This is an archive of past discussions with User:JustinTime55. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, Justin, I see you're new here--Welcome! Please revert the changes you made saying there was no explosion aboard Apollo 13. NASA says there was.
Two day [sic] later on April 13 while the mission was en route to the moon, a fault in the electrical system of one of the Service Module's oxygen tanks produced an explosion that caused both oxygen tanks to fail and also led to a loss of electrical power. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1327.html
Justin, you will need to supply a reliable source that says no explosion occurred. Sources that use words that describe an explosion without actually using the word do not support the notion that there was no explosion.. Thanks for your attention, Yopienso (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Recent merge
FYI, when you merge content from one article to another, the CC licensing requires that you provide a link to the page you got it from. You should use the double-brackets in the edit summary to create a link back to the original article. Thanks --Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)17:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
First off, this article is poorly constructed, and it is easy to get confused with it, so it is not just this section. I just rewrote some of this section to make it clearer, but in reality, this whole article needs a massive rewrite, including inline citations, which this section, and the whole article for that matter, is sorely lacking. Abebenjoe (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Trick question to catch people out: When does a pilot not do the flying?
I have notable experience writing high-quality text for the official Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website at nasa.gov, not to mention decades of experience of careful observation of the space programmes of the world since their early days. You think you can write better than I? There wasn't a single thing wrong with the brief words I added to the Lunar Module article, which does not belong to you, and anyone can contribute to it. I committed no errors of fact, nor of English, but you fidget with my words. I cannot stop you, of course, but I may point out the unnecessary irritation you have caused me. Furthermore, I did not second guess people's potential to misunderstand the role of the LMP. For one thing, despite my very close understanding of the Apollo programme, I spent the years of the late 1960s and the 1970s believing the LMP flew the lunar module, because the word "pilot" was in his title. I even "corrected" people who said Neil Armstrong flew the lunar module, pointing out "the obvious" that Buzz was the lunar module pilot. I was mortified when I found out how wrong I was. For another, I have met a few people who, predictably, drew the same reasonable conclusion from the LMP title. Is that so silly, or so rare? My contribution to the article was to make the role of the LMP more explicit, which is a legitimate thing to do. Wikipedia exists to inform and reveal. --O'Dea (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, JustinTime55. You have new messages at Talk:Apollo 8. Message added 13:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re Man Made Disasters
Hi, Justin.
Just a short note to thank you for your work on the 'Man Made Disasters' article. As it stood it was a bit of a disaster itself, and your efforts have made it a lot clearer. I'd thought about trying to tidy it up, but as a newbie I was a bit unsure where to start. I'll get back to it at some point though, give it a look-over, and see about adding something about famine as a category - some (most?) famines have definitely been man-made.
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Hello, Dr. Harris. The edits you have just made, and are still making to Apollo 6 and Apollo program in re Apollo 6, have some incorrect information in them. This flight did not fly anywhere near the Moon (more than a two-day trip) and certainly not into lunar orbit, only into three Earth orbits, the last one very high to test the heat shield (the entire flight lasted less than 10 hours.) It also did not carry a real Lunar Module, only a "test article" for ballast (analogous to the "boilerplate" CSM), that still wasn't as heavy as the real thing. Also, Apollo 8's mission was not a repeat of it, and not in any way related to it (other than the next Saturn V flight could carry men.) Apollo 8's mission was invented as a result of a random, unrelated circumstance (the LM not being ready for a first manned Earth orbit practice mission, which the original Apollo 8 was intended to be.)
What sources are you using for your information? As a physician, I'm sure you appreciate the importance of making sure of one's facts when writing about technical subjects outside one's expertise. Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I put in my source, and in the process found my memory bad. They hadn't intended to send Apollo 6 into lunar orbit, only to the velocity of lunar orbit. It would go into translunar insertion, then immediately (after less than 5 min) decelerate with the SPS and come back, in less than 10 hours. The return velocity and angle would be exactly as in Apollo 8 (and all the manned lunar missions), as a test for this. However, due to failure of fuel lines the S-IVB never restarted, and they had to use the SM engine (SPS) to raise the CSM to a high Earth orbit and then bring it in from there (not even as good a test as Apollo 4). Had the thing worked perfectly, the mission would have lasted almost exactly the same amount of time. I never said they used a real LM. The Lunar Module Test Article (LMTA) was a dummy mass with a lot of shock and vibration telemetry, intended to simulate the LM mechanically, and record stress data, but no more. SBHarris05:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Spaceflight activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!
Welcome to The Downlink · Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects · User Activity Checks
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Future issues will contain information on issues under discussion, newly featured content, and articles written by members of the project to appear in the newsletter. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter. If you were not aware of being a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, membership of the former Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight and Space colonization WikiProjects was merged into WikiProject spaceflight during the reorganisation of the spaceflight projects, for more details, please see below.
Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects
The ongoing discussion of the future of Space WikiProjects has been making progress. WikiProject Space was abolished on 5 December 2010, with the Spaceflight, Astronomy and Solar System projects becoming independent of each other. On the same day, an assessment banner, {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} was created for WikiProject Spaceflight to replace the generic space one which had been used previously. On 9 December, WikiProject Space Colonization was abolished, with its tasks being subsumed into WikiProject Spaceflight. On 12 December, the Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight WikiProjects became task forces of WikiProject Spaceflight, whilst WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight became a working group.
A number of issues are still under discussion:
Introducing better defined assessment criteria and an A-class review process
Setting clearer importance criteria for assessing articles
Establishing a joint task force with the Astronomy and Solar System projects to cover space telescopes and planetary probes
Defining the roles of projects, taskforces and working groups, and processes for establishing new ones
A series of checks are underway to establish the numbers of users who are still active within WikiProject Spaceflight, its task forces and working group. All usernames on the members lists were struck out, and members were asked to unstrike their own names if they were still an active member of the project. If you wish to do so, and have not already, please unstrike your name from the master list, plus the lists on any applicable task forces or working groups
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Welcome to The Downlink·Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics·Salyut 2
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements.
Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content.
All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details.
Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal.
New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented.
Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it.
Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised.
One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{WikiProject Space}} and {{WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class.
News from Orbit
On 3 December, USA-212, the first X-37B, landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base after a successful mission. On 5 December Proton-M with a Blok DM-03 upper stage failed to place three Glonass-M satellites into orbit, the first of three failures in less than forty eight hours. The NanoSail-D2 spacecraft was supposed to have been ejected from FASTSAT in the early hours of the next morning, however it does not appear to have separated. Finally the Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03, which does not currently have an article.
On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower. The CubeSats do not currently have articles.
On 15 December, a Soyuz-FG launched Soyuz TMA-20 to the International Space Station, carrying three members of the Expedition 26 crew. It docked two days later. The Soyuz TMA-20 article is currently short, and could use improvements to bring it up to the same level as articles for US manned spaceflights. On 17 December, a Long March 3A launched Compass-IGSO2. There is currently no article for this satellite.
17 December saw Intelsat regain control of the Galaxy 15 satellite, which had been out of control since a malfunction in April. The Galaxy 15 article is in need of serious cleanup and a good copyedit. On 25 December a GSLV Mk.I failed to place GSAT-5P into orbit. A Proton-M with a Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6 spacecraft. These do not currently have articles.
Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A Delta IV Heavy is expected to launch NRO L-49 on 17 January. The satellite is expected to be an Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space ShuttleChallenger on mission STS-51-L.
Article News
It was requested that the article Walter Haeussermann be expanded. Haeussermann, a member of the von Braun rocket group, died on 8 December. Although the article has been updated following his death, a user requested that more information about the engineer be added. Another user requested that the articles Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight.
Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term VTVL currently has an article whilst VTHL and HTHL do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain.
Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use.
Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited.
The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts.
Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics
There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic.
Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project.
One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative.
To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on Skylab, Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN.
This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided.
I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content.
Selected Article – Salyut 2
Salyut 2 was an early space station, launched in 1973 as part of the Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz mission.
