennedy May 25, 1961 speech

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

Hello! There is the french article fr:Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs. Artvill (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Reinstate "manned"

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

I'm personally sympathetic to that position, but consider the language in MOS:GNL.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm proposing a change to the MOS:GNL policy as "manned" is gender-neutral. And since it allows for "human" already I have no idea why you and the other user insisted so much on reverting my edits in the Apollo articles. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. If NASA uses crewed instead of manned, it's okay by me. I use "robotic" or "automated" for craft not designed to have people in them, which I call "crewed". I know it can seem more cumbersome, but you get used to it.--Neopeius (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Notability of suborbital spaceflight

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

Bump. Galactic 03 flew a few days ago and the notability of its passengers will keep dropping. Jpatokal (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree there don't need to be an article on each space tourist. Reaching space (leaving the Earth's atmosphere) is a great fate, as is summiting Mt Everest. Yet, most people who successfully climb Everest don't have an article, so there doesn't need to be one for every spacefarer either. There also needs to be done something about that list on the right in suborbital spaceflight. Virgin Galactic is planning to go to space every month and Blue Origin wants to return to manned spaceflight next year. Eventually, the list would have more than twelve spaceflights per year. As for articles on spaceflights, I guess instead of making one per each spaceflight one could create articles like "List of SpaceShipTwo flights in [year]" or "List of manned suborbital spaceflights in [year]". Glasfaser Wien (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. It's the same reason I stopped tallying suborbital flights in the [YEAR] in Spaceflight series after 1965. It's also why I won't be giving the suborbital space dogs their own articles either.--Neopeius (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sputnik 2

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

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

Reliability discussion on Encyclopedia Astronautica

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

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

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

B-checklist in project template

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

Virgin Orbit and Matthew Brown

Hello! Please check Virgin Orbit. A businessman, Matthew Brown, tried to buy the company before the bankruptcy, but a ref (Tim Fernholz (March 31, 2023). "Exactly who is the investor behind Virgin Orbit's failed $200 million rescue?". Quartz. Retrieved 6 October 2023.) doubts his qualities as a businessman and claims that there are attempts to edit Wikipedia from IP address in Dallas, Texas (WP:AUTO). A new IP range from Fort Worth, Texas (so near Dallas), Special:Contributions/2600:1700:FE4A:1400:28FE:30:7044:1D33/64 continues to edit wiki by removing refs and the expression "questionable businessman", and adding a Linkedin post which is a response to Tim Fernholz's article on Quartz, written by Matthew Brown. Thanks. Best regards ! Artvill (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Tiangong & Shenzhou program (mainly Shenzhou 12-17) grammar & oddities

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

Here's the big stuff I could find:

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

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

Requested move at Talk:Chandrayaan programme#Requested move 22 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chandrayaan programme#Requested move 22 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

List inclusion criteria

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

German engineer in WW2, member of the Rocket Team in the United States thereafter. Worked in aerodynamics, later returned to Germany.

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

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

Country: Germany, USA. Bibliography: 1980.[7]

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

X-ray telescope article merge

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

Requested merge for two early spaceflight categories to a third category

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

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 15#Category:Spacecraft launched in 1944 and Category:1949 in spaceflight, please have a read, thanks. A question for this Wikiproject should be when do single-year "...in spaceflight" categories start. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:1940s in spaceflight was created. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 05:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The section above was closed as "Done."

Requested move at Talk:Escape velocity#Requested move 11 January 2024

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

Lunar landers navbox

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

Request for comments (at User talk:Sdsds/Sandbox/Lunar landers navbox) regarding: User:Sdsds/Sandbox/Lunar landers navbox. (sdsds - talk) 22:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Merged with User:Cincotta1/sandbox/Commercial Lunar Payload Services template and moved to mainspace as Template:Lunar landers. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk)
The section above was closed as "Done."

