Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space missions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

archive1

Contents

[edit] WikiProject Space

Is this also a parent project for this one? siafu 22:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No, there really isn't a WikiProject Space. It is just a list. Rmhermen 13:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I am working on WikiProject Space to be a collection of information on the various space-related WikiProjects and Portals for ease of finding. --Exodio 16:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italicize spacecraft names

User:Knowledge Seeker has started to italicize all spacecraft names, manned and unmanned. This is in line with major style guides. This will be a large effort if anyone wants to help. If there is no objection I will soon add a line in the project guidelines about this. Rmhermen 23:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, this means every instance of the name needs to be italicized? Rob 03:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 03:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

siafu 14:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this list! I'll be adding them to our space missions listing in the next few days. Feel free to edit/add things on that list. Thanks, Walkerma 06:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking over other articles to find more suggestions, and there are quite a few "decent" articles (e.g., the Venera series, the Sputnik program, Mars Express) that aren't necessarily good or feature quality. They have the most important facts, and not much else (including copyright or POV). How much do we need for "B-class", really? If they don't muster, it wouldn't take much work to push them over the edge, but it's just not too clear from the criteria page supplied. siafu 06:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The criteria that we use is available here, but you're more than welcome to adopt your own requirements for articles to fit in those categories. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I finally got around to assessing these for the table, please take a look. You folks are the subject experts, so please edit these if I've got any wrong, or if you find/improve articles. From my perspective I think the Venera, Sputnik and Mars Express need a bit more to make B-Class, though Venera is probably very close. All these seem like important topics that we would want to include in WP1.0, so I hope they can reach A-Class soon! There are three (Apollo 11, Project Apollo and Space Shuttle program) I judged to be A-Class, you might want to consider submitting these as Good Articles nominations. Many thanks, and keep up the good work! Walkerma 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this project active?

I've noticed a lot of the spacecraft that I have worked on are pretty sparse, and I'd like to flesh them out a bit. I was looking for a standard format to follow. Rob 05:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is in a most of the rules are set, most of the heavy lifting done sort of state. So not really inactive. If you are talking about rockets, there is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Launch vehicles It may be that spacecraft fall into the cracks between the two projects. Rmhermen 21:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Six articles linked from 2006-07-24 APOD.

Well done. -- Jeandré, 2006-07-24t18:01z

[edit] Linkspam

I've just cleaned out a load of linkspam from space-related articles. The major offender was space.gs, who spam us extensively and often, but I also found "sister sites" of theirs (ie, a new domain and same republished dross) - these others were astronautics.org.uk, exploration-space.com, newsweather.co.uk, astronautics.tv, space-nasa.com and astronautics-nasa.com. Lots and lots of spammy goodness.

I've mentioned this here for future reference - please note any other heads you encounter from this particular hydra. Shimgray | talk | 16:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descendant WikiProject

Shouldn't Wikipedia:WikiProject Unmanned Space Missions be a descendant WikiProject? 24.126.199.129 00:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time format discussion

(Note: I separated out the date discussion because the time issue became more immediately of interest and the date issue is more complex than I originally thought.) In the list on the main page under Structure/Space Missions, there is an item I have questions about:

  • "Times in the text of a document should be in 12-hour local time (with UTC offset given)"