The Salyut 2 article describes the station:
“
Salyut 2 (OPS-1)(Russian: Салют-2; English: Salute 2) was launched April 4, 1973. It was not really a part of the same program as the other Salyutspace stations, instead being the highly classified prototype military space station Almaz. It was given the designation Salyut 2 to conceal its true nature. Despite its successful launch, within two days the as-yet-unmanned Salyut 2 began losing pressure and its flight control failed; the cause of the failure was likely due to shrapnel piercing the station when the discarded Proton rocket upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973.
”
The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Re the edit I reverted to the Apollo 4 section of the table, I thought your edit summary was an honest mistake and you were reading the table as saying Apollo 5 was a HEO. I just wanted you to know that I didn't revert just because I thought you had made a typo in the edit summary. AFAIK, Apollo 4's reentry trajectory was highly elliptical; just because it never reached apogee on that orbit does not make it less so. I will try to find a source that refers to it as highly elliptical before re-adding it. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Please read the definition of highly elliptical orbit, which specifies an apogee in the geosynchronous range (over 19,300 nautical miles, extremely high for orbital craft.) Apollo 4 did in fact reach its apogee of 9,297 nmi (plus a 472 nmi boost from the Service Module), which was nowhere near this value. Regards, JustinTime55 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I am familiar with the definition of a HEO. After apogee, the SM again changed its orbit to increase reentry velocity; this put it into a HEO even though it never reached its apogee on that orbit. I view this difference as non-trivial, since one of the goals of the mission was to test the heat shield in a high-speed reentry. What are your thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still not buying it. The entry interface was at 400,000 ft. (65.8 nautical miles), 36,545 ft/sec at a -6.93 deg. angle. I calculated the orbit parameters and, surprise, that's actually a hyperbolic escape trajectory, so the "apogee" would have been infinite if the atmosphere weren't there! (Reality check: escape velocity at 65.8 nautical miles is 36,334 ft/sec.)
This is not at all the intent of the high Earth orbit definition. And even if the apogee were finite, still the intent was to create a high-velocity entry, not to put it into a high orbit (which it never reached), so there is no reason to characterize it as such. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·The Charts·Yuri Gagarin
Project News
A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing.
A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles.
The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field.
Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list.
Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved.
A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them).
Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk·contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project.
News from orbit
Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article.
On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission.
The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January.
Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit.
A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating.
The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated.
On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space ShuttleDiscovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank.
At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February.
Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable.
Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria.
Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved.
A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle
Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article.
Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight.
There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories.
Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968.
His article describes him and his spaceflight experience:
On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky.
”
The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Hey there Justin. Seems you and I are the ones doing most of the vandalism patrolling, etc. on the Waltons Wiki so I wanted to pick your brain. What do you think about the article maybe getting a bit too long and detailed in some aspects? Maybe the characters should be broken out into a seperate "List of characters on the Waltons" or something similar as was done with the list of Waltons episodes. I'd posted a similar question to all on the Waltons discussion page several weeks ago and had no feedback yay or nay. What say you?? Sector001 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Breaking out the characters is probably a good idea; it would make the TOC less cluttered. I think standard title form is "List of The Waltons characters". JustinTime55 (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger.
An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project.
User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation.
News from orbit
Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites.
A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space ShuttleDiscovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not.
Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed.
4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data Systemcommunications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew.
On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear.
Article news
Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities.
Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected.
It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user.
Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed.
A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy.
A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain.
A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions.
It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested.
Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list.
Editorial: Direction of the Project
Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project.
Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far.
Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks.
Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.
In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-)
The Charts
Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off.
Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it:
Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage.
The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects :
Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches
Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch
Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred
Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled
The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed.
”
The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Thanks for answering the question at Saturn IB. It's often only when conversions are added that the hidden ambiguity gets revealed. I think all rocket articles are prone to the same problem. Anyway thanks for sorting it out in that one. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
S-band high-gain antenna on ASTP
You asked why the high-gain antenna was included on the Apollo Service Module during the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. (It was originally designed for lunar distance communications, especially TV, and it had been deleted for the earth orbital flights to Skylab.) The reason was to conduct experiments with Applications Technology Satellite (ATS) 6. This was a geostationary satellite with a large deployable dish for communications relay experiments. Among other things, it demonstrated direct TV broadcasting to remote villages in India. It basically laid the foundation for DirecTV and other direct broadcasting satellites. It was also used during ASTP as a proof-of-concept for what would become TDRSS, the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System. The large Apollo antenna was needed to communicate TV from LEO to geostationary orbit. Karn (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, JustinTime55. You have new messages at Atterion's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, JustinTime55. You have new messages at Atterion's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
On your comments on my sandbox article on the Space Shuttle
Hi Justin. I've completely missed your message on my sandbox article: as you can see I haven't done anything on that for the past few months, so I wasn't paying attention to your comments. I apologize for this.
Your comment on the usage of the STS acronym is extremely interesting: I never knew that it refers to the whole 1970 NASA pie-in-the-sky proposal of moon shuttles, space stations and tugs! Thanks for your attention to this phrase. However, I would like to list my rationale of re-structuring the whole article:
1. The article's structure is a mess: how come the section on the upgrades of the system comes before the generic mission profile? It looks rather strange. Plus I think several items are missing from the article: How do astronauts live in the orbiter during the flight? How is the flight operated from the ground? These should be addressed in the article. For an example of what I considered a good article structure, see the article on the International Space Station. (currently on FA status!)
2. The references on the article are a complete mess: ranging from books written by experts to news articles of dubious accuracy. The external links needs a clean up as well.
3. I wouldn't praise the current prose of the article as well: I found it rather jumbled up.
4. There are inaccuracies in the article: your point of the meaning of STS comes to mind.
Given the current rating of the article (C-class across all projects involved), I decided to open up a sandbox article to try to make changes to the article and have all the changes discussed by Wiki members, plus allow expertise to add valuable information to the article. Hopefully given some work on this, we can make it to FA status, to celebrate three decades of work by some of the most amazing machines (and people too) ever seen! :)
Just leave a message if you have any comments on my rookie edits on the sandbox article! Thanks! :)
Hi, thank you for your kind notice of my user box. But first, I must admit that I'm both short-sighted (myopic) and also short-sighted (narrow-minded). Ha, sorry, bad joke.
I guess the creator of this user box was deliberate to mean so, a PUN joke. I would rather take this as a wiki-humor, so don't be too serious on this, dude. But I must thank you again for your kindness and wish you have a great day :) from TW-mmm333k (talk to him) 05:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Please source your edits
You've recently added substantial information to the Gemini Spacesuit article, please properly source this information.--Craigboy (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hello, JustinTime55. You have new messages at Talk:Apollo 16. Message added 23:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
There are only 6 problems on the GA review that need to be taken care of. I'm sure if we crack down, that can easily be taken care of in a few edits. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:32 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Yet another ignorant misunderstanding of the word "attitude"
Brilliant edit comment on Saturn V just now.[1] Occasionally when my little child is misbehaving and needs an attitude adjustment, I give her one by turning her upside-down. Sometimes it helps! -- ke4roh (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Apollo 204 vs Apollo 1
I will go ahead and revert my edit and leave a note on the article talk page instead. While 204 may be the more "correct" terminology, it would seem to me that Apollo 1 would be the better term to use, as it is the "common" term for the incident that is in general public use. Safiel (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Hike395's talk page.
Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
I wanted to say thank you about the ISS article, and ask about the Stop Online Piracy Act article, and the use of the word "experts" which I always had reservations about. I figured you seem to know these things better than I do, so was I barking up the wrong tree on that one ? It wouldn't be the first time. Also is there a list or guidance on these things that you'd recommend I read ? (if you can answer on my talkpage that would be cool) Thank you JustinTime55. Penyulap talk12:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
That banner indicates that members are interested in the article. Often times an article is "conservative", but it is not a prerequisite for the banner.– Lionel(talk)16:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
About my edition on the Apollo 11 article
Dear Justin: I am a science writer on astronomy and Space, and as I work a lot with Wikipedia and have made a few contributions to already written articles. I agree that my English is not perfect I am Chilean and lived in the US for a few years where I learned and now I can notice when there is something not well worded. -->
This is the case with such an important article as the Apollo 11 one. First: It is childish to say that it landed “the first humans” it is obvious that those who landed in a NASA spacecraft must be humans. Unfortunately I didn’t keep a record of my edition but I remember it got a lot better than as it is now. -->
Second: I believe that it is better to mention the landing place in the first paragraph because it gives a point of interest to the reader as everybody knows that they landed on the Moon. -->
Third: As for the time of the astronauts on the Moon, I remember that I changed it to “21 hours, 36 minutes” from “Their lunar module, Eagle, spent 21 hours 31 minutes” as it is now after you reversed all of my edition. This is also a mistake because part of the Lunar Module Eagle still is on the Moon, so it should be: -->
The astronauts spent 21 hours 36 minutes in the Moon, and left Tranquility Base in the Ascent Stage of the Eagle spacecraft.
Source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html
Fourth: Another mistake: U.S. President John F. Kennedy's goal was not “reaching the Moon before the Soviet Union” as it is now in the article, but “of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." The mention of the race with the Soviet Union must go in another phrase. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited 11/22/63, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shawshank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Dear JustinTime55, i've already read all messages regarding "error" but often i didn't take the time to repeat me again and again, and again... If i do it one more time it will be something like that : the only method I know to prevent this error and also to stop my/all bots to put incorrect wikilinks is to search which wikipedia contains the error and then to uniformize "handly" the links. Interwikis Bots couldn't understood that two articles doesn't concern the same thing. They only follow links, corrects or incorrects ones.
Understood ? --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me21:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Apollo program
Hi Justin, I see you have nominated The Apollo program for GA. I am not a reviewer but I see that much of the article is not referenced. Right off this bat this would mean it would not pass a GA. There are over 300 articles waiting for review, some going back to May, so my advice would be to withdraw your nomination for now until the article looks likely to pass. Just my 2 cents. Best wishes and happy editing. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Span (talk)23:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your message. If you are wanting a general overview of where things are at then a peer review might be the better bet. Just a suggestion. Good luck with it. Best wishes Span (talk)18:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I posted some suggestions for Apollo 12 article before realising that the Apollo 12 talk page was probably a better place. I wanted to delete the initial post, but I'm having trouble as I am using a tablet. Would it be possible for you to remove them so there are not duplicate discussions?
Thank you for the comments on my suggestions. You're right, the A11 seismometer was solar powered but failed due to excessive heat shortly after lift off, probably as a result of the LM launch covering it in dust. All powered ALSEP stations were turned off in 1977 to save $200,000 per annum in operating costs. (Madness in my personal opinion!)
Re. Colour film. It was taken out on EVA 2 but not used. One of the cameras came apart and the film cartridge was taken off the faulty camera and put on the other. This seems to have been the route of the problem as they then forgot to change to the colour cartridge at the appropriate time.
As noted in my comment on A12 talk page, there is also an error concerning the caption "preferred tether partner" on the Playboy pictures on the cuff list. The tether was supplied in case the Surveyor Crater was loose and the astronauts were worried about getting back out. One would have stayed on the rim to pull the other out with the tether had the footing been loose.
Although not an expert on the Apollo missions, I did write the A17 40th anniversary article for BBC Sky at Night magazine and I am happy to help with checking other Space Race era articles, although I don't have a lot of confidence with wiki editing.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apollo 13, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Standard Time (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
No thanks needed. I'm not entirely happy with how I phrased it, since it wasn't strictly about the astronauts anyhow: it was a spacecraft test (AIUI, anyhow...). Which might be the best way to put it. You think? TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 19:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Question
Why have you deleted my type of sentence about Saturn V. Saturn V is the heaviest, tallest and most powerful launch vehicle ever built. It also holds the record for heaviest launch vehicle payload to LEO (120 t). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.148.208 (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your undo of my fix of a {{citation needed}} template on Talk:Apollo program, I can perfectly understand why you might be unaware of the purpose of the edit. The reason for the edit was to cleanse a maintenance category and I have usually been mentioning Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters while cleaning talk pages. In this case, I forgot, so I apologize for that. But on the other hand, I do not see why what benefit would be achieved by a revert there. As far as I can tell, there is none. All the revert accomplished was yet another entry in the page history and introduced a possible edit quarrel. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been reading Craig Nelson's book "Rocket Men" and just ran into the page 194 description of Apollo 4's "screaming back to Earth" U-turn. I knew this just couldn't possibly be true, and find it amazing that it made it past the eye of an editor, presuming the book was actually vetted. What I found further astonishing, was that in a book packed with oddball tidbits about the musings of Kennedy and Khrushchev, the entire Apollo 4 flight was given two sentences of description, and erroneous at that. This seems unforgivable in a book ostensibly chronicling the steps taken to put men on the Moon. It doesn't help that on page 199, the launch of Apollo 8 is described by a quote from Walter Cronkite "remembering that liftoff on December 21, 1948". Yes, it says 1948, confirming my suspicions that this book was poorly, if actually, edited. Editorial typos happen, and can be corrected for future printings, but outright misinformation in a documentary-style book is really hard to cope with. It casts doubt on anything else I read in the book, and has severely destroyed my enjoyment of Nelson's book. It's really a shame. I found your Wikipedia comment when I Googled for a reference to the U-turn described by Nelson. Thank you for calling it out.
Politicians
WP:POLITICIAN
Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to those who have been elected to such offices but have not yet been sworn in.
As you can see, all State Senators (i.e. a state legislator) are inherently notable.--TM11:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I just want to let you know, I believe you are taking advantage of a loophole, and taking the WP:Notability (People) guideline out of context. (WP:POLITICIAN is not stand-alone; it's part of Notability (People).) There are basic principles you are ignoring:
"Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life."
"This notability guideline for biographies reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed."
Basic criteria
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (emphasis added)
Additional criteria
People are likely to be (not necessarily) notable if they meet any of the following standards (e.g. WP:POLITICIAN). Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. (emphasis and parenthesis added)
You have not included anything about this person, other than a newspaper article saying he was elected to fill a vacancy, to establish that he is "worthy of notice" -- "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in Wikipedia. If Wikipedia included every legislator of every state in the US who is or ever will be elected, (not to mention every province worldwide), it would run into the thousands. That is not what the writers of the notability guideline had in mind. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to take it to AfD if you disagree. You are correct though. With his re-election, the article does need an expansion. Thanks for the heads up.--TM18:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Pages are _collaborative_ creations; 'ownership' is considered a violation of Wikipedia's principles.
Within half an hour you deleted my edit with the comment: "This doesn't add any value; pls add info you feel is missing to the Description column".
Your deletion of my edit was both extremely hasty and subjective. Who are you to say that a carefully crafted edit such as mine "doesn't add any value". It may not have added value for _you_, but it certainly added value for me, and highly probably would add value for large numbers of other readers who are new to the subject (read: anyone under 40).
A few minutes investigating your user page and the article's history revealed that you have dedicated a very great deal of time to the article. That is admirable, but it does not give you ownership rights over the page, nor allow you to delete an edit made with serious intent before anyone but you has had a chance to see it, let alone evaluate it.
I suggest you take a few minutes to read the article: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles before you take such ill-considered action again.
At some moment in the near future I will reinstate my edit. I trust you will allow it to stand.