Electric power and zumm photo shoot meshing

miki electric guitar solo travel to hearing back 41.116.238.11 (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Merger discussion for Military Orbital Development System

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

NRHO

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

GA Delisting of STS-74

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

Good article reassessment for STS-74

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

Hoppers

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

Move Starlab Space Station to Starlab (space station)

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

Merge proposed for EagleCam

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

Gaganyaan

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

  1. Gaganyaan-1
  2. Draft:Gaganyaan-2
  3. Draft:Gaganyaan-4
  4. Gaganyaan crewmembers

Pinging ISRO-interested members @Akshadev, Aman.kumar.goel, and Shaunak mohotra: and anyone else who may be interested. Erick Soares3 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Requested move at Talk:RLV Technology Demonstration Programme#Requested move 27 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RLV Technology Demonstration Programme#Requested move 27 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

History of spaceflight article needs development

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

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

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Spaceflight for some major topics nominated for deletion

Emphasis on two new deletion attempts which may be of added interest to members of this WikiProject (not everyone marks the sorting page on their watchlist). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Flags for astronauts

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

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

Talk:Dyson_sphere#Dyson spheres in fiction

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

Duplicated lists for Mars missions

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

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

Euclid italics discussion: Talk:Euclid (spacecraft)#Italicizing Euclid

Should Euclid (spacecraft), as a space telescope, not be italicized (per James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble Space Telescope, etc.) and even the name changed to reflect its status as a space telescope. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The discord link on the main page is either expired or disabled. Is the discord still active? CarterFendley (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

PROD of VSS Imagine

Hi folks -- I just saved VSS Imagine from a PROD, but the article could certainly use a little love from anyone who can help out please? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Date format

The style guide states that "Since space is not within any Earth-bound time zone, and to avoid regional bias, the WP:WikiProject Spaceflight community has established a consensus (discussed here) to use UTC."

What it doesn't make explicitly clear, does that include using the DMY date format too?