Seems like a good idea for things like launch or landing that have a "local" time. But what about spacewalk times or ISS-Shuttle mating times? What is "local"? Local to the editor? Local to ground control? Local to launch site? I think I favor UTC in those cases.
Thoughts?
--3Idiot 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, this has taken on new life with respect to STS-115. It can pretty easily be seen that a typical shuttle mission could reasonably have times cited in EDT (launch facility), CDT (control), PDT (landing facility), and UTC (spacewalks etc). (Throw in the possibility of the mission spanning one of the switches to/from DST and the whole thing gets even more ugly.)
Is it the case that only missions that are ongoing or very recent have this problem? As things get further in the past, do exact times matter (in an encyclopedia)? Or could we just drop the time that most events take place and leave (for example) "Following the official completion of the installation of the P3/P4 Truss to the ISS in just under 2 hours, Tanner and Stefanyshyn-Piper began their spacewalk to activate the truss" instead of "Following the official completion of the installation of the P3/P4 Truss to the ISS at 4:06 AM CDT (09:35 UTC) (with installation beginning at 2:48 AM CDT (07:48 UTC)), Tanner and Stefanyshyn-Piper began their spacewalk to activate the truss at 4:17 AM CDT (09:17 UTC)"?
I guess that still leaves the problem open for current events and times that really do matter...
In the spirit of WP:BOLD, I offer that I think all times should be listed as UTC. (and I reserve the right to change my mind in the face of compelling arguments...)
--3Idiot 14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the use of UTC. Maybe a conversion guide can be placed on the talk page of a current shuttle mission so that editors can easily convert, eg. UTC = EDT+4, UTC=EST+5, etc. Atrian 14:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

UTC's probably the best - after all, it does stand for Universal time, and its the time zone used by Wikipedia itself... (On a totally separate note, how do I sign up for this Wikiproject?) Coldstream 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am unaware of that format being followed. I think all the pages use UTC with occasional local time in parentheses. I think that was probably an old instruction that was never adopted. Rmhermen 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's the time zone used as the edit timestamps... Coldstream 21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How about:
Times in the info box should be in 24-hour UTC.
Times in the body of an article should be in 24-hour UTC with ground local time added parenthetically if and only if the ground time of the event has significance. (takeoff, landing, etc)
 --3Idiot 16:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In light of the discussions here, just below, and over at Talk:STS-115, how about:

  • Times in the info box should be in 24-hour UTC.
  • Times in the Mission Timeline Detailed timeline section should be in 24-hour UTC with 24-hour local time added parenthetically for ground-referenced events (takeoff, landing, etc).
  • Specific times should be used in the body of an article only when notable. When they do appear, specific times in the body of an article should be in 24-hour local time with 24-hour UTC time added parenthetically as indicated by the Manual of Style.

--3Idiot 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date format discussion

  • "Date format (DMY or MDY) should be discussed on the talk page for now."

Did I miss this discussion? Or is it open? Can I offer up the ISO8601 "way" of YYYY-MM-DD?
(And how does this interact with wikilinks the preferences settings of individual users?) For example, today is [[15 September]] [[2006]] or [[September 15]], [[2006]]. Both of those display "15 September 2006" to me because of my preference settings. [[2006-09-15]] works surprisingly well (2006-09-15). But [[2006-SEP-15]] doesn't (2006-SEP-15).
So, I officially support [[YYYY-MM-DD]].
Thoughts?
--3Idiot 16:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason to change Wikipedia's basic rules on this subject. Use whatever the local use is, use it consistently throughout the article, and link both the month day and the year. Rmhermen 23:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Argh. Of course now that I try to separate date format from time format, I think of a problem... We need to be sure that the date listed actually matches the time listed. For example, a launch from Kennedy Space Center at 20:25 EDT on 12 September would really occur at 00:25 UTC on 13 September.
But as for date format, Rmhermen is right. There's already a guideline. After the experiment with formats above, I propose we change the "rule" to:

--3Idiot 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is pretty clear on what time zone to use as well: "When writing a date, first consider where the event happened and use the time zone there. For example, the date of the Attack on Pearl Harbor should be December 7, 1941 (Hawaii time/date). If it is difficult to judge where, consider what is significant. For example, if a vandal based in Japan attacked a Pentagon computer in the United States, use the time zone for the Pentagon, where attack had its effect."