I am well aware of Wikipedia's policy of non-ownership, thank you very much. I'd like to point out the reccomendation Bold, Revert Discuss to you. I'm sorry if my revert hurt your feelings, but I see it as totally unnecessary to complicate the table with another column labled "Summary", when that was what was intended in the "Description" column, and the information you wish to add can easily be added there. If you like, the Description title can be replaced with Summary. Also, some of what you put is redundant: when the Crew column says "None", that clearly means the mission was unmanned. For AS-203, the description given conveys specific information about the flight, to which "equipment test" doesn't add anything. The remaining value-added words can easily be added to the Descrition fields. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe you are too close to your subject, and being too much the professional scientist when you determine what 'adds value'. Wikipedia is a universal resource which is used by people at all levels of age, ability, understanding of English, information about the subject, etc. When I first read the Apollo Program article, I, as university educated, technically inclined, native English speaker, who was a teenager when the events in question took place, but had no solid memory of or information about the events in question, felt the need for the text that I added to the table. Call it reinforcement, redundancy (as in redundant systems - the Apollo Program certainly has several; if one part of the system fails to do the job, hopefully the redundant system will provide what is missing), whatever. The repetitive format of my text was deliberate, as were the obvious elements of redundancy to which you refer. The intention was to make it unambiguously clear what was the general nature, intent, and success of each individual mission, with the fewest and simplest words as possible. I think my text got close to that goal.
I see you have now changed the name of your Description column to Summary. I believe that is a change you should not have made. Your column was very correctly entitled Description. Your Description/Summary column contains acronyms and additional technical details which I do not believe should be present in a true Summary column. Such information only serves to confuse the person who is looking for the simplest level of summary of what, in truth, is an immensely complex subject.
I`m sorry if you feel there is no way you will allow my edit to stand. I believe many readers would have appreciated its simplicity. As you appear to have the upper hand (the article is one you appear prepared to defend to the bitter end, whereas I was just trying to improve it in passing), I rest my case. Although I will not now attempt to reinstate my edit, I still believe it was a positive addition to the article for the vast number of people for whom the whole subject is practically science fiction!
If you decide to permit my edit to stand, let me know on my talk page, and I will put it back. Give it some thought.
{{Help me}}
I intended to create an article called The Plot to Overthrow Christmas in my sandbox while I work on it, but I forgot to type in the prefix, so the page ended up in Article space, which was not my intent. So I tried doing a move, but it didn't pick up my userid and put it in User:Sandbox/The Plot to Overthrow Christmas. I did another move and got it in User:JustinTime55/Sandbox/The Plot to Overthrow Christmas (I don't know if the case of "sandbox" is significant.)
I blanked the redirect out of User:Sandbox/The Plot to Overthrow Christmas so it wouldn't point to my sandbox page.
Now we have a mess and need some page deletions. Now there is a mainspace The Plot to Overthrow Christmas which still points to User:Sandbox/The Plot to Overthrow Christmas, which doesn't point to anything. (I don't know if there even is a user named Sandbox.)
How do I get this cleaned up? I still want "The Plot to Overthrow Christmas" to give a wikisearch, until my page is ready. Thanks for the help. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, JustinTime55. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox spaceflight. Message added 22:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tranquility Base, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surveyor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Reverting changes related to moon conspiracy theories
Hello
I saw that you reverted my changes from today. I think that you didn't understand why I made the changes. I want to make the articles more neutral.
Moon landing: Some people insist that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax. However, empirical evidence is readily available to show that manned moon landings did indeed occur...
Written like that it imposes the view that moon landings are not hoax for sure. I also don't think the word insist is appropriate - it implies that these people have no reasoning behind their opinion.
The Public opinion section starts with a paragraph stating that some people believe in the hoax because they have wrong data. This is the start of the section and so people expect to read some introduction to what will be talked about in the section. Also, some people may not read the whole section due to time limitations and this will leave them with wrong impression. The way I reordered the paragraphs, the first one shows polls about public opinion which is a sourced scientific statistical data (not random unconfirmed thoughts by random people). Martinkunev (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread the order of your update, and backed out my reversion. I agree with your placing the Hare Krishna nonsense lower down. However, I still believe you misunderstand Wikipedia's consensus on fringe theories. Neutral point of view does not demand giving credence to the hoax beliefs (or any fringe belief), just that they are notable because it can be verified that significant numbers of people believe them. We are not "imposing a view"; we're simply giving primary weight to established, mainstream views based on scientific or empirical evidence, or scholarship (e.g., the world is round, the Moon is closer to the Earth than the Sun, etc.) JustinTime55 (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gemini 2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
{Infobox spaceflight
| operator = [[NASA]]]]<ref name="Orloff">{{cite book |last1=Hacker|first1=Barton C.{last2=Grimwood
Kevin P. Chilton, Susan J. Helms and Charles Bolden were all military officers that served on detached duty for a time with NASA before returning to a military assignment in the same was Phillips. None of their bios indicate that they were "hired" by NASA, when in fact in the case of all four, they continued to be "employed" by the Air Force during their detached duty with NASA. To say that any of them were "hired" by NASA would be inaccurate. --rogerd (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I still think you are making too big a deal of the use of the word "hire"; it's commonly used in the informal sense "to choose someone for a particular job", which is exactly what George Mueller did. No one is saying that he was "hired by NASA" in the technical, human-resources sense. It also says that he was assigned to NASA, and later on that he returned to Air Force duty. Everyone was quite aware he was an Air Force officer, and popularly referred to him as "General Phillips" in the press (despite the fact he dressed as a civillian.) I don't know why we have to belabor the point.
Besides, you seem to have missed another use of "hire" used in context of his commanding officer:
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Broadcasting may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
] (CPB), which is funded by the [[federal government of the United States|federal government]]).
ksc.nasa.gov/systemSwingArm.htm|publisher=NASA}}</ref> Technicians, engineers, and astronauts) used the Spacecraft Access Arm to access the crew module. At the end of the arm, the [[white room
Thank you for asking. This is mainly what struck me:
Syntax errors:
" but the Apollo 13 landing was in transit to the Moon prevented by an oxygen tank explosion that disabled the command spacecraft's propulsion and life support." If you read it again, I'm sure you'll see you left a cut/paste error. There were no grammatical errors (and nothing else wrong) I could see in the original: " but the Apollo 13landing was prevented by an oxygen tank explosion in transit to the Moon, which disabled the command spacecraft's propulsion and life support." "in transit to the Moon" says when the explosion occurred, which prevented the landing.; in your version it just hangs there.
"When Kennedy's proposed, only one American had flown in space"
Usage error, as well as copy/paste: "The Apollo spacecraft could be tested in two vacuum chambersthat could simulating atmospheric pressure at altitudes up to 250,000 feet (76 km) which are nearly vacuous." Please check Mirriam-Webster's definition of vacuous: having or showing a lack of intelligence or serious thought : lacking meaning, importance, or substance; 1: emptied of or lacking content; 2: marked by lack of ideas or intelligence: stupid, inane; 3: devoid of serious occupation This is not a word used to denote an actual physical vacuum. Again, I see nothing wrong in the original that cries out for change.
That was all I had the patience to go through and find; I'm sure there may be more. Most of the changes you have made seem to be not so much grammar, as style and usage. A few of your changes I do find to be actual improvements (e.g. "Apollo achieved its goal..." instead of "succeeed in achieving"), but some others only seem to make unclear usage a bit more economical, but still no less unclear ("Kennedy, however, was circumspect in his response / "circumspectly responded"); what does circumspect really mean, and could this be worded more clearly?
You seem to be an eager beaver; maybe just a bit too eager. All I'm asking is that you slow down and be a bit more careful. Maybe it's not always a good idea to change the whole article in one shot. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
JustinT, just wanted to be sure that you are aware of a currently active discussion on a topic you weighed in on on the Spaceflight WikiProject a month or so ago. I've put a link to it on the Talk page you created for the purpose. Cheers. N2e (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC) N2e (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlas-Agena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mercury-Redstone 4 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
{{Copypaste|section|url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/ch11-8.htm}} [[File:Mercury-Redstone 4 With Liberty Bell 7 at an altitude of {{convert|118.26|mi|km|abbr=on}}, it
To include "word nazi" at the end of your edit summary is strange, given your own edit changing sediment (which you correctly noted has a technical meaning that did not apply in this situation) to soil (which, without linking to lunar soil, appears to be analogous to sediment in having a technical definition not met my Moon material). It is also clearly rude. James McBride (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for thanking me regarding the edit on the Harrison Schmitt article!