It appears to me that most pages use the DMY date format, but the Apollo and SpaceX Starship pages appear to be notable exceptions. I attempted to change over the Starship pages, @Redacted II opposed to the changes (discussion here). RickyCourtney (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I was hoping to get some clarity on the matter from those involved in the earlier discussions (@N2e @ChiZeroOne @Craigboy @Secretlondon).
Thanks! RickyCourtney (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
For additional info, the changes were to the IFT-1, IFT-2, IFT-3, and IFT-4 articles.
All the articles listed above did have the "Use MDY" template, while most other spaceflight articles have the "Use DMY" template (including SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Starship Flight Tests).
(Additionally, the draft List of SpaceX Starship Launches uses DMY) Redacted II (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
How articles were originally created matters. Whether some more recent editor might have changed the article template to the "Use MDY" template", the improtant question is whether there was a solid discussion & consensus for the change from DMY to MDY. So that would need to be looked at for some of the articles you mentioned.
But broadly, I think we are much better off if English Wikipedia spaceflight articles are in a more global standard of date and time formats, and not the US-centric narrow flavor. So, I'd be in favor of DMY data format and UTC times as the default starting point. For orbital launches, I believe we adopted the practice long ago to give times in UTC (with parenthetical local time, if relevant). N2e (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I too am in favour of DMY data format. This is implicitly endorsed by the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide and the MOS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers). The use of DMY dates used to be explicitly endorsed in the project style but we had problems with people changing the style of articles. The guidelines state that the date style of an article is that of the first non-stub version of an article. (MOS:DATERET) Where there is a {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} template, that will be honoured by the bots and templates, and should be honoured by editors too. While MOS:MILFORMAT trumps MOS:DATERET, my preference has always been to seek consensus. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Can we add something back to the style guide to reflect this? I see there was something there until January 2022. I’d suggest:
It is preferred that dates be in a day-month-year format (7 July 1983), however Wikipedia’s guidelines on retaining established date formats (see WP:DATERET) should be respected.
-- RickyCourtney (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @BilCat and @Ergzay who were involved with that removal. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Strong national ties to a topic
Articles related to Apollo and Starship have a strong national tie to the US (both single-nation endeavors), so MOS:MILFORMAT supports MDY for both sets of articles Redacted II (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC) EDIT: misinterpreted definition of "strong national ties", so wouldn't apply to Starship. It would still apply to Apollo, though.Redacted II (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that the Apollo pages should remain in MDY. I mentioned them here in an effort to have a more complete discussion. I do, however, continue to believe that the Starship IFT pages should use DMY format. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
As you said, WP:DATERET is relevant. The IFT articles have evolved considerably using MDY, so policy suggests keeping MDY.
(Additionally, I believe that MDY should be endorsed over DMY) Redacted II (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Care to expand on why you believe that MDY should be endorsed over DMY? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Its (in my opinion) better, and a significant percentage of the worlds population uses it. Redacted II (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually, it is a small minority of the world's population. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I misread the map. LOL my bad Redacted II (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that WP:DATERET is important. WP:DATERET overrides wikiprojects. Wikiprojects are for setting rules that are left vague by the MOS. However see the new discussion I started below. Ergzay (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Why do you think that "strong national ties" does not apply to Starship? SpaceX has on a number of occasions invoked nationalistic sentiment when talking about its space launch ("returning space launch to America", employees cheering "USA USA USA", and the general sentiment of American fans of SpaceX). Ergzay (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Most Americans do not care about SpaceX (which, as a fan of spaceflight, is very hard for me to understand).
But if you think it has strong national ties, then your probably correct.
EDIT: Ergzay, please use fewer messages. Several of your posts could have been merging into one post. Redacted II (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, it's a bad habit of mine as I write first and then develop additional thoughts and write those as well. Ergzay (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
That's fine (I have the same issue).
Just use the edit function to modify the original post. Redacted II (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a wider subject that is long overdue for being covered in WikiProject Spaceflight. That WikiProject Spaceflight is about things that happen in space (edit: beyond suborbital trajectories) or things launching into space into or beyond orbit. In that case it absolutely makes sense to use UTC and probably DMY. However for events that are happening on land at launch sites not directly related to launch activities, local time of day is absolutely relevant, as is local use of date formats. Where these must be mixed (for example launch prep or pre-launch operations) a judgement call needs to be made and policy should be left vague. Ergzay (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
In cases where local time is used however, it should be mandatory to append the time zone or wording like "local time" or similar. Ergzay (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that's good nuance. For launch and landing, it would be good to use the time zone code and the local time format in the infobox and include something more explanatory in the intro prose. An example of what that would look like here. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm relatively in favor of unifying Starship related articles into MDY and local-time formats. Almost all starship activities thus far have been happening on the ground or in the airspace above the launch site. For example all of the IFT launches did not reach full orbit and so have no events that would be relevant for UTC/DMY usage. When we start getting orbital launches with Starship and payload deployments I think UTC/DMY usage should come into play. Ergzay (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Your Boeing example is a good example of how orbital launch should be formatted, but we're not quite there yet with Starship. Ergzay (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
To be more clear I edited my earlier comment mentioning exactly what I mean that I think suborbital launches are not covered. Ergzay (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
For example, I did a quick survey of a couple US-based sounding rocket pages picked at random and they either use military date formats or they use MDY formats. I didn't see any DMY formats or UTC. See Category:Sounding rockets of the United States. Ergzay (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Galaxy 2 (disambiguation)#Requested move 14 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Galaxy 2 (disambiguation)#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested merge at Talk:IM-1#Proposed merge of EagleCam into IM-1

Hi, there is a requested merge discussion at Talk:IM-1#Proposed merge of EagleCam into IM-1 which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The discussion has been open since the end of February. Thanks, Consigned (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

How should time intervals be displayed?

Several articles of interest to this wikiproject use {{time interval}} with |abbr=on. The issue of what should be displayed by this template is being discussed at Module talk:Age#abbr=on violates MOS. Please comment there. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 4#Requested move 30 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 4#Requested move 30 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move of SpaceX Starship flight test pages