Hi, I just wanted to thank you: You've been the first to thank me for an edit! That "thank you" really made me feel good. :-)
The advocacy POV and slander tone in which that section was written is not worthy of an encyclopaedia – especially slandering Schmitt in the very first sentence of that section was not right. Including warranted criticism (even if the criticism is made from a POV that I don't share) is all good and fair (especially as it is the dominant position in that field of science), but not even one sentence was there that would accurately describe Schmitt's position – while at the same time the text did not shy away from denigrating Schmitt with unkind words (instead of focusing on the subject of the controversy).
That section could probably still be further improved, but I'll wait a decade or two until this controversy has blown over, one way or the other. Until then I feel it is best to quote all people involved as acurately as possible – I think claiming that Schmitt is a "Climate Denier" (Really? Does Schmitt deny "the climate"? In its entirety? When and where, in what words did he "deny the climate"?) shows who might be wrong and who might be right. One side is going to eat their words, and I do not see Schmitt having to regret any of his words. Tony Mach (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I think arguing with them is very seldom going to help. Advocates of "taking action with regards to climate" have determined that the climate (or the Earth) are in danger, so anybody who is not on "their side" is (in their view) obviously aiding in the destruction of the planet. That is the source of the hate I see. The one side isn't paid by "big oil", and the other side don't do it to promote "socialist big government" or somesuch. :-) "They" are afraid of what is happening "to the planet", and for them this fear seems to be well founded.
I must admit I once stood at the other side of the debate and wanted "to do something about the climate" (but was not very vocal). I have no solution, but I think the best course might probably be to try to represent as accurately as possible all the individual positions. If they have a reliable source that shows that Schmitt (or anybody else) said or written something stupid (like a reliable quote of him saying something stupid like "I don't think the climate is changing."), then by all means they can include it – but I haven't seen anything like that. Until then it should not be too hard to revert any slander that might creep into the article again.
BTW, my "turning point" was Steve McIntyre's blog, and how "fast and loose" the climate saviours play. Every time they make out of alarmism claims they can not back up (and be it something simple like calling Schmitt a "climate denier"), this will potentially alienate someone who say "Now wait a minute…" Tony Mach (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Space Task Group may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
President to chair the council in his place. As the [[Apollo program]] reached its climax in 1969), President [[Richard M. Nixon]] directed Vice President [[Spiro T. Agnew]]'s "Space Task Group" to
It looks like a pretty good draft; but I see you haven't edited it in a couple of years. I propose you move it to article space (I suggest Phillips Report, without the quotes) and release it unto the world. What do you think?
As an aside, I'm continually impressed with and appreciative of your work that I see on articles relating to NASA and manned spaceflight. I dabble (I have a great deal of interest, but not really the expertise), but your contributions are always consistently high-quality. Thanks very much for that.
with husband Charles Aiken ([[Chris Cooper]]). Her youngest daughter Ivy [[Julianne Nicholson]]) is single and the only one living locally; Barbara ([[Julia Roberts]]), her oldest, who has
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Space capsule may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
of electric [[solar cell]]s for power generation, and contained a propulsion system engine. The {{Soyuz 7K-OK|7K-OK model]] designed for Earth orbit used a {{convert|2810|kg|lb|adj=on}} reentry module measuring {{convert|2.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited August: Osage County (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Can the "needs additional citations" banner be removed now from the N1 (rocket) article or does it need more work ? ☭Soviet☭ 17:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Иронгрон (talk • contribs)
Could you change the table so that SI units are shown first. I did it today, but you reversed it. I am not quite sure why (yes yes American spelling - is that really so important). I took all of the conversions from the previous version of N1 article so they were identical, but in SI units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.161.148 (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
bad decision
but I'm too tired to fight. At a minimum, someone should note it on the talk page, which I checked before making the correction. And it is now inconsistent with other articles.--S Philbrick(Talk)20:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Consensus was reached in WP:WikiProject Spaceflight a long time ago that off-world events should be reported as occurring in UTC because no time zone on Earth would be proper (and of course the desire to avoid regional bias), despite the fact one could probably make a good case that Central time should be used for the Apollo flights, which were controlled from Houston. Unfortunately I can't know when this was documented, on which discussion page (probably long since archived), but I'll make a note of it when I get the chance.
Hi. I left a note on that thing about the John F. Kennedy Space Center, and did a fast look at your user page, and man, thanks very much for all of your fine work on the space program pages. Six thumbs up! I'm one of those oldies but still goodies who lived through the space program, and watched every launch, every Mercury and Apollo mission, and made a point quite a few years ago to at least talk to as many of the early astronauts as I could. For history and space buffs like myself the creation of Wikipedia seems a dream come true, and people like you who've have advanced the awareness and kept the data of the pioneering space missions alive are the ones who should be praised, which I do with a virtual 'thanks!'. It's very odd looking at pages and threads on other sites which go into the denying of the moon missions, and I feel a bit sorry for the people who believe that theory and thus miss out on the knowledge that it was only 44 years ago that humans jumped off planet (and hit a golf ball on another world) for the first time. Good to meet you. Randy Kryn 19:54 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Why does the infobox you added say "Hybrid drivetrain" under "Powertrain"? There's nothing "hybrid" about the lunar rover is there?
Differtus (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I just came across this infographic, which I thought would interest you: [6]. I plan on hitting the applicable articles over the next few days to see if the particular locations are noted. This is the first source I've seen with so many spacecraft's dispositions noted in one place. I'll probably find some better sources, but armed with the information reported here, that should not be too challenging. TJRC (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, fixing EV
Can you give me about a half hour to fix up the incentives article? Got to collect all that stuff into the right headings so we can cull out the duplication. Thanks. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. You're quick; you started the moves while I was reading in the EV article what sounded like a blatant advert in the Portugal section; I tagged it, and removed the not-so-good Norway section because there already is a much better section higher up. I'll just stay out of your way. Godspeed. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's the first pass complete. Still a lot of press-release language in it, but at least I have the countries sorted out and some redundancy removed. It would be nice to have better parallelism in all the country sections to make it easier to compare events around the world, but who has the time? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apollo Lunar Module, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Kelly. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Space Race, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sigma 7. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Launch pad may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
] fuel) need to be continuously topped off (i.e., boil-off replaced) during the launch sequence ([[countdown]], as the vehicle awaits liftoff. This becomes particularly important as complex
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apollo program, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury 7. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed and it seems that this new Wikiproject would be interesting to you. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers
N1 (Block A) LIft-off thrust & rocket gross weight
Hi Justin, gg with the new table/layout, much better to compare the rockets. There is one problem with the lift-off thrust of the N1 and the gross weight. Mark Wade's encylopedia astronautica is good stuff, but sometimes the data on there is not correct. According to the James Harford Korolev biography (he spent time in Russia, can speak the language and interviewed all the key men of that time like Mishin, and Chertok and Afanasiev etc) the N1 has almost 10,200,000lb (10,164,000) lift off thrust, or 4,620 metric tonnes. Not many sources on the net get this value correct, but you can work it out as it's well known the Nk-15 engine developed 154 metric tonnes lift-off thrust (even Makr Wade gets this one right - http://www.astronautix.com/engines/nk15.htm) and there were 30 engines, so 30 x 154 = 4.620 metric tonnes and 4,620 x 2.2 = 10,164 - add the three zeros and you get 10,164,000 lbs - I think that value should be updated, it would be closer to 46Kn rather than 50.3. The weight is also a tricky subject, most sources conflict - some have it too high, some too low, but close to the real value. In the Korolev bio the data for your saturn V table matches his but the N1 is not correct. Here's what the Korolev biography states verbatim "N1-L3 weighed 2750 metric tons on the pad, was 105 meters tall and needed 5 stages to lunar orbit. The thrust of the 30 engine first stage was 4,620 tons. Apollo-Saturn V weighed 2,938 metric tons at launch, was 110.6 meters tall and required 4 stages to lunar orbit. The thrust of the 5 engine first stage was 3447 tons". The saturn V data matches the table, the gross weight's spot on and 3,447 metric tonnes is ~7.5 million pounds. Also there's some old data in the "Description" section that needs to be changed "the Block A produced 43 meganewtons (9,700,000 lbf)[10] of thrust". Ironmungy (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I updated the values and added references. With the weights, all the 4 N1's launched had different weights, which explains the variations with sources. None definitively seem to state the real take off gross mass for each vehicle. I think the Korolev book gives an average. Like the Saturn V, the N1 evolved with each new vehicle. As problems were discovered they added more gear to each model (such as fire suppression, extra vernier engines, air conditioning for the inter-tank compartments, more fuel mass by super-cooling it etc) - and they had differently configured payloads -,3L (the first vehicle) was lighter than the last vehicle 7L. (there are sources on the net that state this). You can kind of determine that by reading the Launch History As you probably know, Apollo 11 could orbit almost 120 tonnes to LEO, but by Apollo 17 the Saturn V could orbit 140 tonnes. (the Korolev bio actually mentions this) Ironmungy (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks much for helping to sort out the N1 facts. That's the weak link in doing the comparison (and this is true in general of the whole Soviet space program): getting accurate data on the Russian vehicles, when most of the NASA data was openly published and easily available. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
NP Justin. The article's coming along nicely. Your new table galvanised me into action as I was going to move on from this article but this new Korolev bio I received (plus other soviet space books) have compeled me to do otherwise. BTW, with the 3L launch history, good inference, re: the fire and how it may have affected the KORD, spot on, if the fire got it to it would have been kaput!! - the Korolev bio more or less states/infers that. I was going to re-write all the launch history working back from 7L and that's mostly done. only 3L is left now. I would like you to check out my sandbox and see what you think. I have quoted the original Korolev bio text for you to compare. I didn't want to move it to the real article 'till I had your opinion or ok. Ironmungy (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Specific impulse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Justin,
I reverted you spacecraft addition to Cabin pressurization not because it was necessary incorrect but because it was a lot to add without any citations. Before adding similar back in also have a look at the information available on Nitrox breathing gasses and Rebreather systems as these contain much relevant information on closed systems. Ex nihil (talk)04:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Saturn V
Thank you, i did not bother mastering the inflation parameters, i am sometime lazy and just cut paste the sources, i was curious from where the number came.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. I assume, since it comes from congressional budget figures, that the table is just listing each column in that year's contemporary dollars. I hope "1968" gives the right current-year calculation. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The name suggests that delta-v would be a vector quantity, but it never is. If you try to define it as the change in the velocity vector, when you calculate the change in velocity it practically never gives you the correct answer. It's deceptive and wrong to define it that way.
In some cases the change in velocity vector is 0, but delta-v is not. For example a hovering rocket can have a huge delta-v, but the integral of the change in velocity while it's hovering is zero.GliderMaven (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Spaceflight: Retirement of project member WD Graham
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liquid air, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Standard atmosphere. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited We choose to go to the Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rice Stadium. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Dear JustinTime55,
I just wanted to say thanks for your edits on Interstellar (film). That was the first film article I've edited. And from another one of your entries on the talk page, I learned about Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. I wasn't aware of that subsection of the MOS before, but I am now, and I'll reference it going forward. I also appreciated how you reworded the sentence I wrote, expanded it, and cited the reference that I provided on the talk page. It's a much stronger statement now. I learned a lot from your improvements. Msannakoval (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crispy Critters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I noticed that when you edited the Modular Equipment Transporter article, you said it was carried on Apollo 13. However, I cannot find any confirmation of that; indeed, everything I find says the MET was developed for Apollo 14. I would suggest removing this without any sources. Thank you.
RadioBroadcast (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing that I, apparently, left a link to the Sockpuppetry policy on Jim Lovell's page. That's an odd error (!), but I probably hit ctrl-v without noticing. Geogene (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Posted a reply to your remarks at the NASA page, & our friend has now rv'd me 3x at NACA. I'd fix it, but I'm already at 2...& he's already claiming edit warring... Can you set NACA back again? More eyes would be good, too, I think. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura23:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi JustinTime55-
It took a while, but I managed to get the article written. Have a look at your leisure...--Godot13 (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Fallen Astronaut
You undid my minor grammatical edit to Fallen Astronaut with the explanation Revert unexplained removal (revisionist history)). I made no change to the content, certainly no removal or "revisionist history." I am no grammar purist, but my version seems easier to understand. Please review the edit and tell me what you think. Thanks. -Jacknstock (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes you did make a change to content: you removed the phrase: "because of the secrecy surrounding the Soviet space program at the time". This is no "minor grammatical edit", and I called it revisionist history because you removed the fact that the Soviet government took pains to hide their failures and embarrassments, to the point of removing these two cosmonauts from photos of their cosmonaut corps. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Owens Corning description
Hello JustinTime55. So you know, I work at Owens Corning.
As I look at other company profiles on Wikipedia -- Ford and GE, as examples -- the lead sentences provide a current snapshot of the organization. Hence, the removal of the historical info at the top of the Owens Corning page that is covered in the History section. No doubt, the company's bankruptcy was a major event (among many) in its history; I did not remove it.
Can I ask your rationale for including that particular fact up at the top?
Hello, CHartlage. I have created a talk page for you (notice the link in your signature is now blue and active) and answered your question there. I recommend you create a user page for yourself. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
3RR
Your recent editing history at Talk:Tourism on the Moon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
--Human3015Send WikiLove14:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Space policy of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atomic Energy Commission. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Grants:IEG/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015
Dear Fellow Wikipedians,
I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rocket engine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
a high speed through a [[propelling nozzle]]. The fluid is usually a gas created by high pressure ({{convert|10|to|200|bar|psi|disp=flip|adj=on}} combustion of solid or liquid [[Rocket propellant|
(around 10 times the speed of sound in air at sea level) and very high thrust/weight ratios (>100) ''simultaneously'' as well as being able to operate outside the atmosphere, and while
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human spaceflight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Lovell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi JustinTime55-
While the content is not very space-heavy, I wondered if you might consider commenting and/or reviewing this candidate for Featured List, if/when you are not too busy. Many thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NASA facilities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pearl River. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of Cape Canaveral and Merritt Island launch sites into Missile Row. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Cabin pressurization
Hi, I reverted your edits to Cabin pressurization because I found them confusing. The first sentence is unnecessary because it is obvious, by this point readers understand that the fuselage is under pressure and actually it is a little more complicated than that. The second is not true in that the cabin altitude is determined by entirely other factor; ear equalisation issues might play a part in considering the speed of pressurisation but that really belongs in another section of the physiology, not here. Also sentences should be constructed to work in their own right without the crutches of parentheses. Ex nihil (talk)21:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tourism on the Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soyuz. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Perhaps you've seen that SimonTrew has nominated List of space programs for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 27. The rationale is basically a proposal to enforce the decision for Space program on the list title, but because discussion on Space program partly depends on the list (two of us saying "don't delete SP when we have List of SP", someone else saying "delete both", and the rest not addressing the list), the situation seems rather awkward. Would you object if I were to close both discussions and list them together as a new RFD? Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Apollo 1 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Your GA Nominations
Hey there! I saw you had a couple of articles up for GA within the spaceflight realm. Let me know if you need any help digging up any pictures, references, or writing any sections. Otherwise, good luck! - Kees08 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Kees08: welcome aboard and thanks! I've noticed your good contributions to spaceflight recently. Nice to have a fellow Aerospace Engineer who appreciates the classical Space Race era. I'd really like to make progress getting Apollo 1 to GA. The clock is ticking on the 50th anniversary next January 27.
I could use help finding citation references on these subjects:
Tours of Pad 34 -- are they still available? Does KSC or CCAFS sponsor them?
Civic and other memorials: Chaffee Hall at Purdue; Grissom Parkway, White and Chaffee Drives in Titusville, FL.