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 4, impacting all of the SpaceX Starship integrated flight test pages, that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is important to comment on, as again some individuals try to capture discussion on own interpretations. Maybe members of this project also might want to re-consider the "Low‑importance" assessments for all the SpaceX Starship articles. This is the most media commented spaceflight action nowadays, even before Ariane + Artemis (which is dependent on Starship, of course), but rated "low importance" leaves these acticles orphaned, neclected and more or less to a single editor who had put in original reseach and exaggerations while blocking others, especially IPs, from co-editing. The articles suffer greatly. 47.69.66.56 (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
First, stop with the baseless accusations. They aren't constructive.
There also isn't a correlation, AFAIK, between the official article importance and the # of editors working on the article. SpaceX Starship flight tests is a good example; low importance, almost 350 editors have edited it.
For a list of the classification and quality of every Starship article, they are below:
SpaceX Starship: Class B, High Importance. Former "Good article".
SpaceX Super Heavy: Class B, Mid Importance.
SpaceX Starship (spacecraft): Class B, Mid Importance.
Starship HLS: Class C, High importance.
SpaceX Starship flight tests: Class B, Low Importance. (For comparison, List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches is a "featured list", Low Importance)
SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 1: Class C, Not listed in importance. (This should be fixed, and placed at low-mid importance)
SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 2: Class C, Low Importance.
SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 3: Class C, Low Importance.
SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 4: Class C, Low Importance.
SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 5: Stub, Low Importance. (This should be mid-high, as this is SpaceX's first attempt to catch a booster)
SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 6: Not listed in quality, Not listed in importance. (This should be fixed, and set to Stub, Low Importance.)
DearMoon project: Start Class, Low Importance.
Rocket Cargo: Class B, Low Importance.
SpaceX Starship design history: Class C, Low Importance
Polaris program: Class C, Mid Importance.
SpaceX Mars Colonization Program: Start Class, Mid Importance.
Blue Origin Federation, LLC v. United States: Stub Class, Low Importance
(Also, just so you are aware, Starship has 0 connection to Ariane. They're direct competitors) Redacted II (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
"First, stop with the baseless accusations. They aren't constructive.
-> what are you doing? Accusing me of claiming Starship-Ariane relations? Like you earlier accused me of changing IPs to appears as diffenet people? I did not accuse anyone in special, but you seem to feel adressed, mabe as you have been cought for "original research multiple times (e.g. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:SpaceX_Starship_flight_tests#Dubious_statements_with_even_more_dubious_sources)
I never stated a relation between Ariane and Starship. Just untrue. Re-read and rethink before once more attacking me!
Also, once more you distract from the main topic by dropping lots of links without giving any resonable arguments. 47.64.203.33 (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Just trying to clear up a misconception, after all, you did say: "Ariane + Artemis (which is dependent on Starship, of course)"
As for baseless accusations:
"neclected and more or less to a single editor who had put in original reseach and exaggerations while blocking others, especially IPs, from co-editing"
(And this isn't the location for arguing about the requested move) Redacted II (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
You know the difference between "is" and "are"? Semantics are inportant when reading posts and then commenting (in an aggessive way).
2nd case you did nod read properly: I did not discuss a single word pro or con about the requested move, I just said commenting there was important.
Could you please stop attacking me personally without even reading properly and understanding what I wrote? You do this every time when I comment, or distracting from the main point. 47.64.203.33 (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Direct quotation:
"Also, once more you distract from the main topic by dropping lots of links without giving any resonable arguments"
But this debate is worthless. Redacted II (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree, it's worthless as you are the sole commenter and refuse to read proferly, ignore arguments and insist of diverting from the topic by attacking.
Hope someone else in this hopelessly orphaned and neglected project will read and react. 47.64.203.33 (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Assistance cleaning up Timeline of Mars 2020?

I'm trying to go through and clean up some articles related to Martian topics and it appears that Timeline of Mars 2020 is a complete mess that lists every single event, day-by-day, of Mars 2020. This one I'm a bit stuck on, since it clearly is a bit of a WP:TNT situation but it's not immediately obvious to me how best to approach it. Would anyone have any time to help me work through this one and clean it up so it passes muster? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Not that interested in this article in particular but I'm also noticing that the gallery is huge (it has *subsections*). That probably needs to get TNT-ed or distributed too. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Happy to help with this. I think it would be best to agree on the structure and scope of the article first. I will post suggestions to get the ball rolling.
In my opinion, events should only be included in the timeline if they correspond to major events. For me, these count as Ingenuity flights, the taking of rock samples, and changes in the science campaign. The first two are finite (Ingenuity can no longer fly, they only have 45ish tubes), and the last corresponds to a timespan of the mission with new goal, typically exploring a new area. Other major status changes, mission-impacting events, or scientific discoveries also deserve to be included, but the criteria for 'major' is more subjective.
I strongly believe the mission overview section should be organized by science campaigns. This is for two reasons: firstly, based on what has happened with Curiosity and has started to happen here, the rate at which "interesting things" happen decreases as the mission goes on. Science campaigns have a habit of taking longer each time, until the extended mission phase, which means that there is more time for a non-stub level of content to accrue in each phase. Contrast this with the Curiosity page, which used to follow a one-subheading-per-year format until I changed it. (That page suffers from similar problems to this one, but would take longer to fix as it is much larger)
About the gallery, I do not understand the point of a gallery in a timeline article. If the figures show some kind of change over time, such as here and here (the last one is by me, so I am biased), or for example showing wear and tear on the wheels over time, then it is reasonable - but they should be worked into the article itself. I am in favor of removing the entire section.
On the bullet-point-format: I don't think this is a major problem, although I do understand why one would want to convert it to prose; I would not object if this is decided. AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Apollo missions

Hello, all!

There is currently an FLC going on for this article, and it's running out of time. If anyone has a few moments, could you review the FLC and provide comments? Thank you! ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 22:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"Blue Origin landing platform" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Blue Origin landing platform has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 8 § Blue Origin landing platform until a consensus is reached. 64.229.88.34 (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Artemis 1#Requested move 4 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Artemis 1#Requested move 4 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This move request concerns changing Artemis 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to Roman numerals (Artemis IV etc). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

3rd opinion desired at List of Starship Launches

Talk:List of Starship launches#Recent Edits

1. Disagreement about validity of sources.

2. Disagreement about whether to include launch names in payload column of table when there is no payload. Redacted II (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Substantial omissions in edit summaries

An editor has failing to mention content removals in edit summaries. These edits added substantially to article wordcounts, so it is not obvious from the page history that content has been removed.

I'd like to be clear that these content removals were done among genuinely useful edits, and I've talked to the editor about the purpose of edit summaries.

The removed content seems to be stuff the PRC doesn't like, and a substantial portion reflects on national space programs. I lack the expertise needed to parse the nationalism in statements about space programs. I'm not sure how far back the problem goes; I'd think not more than some dozens of edits are affected.

As these removals of controversial content haven't had the level of peer scrutiny that they would likely have had had they been correctly described, could these edits get some scrutiny now, please? Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Starship full stack flight 4 media

Currently Starship flight test 4 does not have any media except a mission patch. It would be nice if a launch photo or video could be added -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Landing burns

Do we have an article on the topic of landing burns? F9 booster; lunar; Martian; Superheavy — there would seem to be a fair bit of commonality among them. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 22:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

VTVL? Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, VTVL is close. Looking at it though it doesn't seem to discuss e.g. hover landings vs. 'suicide burn' landings. And for lunar landings (in vacuum) it doesn't address the difference between the braking burn phase (to lose orbital velocity) and a final horizontal descent phase. At Moon landing the 'Transition from direct ascent landings to lunar orbit operations' section and the 'Scientific background' section talk about some of this, but those sections are totally unreferenced. Sigh. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
There have been aircraft equipped with rockets for zero length landing and/or zero length launch as well. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the boundary between aeronautics and aerospace is blurry regarding rocket assisted landings for winged vehicles. Is there a representative design for this? The C-130 for Operation Credible Sport? Or maybe something Russian? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The topic is not particularly related to spaceflight so I removed it from the wikiproject. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 16:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Article request: Launch cadence

In several articles about launch systems it would be a link to an article describing the concept of Launch cadence would be helpful. It's of particular importance to e.g. Falcon 9, Vulcan and SLS, and historically some Russian launch systems as well. Google finds plenty of references to the term, but I didn't see a particularly solid source describing the concept (and its importance). Any hints on where to find that would be appreciated! (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 16:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it the same mission?