Command Module redesign: citations for the specific improvements made
The reviewer also thinks we should expand on Joseph Francis Shea's breakdown and resignation. This seems to be well-documented on his page; maybe this could be paraphrased with the references copied from there, without a literal copy-paste.
Not sure if you did this on purpose or not, but I actually studied in Chaffee Hall at Purdue...presumably I'll be capable of finding a source (most likely a photo as well). I'll work on these and have them done by Sunday night hopefully. Kees08 (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Tours of Pad 34 -- are they still available? Does KSC or CCAFS sponsor them?
KSC Visitor Complex sponsors them. They are still available. Reference added.
Civic and other memorials: Chaffee Hall at Purdue;
Added reference for Chaffee Hall at Purdue. Added a little more detail as well.
I was considering adding this line: "A wall in the Neil Armstrong Hall of Engineering was refurbished to include a tribute to Chaffee." (this happened within the last two years)
Two photos that would complement that area (one, both, or neither are fine with me are located at the following two locations.
If there is no easy way to get copyright of those, I know an excellent photographer at the school that can snap a photo of the wall (I would prefer that one). It is located next to a piece of the moon, its pretty cool. If you do not want that, that is fine as well, I'll leave the decision to you.
Civic and other memorials: Grissom Parkway, White and Chaffee Drives in Titusville, FL.
I highly recommend removing this from the main article. There are many, many roads named after Chaffee alone (see Chaffee article). Its not really a signficant memorial by any means, and several of them are covered in the biography articles. I'll leave the decision to you.
Done!
Command Module redesign: citations for the specific improvements made
Bout to watch hockey so I don't have time to cite, but the last section of this PDF shows findings and corrective actions http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/summary.pdf. It also has some amazing photographs if we can figure out what the NASA ID's are so we can include a gallery of the burnt capsule into the article, I think it would be very pertinent to the readers and show the gravity of what occurred.
Found a reference for some of the material, but it appears most of that information comes from the Senate Committee's report Apollo Accident, part 7, which I cannot find online anywhere. If I make it to a library at some point, there is a copy on Proquest. I have done the best I can thus far with information easily available to me.
@JustinTime55: I have completed all that I can easily complete without heading to a library. Is there additional work that needs done on the article? Kees08 (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Apollo program you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey there. First of all, do you need any additional help with the two articles you are working to bring to GA? I could provide an additional set of hands if you need them. Also, I see your name on practically every article related to spaceflight, and I just wanted to say thanks for helping to improve the quality of those articles.
Second of all, I am getting a group of Wikipedians together with the goal of bringing all of the Apollo era astronaut articles to a minimum of B-class quality. I thought it would be nice to have a consistent reviewer, so I am offering a trade. For every one of those articles you review for Start/C/B class quality, I will evaluate another article in the Wikiproject Spaceflight backlog.
Also, your talk page is a little hard to edit if you have certain toolboxes installed, you may want to consider archiving some of the old material.
Let me know if reviewing interests you, I believe I have at least one article that can be brought up a class. Kees08 (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Bud Day and Chris Kraft Jr. as well as Robert L. Crippen and Tom Proberezny (sp?) are Enshrinees for 2016. It was announced at the website for the ceremony Oct 1, 2016, pls help fix the link if it is incorrect; also it has already been acknowledged on Robert Crippen's page as well as Tom Proberenzy both are on Wikipedia. Check out the link on Robert L. Crippen/Wikipedia, it already has this information on his page for the ceremony on Oct 1, 2016. Pls revert your edit thanks.(when appropriate)Cydorsm (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Please NOTE: correct spelling Tom Poberezny acrobatic pilot. Cydorsm (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Justin, I think the link you checked out wasn't correct because it is NAHF-- National Aviation Hall of Fame, not EAA Experimental Aircraft Association, (have no idea where that came from?) The correct link is: www.nationalaviation.org/ --okay thanks! Cydorsm (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh by the way did you check out the Tom Poberezny page for wiki he had his written as: "will be" he is and inductee for 2016 as well; His father,. Paul Poberezny is already on the national aviation hall of fame page; but Tom Poberezny is a new inductee for 2016 (didn't do that one someone else did). Nevertheless his son Tom Poberezny had it on his wiki page, shouldn't there be a consistency for all of them/ just wondering the correct protocol--they should all be uniform, the same rules for all, right? I think if one inductee had the info on their page then all should or none -- pls let me know, thank you so much. Cydorsm (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Justin, I have cited the correct references for those pages now,("Bud" Day & Chris Kraft Jr.) so do you think you can fix the link? I tried, not sure it is correct. thanks, Cydorsm (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Your "wording change" as part of the other changes by the IP editor, seems to have removed >2k of text. If this wasn't what you intended overall, could you please take a look at it. Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, JustinTime55. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I know about that guideline about all caps but I am engineer. I prefer reports that are accurate at almost any other cost to style, emotional response or almost anything else. I think that such is the true spirit of NPOV. Oh well. Whatever.--67.212.175.124 (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Apollo spacecraft feasibility study GE.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Apollo spacecraft feasibility study GE.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Apollo 10 Decent Stage edit.
Grummel...
I can not believe I overlooked that it was Apollo '10'.
Made an ass of myself, didn't I.
Thank for setting me straight :-)
Hi JustinTime55, I'm the one who changed the "Revolution number" on the Vanguard 1 page, accidentally anonymously, which, as 2 hours and 14 minutes have elapsed, is out of date, but I think better than that nearly 15 year old figure it displayed previously. Do you think someone would know how to insert an interval counter there? I think it's relevant and thought-provoking for readers as it is the oldest satellite in orbit and will be for some time. I hope I am posting this correctly, as this is my first attempt at wiki-correspondence. Thank you for the consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grissom7 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
There used to be a bot which would automatically read Satcat data and update the orbital parameters in article infoboxes, but it was maintained by User:WDGraham who unfortunately retired, and of course it stopped working. (Check the WP Spaceflight talk page archive for discussion of this.) No one else seemed to be able or willing to pick this up again. I'm all for keeping the number up to date, but I'm curious where you get the current revolution number. The web site cited for the other orbital parameters looks like it monitors the orbital parameters and continuously tracks its location, but doesn't seem to give rev number (at least I couldn't see it.) JustinTime55 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll see what I can do with that. Until then I whittled it down a but further and am nearly 100% certain the orbit number listed has happened today or will happen today. Until I figure out an interval timer I'll just keep an eye on it from time to time. I think its at least better than that wildly out of date figure. And forgive anything out of the ordinary I've done in protocol. I'm trying to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grissom7 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Apollo Wikipedia Historian Award
Apollo Wikipedia Historian Award
I'v noticed for several years now you have kept an eye on many articles relating to the Apollo missions. This is a big service to the encyclopedia, and it has helped maintain the quality of Apollo related content on Wikipedia. I cannot speak for everyone, but I award you this Apollo award as thanks for all your time in maintaining Wikipedia. Fotaun (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey there, do you happen to own this source for this?
<ref>{{cite book |title= Deke!: U.S. Manned Space from Mercury to the Shuttle|last= Slayton|first= Donald K|authorlink= |author2=Cassutt, Michael|year= 1994|edition= 1st|publisher= Forge: St. Martin's Press|location= [[New York City]]|isbn= 0-312-85503-6|lccn=94-2463|oclc= 29845663|pages=223, 234}}</ref>
I think it might be where the quotes are for the paragraphs it is near in Gus Grissom's death section, but I do not have the source to check. Second and third to last paragraphs in that section.
I do own a copy of the book, but it is on my shelf at home. I am away at the moment, and will not be back until the start of May. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I have time Hawkeye, I plan on nominating it for GA but I am in no rush. I am pretty sure the quotes are in there, I searched the internet for the quote and nothing came up. That book citation is near it, so that is my guess. I will keep working on that article and other articles until you can get back to your book. Kees08(Talk)02:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Yup, that's right. I have some other things I am struggling to find sources for, so I will do that in the meantime. Also gives me an excuse to finally read that chapter of Fallen Astronauts. Kees08(Talk)03:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The two quotes are there, but somewhat out of context. I have expanded the first (p. 223). The second refers to the controversy about whether Neil or Buzz would exit the lunar module first. Slayton notes that "Had Gus been alive, as a Mercury astronaut he would have taken the first step"; but it is in the context of what would have happened if Gus had been the commander.