hey, does anyone know whether these two refer to the same satellite? SHALOM (satellite) and OPTSAT-3000 (OPTSAT-3000 (OPTical SATellite-3000), or SHALOM (Spaceborne Hyperspectral Applicative Land and Ocean Mission)? The first one is said to be a "hyperspectral satellite" "operational by 2025", while the second one was launched in 2017 "operating the multispectral channel at the same time." Artem.G (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This source might help
[2] Its nowhere mentioned both are same.All webs I found don't label them same.Even wikipage Optsat the source which label both as same is a deadlink.Thanks. Edasf (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
hmm, seems that Shalom is a planned mission, and optsat is incorrectly labeled as Shalom. Thanks! Artem.G (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "List of websites excluded from the Wayback Machine". ArchiveTeam.
  2. ^ "OptSat-3000-eoPortal".

Peer Review Requested for Crew Dragon Launch Abort System

I created the article for the Crew Dragon Launch Abort System and I'm requesting input on how to improve it. Thanks, Titan(moon)003 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicle class designations

Falcon 9 is listed as a medium-lift launch vehicle and Falcon Heavy was listed as a heavy-lift launch vehicle. Those articles state that medium lift is under 20,000 kg to LEO capability, and heavy lift is under 50,000kg, whereas more would be a super heavy-lift launch vehicle. This doesn't seem consistent, as an expendable F9 is listed with a 22,800 kg payload to LEO, and FH with a 63,800 kg to LEO theoretical payload and appears on the super heavy-lift launch vehicle page.

The reusable configurations lower the payload, but they have launched in expendable configurations.

Wouldn't it be more consistent to list Falcon 9 as heavy-lift, or medium to heavy-lift? FH may be limited by the payload adapter as well. Alpacaaviator (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Heavy-lift would probably be the best definition according to other wikipedia pages. Delta IV Heavy and Ariane 5 are comparable and they are both labeled heavy-lift. In fact, Arianne 5 is actually less powerful and is labeled heavy-lift. On the other hand, a lot of sources say it's medium lift:
https://www.futurespaceflight.com/launch-overview/falcon-9-launch-overview.html
https://rocketlaunch.org/launch-providers/spacex/falcon-9
https://everydayastronaut.com/starlink-group-7-11-falcon-9-block-5/
It's not just unofficial internet space sites:
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-6/Launch
Even the ESA says it's medium lift.
So, even though it's not medium lift by the definition, it still gets called medium lift a lot. I'm semi-new to wikipedia and I'm not sure whether we should favor the actual definition or what appears to be the definition according to many sources. Titan(moon)003 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
The Falcon 9's ability to launch a 22,800 kg payload to LEO is theoretical. It's never actually been done. The heaviest payload actually launched was 17,500 kg. Realistically, heavier payloads get launched on Falcon Heavy. So yes, in theory, Falcon 9 is capable of heavy-lift (barely) but in practice it's nearly always used as a medium-lift rocket.
I agree that there's no reason that the Falcon Heavy shouldn't be called a super-heavy lift launch vehicle, at least under the US definition. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
The "efn" / carrot notes seem to be a good way to handle it. As far as Falcon 9, I doubt it's the only "heavy lift" vehicle that has not actually carried over 20,000kg to LEO but I can't back that right now. I'd think it's more common that heavy lift vehicles are used to carry payloads to GTO / GEO (again, citation needed). Alpacaaviator (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
The other thing that I think that got editors caught up about the Falcon Heavy is that when the boosters and core are recovered it’s <50t which would be “heavy-lift” but I think that’s a technicality. RickyCourtney (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
That's why I think the efn notes are the best way to handle it, thank you to RickyCourtney for making that change for FH and I just made a note for F9. Falcon Heavy has launched in expendable configuration for performance, so it's fair to say the rocket is capable of it. Alpacaaviator (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

GSST

I have created the article Galileo Solar Space Telescope, and I'd like to invite everyone to contribute to it! I believe that the next step would be to include the technical material from the scientific articles (if someone here has deep knowledge to write it in layman terms), until the team behind the project receives the green lit to build the orbiter. Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_10&oldid=1261909069"