Also, I cannot find the Schirra quote, which makes no sense. Shepard did go to the Moon on Apollo 14, and Cooper was still in the rotation up to the point when it was decided in 1969, whereas Schirra retired in 1968. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
"Voyager 2 should pass by the star Sirius at a distance of 8.6 light-years." Could you please verify the change you implemented recently (from 4.3 to 8.6 ly)? NASA claims "it will pass 4.3 light-years (25 trillion miles) from Sirius." see here. The NASA number makes more sense because Sirius is only 8.6 light years away from earth with that distance shrinking in the future. Thanks a lot. --Linear77 (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Three Faces of Al, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anselmo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours that seems to have somehow introduced a Lua error on the page. I accidentally clicked on Twinkle's rollback button instead of the "undo" one, thus it was left short of an edit summary. If you can fix the issue, or if I'm mistaken about it and it's something on my web browser, please revert me away. Best, Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
There was a huge red error message in the version after your edit (including if I visited it through the permalink in the history page), but not on the previous one nor the one before it. It seems to have disappeared entirely now, so it's probably a bug in Wikipedia and not related to the changes you made. See Wikipedia:Lua error messages. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nick Danger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third Eye (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, JustinTime55. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I have a question about something I did recently,
I edited the reusable launch system page, keeping a link([7]) from the intro (but in a different location). @YuriGagrin12: removed this link earlier (after which an IP then re-added it). The source for the info is a blog, which would mean we shouldn't add it according to WP:BLOGS (which I didn't know of when I kept the link).
However, the guy writing the blog seems to be someone who might know about this sort of stuff, according to his blog. You seem to know more about editing than I do, should we keep the link or remove it?
Thanks for your question. As I read WP:BLOGS, it depends on whether or not Eagle Sarmont's work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Until you can find that, I'd say it's better to leave it out. (Also, technically it's bad form to use WP:external links in article text like that. If you want to WP:wikilink a term in article text, you must link only to Wikipeda articles (with "[[" instead of "[") and citations are put between <ref> ... </ref> tags.) JustinTime55 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that answer for the blog, so far, I've found a book and a paper by him. I'd say that it's sufficient to keep the mention (formatted properly to a reference), would you agree? Rmvandijk (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Rmvandijk: I know this question wasn't addressed to me but the main reason why I removed the link was because the concept wasn't explained enough, the reference didn't say anything about how they slowed it down and who came up with it or who is proposing it, Also it was a blog page. And I provided a reason for why I removed it. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@YuriGagrin12: Thanks for the reply, I agree with your removal of the text at that location but thought the link might be useful since the site does explain various launch systems rather well. I asked here because I wasn't sure when a blog could be inserted. As mentioned above, the writer of the blogs seems to be knowledgeable enough in this field (although I think there isn't enough information on him for his own article). Rmvandijk (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The hatnote on Box of Danger doesn't include a second article or redirect that it disambiguates against/distinguishes from, making the hatnote confusing and unnecessary. Is there another subject which has an article that could be referred to simply as "Nick Danger"? If not, per WP:HATNOTE, the hatnote is not necessary as all examples of hatnotes on that page lead readers to another article which needs distinguishing from either the redirect mentioned in the hatnote template or the title of the article itself; the hatnote that is/was on Box of Danger did/does not do that. Steel1943 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, thanks for taking me up on my offer for a trout slap; I think that's the first time someone took me up on my offer! Steel1943 (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Nick Danger
I object to the page move. Essentially since October, you have procured the article originally about the character and turned it into this article now renamed about the box set. We should have an article about the character, the foremost importance. The box set marketing upon the later fame of the character is a far less important secondary. Trackinfo (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. The same article serves both purposes; information about the character is provided by all the Firesign material using the character. Two separate articles would have a lot of duplication. What different information about the character would you include (beyond what is already there: Danger's origin, and non-Firesign performances)? This information isn't going to be removed; notice the Nick Danger page still exists for all practical purposes; it simply redirects to the box set. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
However, the article is now about a box set. It obfuscates the character. If you don't restore the article about the character, I will. Trackinfo (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: The 50th anniversary of the moon landing is coming up! What better way to celebrate than by writing some related articles? I think it would be really neat if we could get Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Mike Collins all on the front page on the 50th anniversary, if we can convince the TFA'ers for a special occasion. At a minimum, we could have the three each have their own day leading up to the anniversary, and have Apollo 11 for TFA on the day. I do not have much FA experience, outside of failing to get John Glenn there on my first try. I am enlisting your help, if you would like. JustinTime55, I think you are a good candidate for Apollo 11, if you would like, based on your work on the other Apollo missions, and based on how much you have contributed to the article already. Hawkeye7, since you and I have been working on astronaut biographies recently, I think we can each take on one, and try to enlist someone else to take on the third. I would prefer Armstrong because I graduated from Purdue, but I think Hawkeye7 could do the article more justice. Aldrin is really close to B (just needs awards cited), and Collins needs a decent amount of work still. So, thoughts? You guys in? I figured if we start now we should be able to get done with time to spare. Let me know if you are interested! Kees08 (Talk)22:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'm in. Fortunately, the 50th anniversary is in 2019, not 2018. (Heart starts beating again) I'll start on Neil Armstrong straight away though. It looks in reasonably good shape, but there is still a fair amount of grunt work required to get it FAC-ready. For technical reasons, I would prefer to co-nom it with you at FAC, if that is okay with you. Hawkeye7(discuss)23:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on the Talk Page of List of Humorists
Thank you for your comments on the talk page of List of humorists - I take you your points about why Walt Disney should be excluded from the list. I like the way you said that to be a humorist, one would have to pass the Mark Twain test!Vorbee (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:No orbit for payload
Hello. The Wernher von Braun article is not currently written in British English, see the repeated use of "-ized" as an example. I am fine with changing the rest of the article to BE, but please do not revert my edit with the explanation that it is written in BE when it is not. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Then we have the situation where a clear English variant wasn't established. I happen to agree with what I imagine you believe: that it should be American English because of a strong national tie (he defected to the US, not England). There were also existing examples of British (e.g., labour was originally there). Please assume good faith; I was trying to follow the spirit of WP:ENGVAR which says in essence we shouldn't try to "unscramble eggs" by changing an existing variant, but I missed the "ized" words. I think probably one or more British editors just used their preference without regard to ENGVAR. It's very hard to identify the existing English variant in an article of substantial size. (Someone should make a tool to do it.)
I'm going to revert my changes tagging the article and Talk page as British, and open a discussion thread to try to get a consensus to establish American. Don't you think we should also open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to persuade "the powers that be" that this type of situation needs to be addressed and the current guidelines as given don't adequately handle the situation where the existing English variant is muddled, and there is a strong national tie? JustinTime55 (talk)
Okay, thanks. I reverted the IP editor after searching for "ized" and "ised" and comparing the number of results. Also, "labor" was used multiple times later on in the article. Von Braun probably does have a strong national tie to the US so it should be AE in any case, but I think there may also be an argument for BE. As to the MOS, I think it covers the issue reasonably well: use the variant the subject has a national tie to. If there isn't a strong reason to use one variant in particular, use the existing variant or gain consensus to change it on the talk page. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
"I warned you"
At any point will you be stepping up to your part in arbitrarily reverting my edits (which is plain to be seen if you actually look at your edits), justifying your behaviour with arbitrary policies, and then demanding that it is I who always has to justify myself. I see there are registered users that you have reverted, who have disagreed with you that you haven't pursued yourself. The title of your section on my talk page is bad enough too! 87.254.94.88 (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