For events on Earth, such as launches, the local date and time should be used. For extraterrestrial events, if the date itself has historical significance or relates to simultaneous events on Earth (such as July 20, 1969) or there is an large body of existing references to a local time zone (such as NASA reporting most events after launch in U. S. Central Time), I'd recommend using the time zone that the reporting agency recorded. I can't think of a cogent argument for recalculating dates and times to UTC. -- Greg 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(This is really time discussion and should be in the section above, but...)
Greg, you left off the next line from the Manual of Style: "If you know it, include the UTC date and time of the event in the article, indicating that it's UTC."
So, we're encouraged to use UTC in addition to whatever timezone "where the event happened".
For the ISS, that seems to be GMT. Since GMT and UTC are mostly used interchangeably by the public and the GMT and UTC times would be the same to within a second in most cases, I'd argue that writing "12:04 GMT (12:04 UTC)" could reasonably be shortend to "12:04 UTC".
For the shuttle, "local time" is either Mission Elapsed Time or UTC, but gets reported in press releases (aimed at mostly US news outlets) as Central or Eastern Time (+/- DST).
For the Soyuz missions...I have to admit, I don't know and don't want to look it up right now, because...
I think what all this leads to is the realization that most specific times probably aren't that "encyclopedic" anyway. I might have opened a pointless can of worms worrying about an article detailing a current event, where times mean more than they will in the long-term. Really, in a year (or a month even), do we care what minute Tanner and Stefanyshyn-Piper stepped out of the airlock for their first EVA of STS-115? Or when they came back inside? Might it better be described instead as a "six hour and twenty-six minute EVA"? Or even a "six and a half hour EVA"? If we want to record exact timing of every event detail for a mission, maybe a "Mission Timeline" section or subpage is the right place for that?
(Yes, times of launch and landing, first human footstep on the surface of Mars, etc are notable. I support recording them in the encyclopedia and using "local" time to do so. The Manual of Style also then encourages us to have sympathy for those millions of readers not in the same timezone as the event and include UTC.)
--3Idiot 14:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, recording UTC in a parenthetical comment is mostly harmless. I went on with another amusing anecdote that I decided to put on my talk page rather than clutter the discussion here with it. The most important thing is to use the date stamp that a user will find in other references.

[edit] ISS peer review

A request has been made for International Space Station to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of the article. // Duccio (write me) 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Units discussion

The decision to only use metric units in the articles has me perplexed. While I understand the desire for uniformity, the entire United States space program was/is designed, executed, and reported using United States customary units. It seems strange to omit these units from the articles when NASA reports them this way, and even the scientists design and program the vehicle using them.

I know that the project desires to use "scientific" units, but I feel it is almost misleading to force the use of only metric in the article, when that misrepresents almost all of the original scientific work that went into the vehicle. For instance, the Apollo System Specification from 1963 says that the CM should have a nominal diameter of 13 feet, not 3.9624 m.

I guess I'm wondering why the mandate is to ONLY use metric, while most if not all other projects I looked at under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport used the more inclusive two system reporting -- 122 NM (226 km). Please forgive me if consensus has already been reached on this issue. I would appreciate a link to the original discussion of this issue if this is the case. Cjosefy 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears, the only rule using both sets of units violates is "Even though this can be construed as a historical project, it is also very much a scientific project, so please use only metric units in the articles" from this project's page. User:Pipian added those rules on 15 October 2003, during the birth of the project. User:Pipian appears to still be actively contributing to WikiPedia, if not to this project. It might be worth our effort to try to get some of the project forefathers back involved. I have some issues with a number of those rules, anyway.
I think the first line of this section of the guideline gives room to argue that science projects conducted in imperial units should be recorded in imperial units with metric conversions provided parenthetically.
The relevant Manual of Style section seems to indicate that "122 NM (226 km)" is pretty close to "right". I guess "122 nautical miles (226 km)" is a bit more "correct". (And it says "Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.")
That said, there probably are a few places where compactness of information outweighs completeness (infoboxes, some tables, ...) and maybe conversions shouldn't appear. For those, I'd prefer to see "source units".
--3Idiot 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the very thorough reply. The MOS does say, “For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.”
I find it laughable that there are articles on US built space ships that have a list of specifications in metric next to a diagram with specifications in US units.
Beyond the argument that these are US ships/missions that should probably be in US units is the argumement of accuracy. For better or for worse, the ships were built to precise specifications outlined in US units. Stating specifications only in metric (as is done on many pages) leads to less accuracy. Cjosefy 18:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I should have added above that there's still something that makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck about this, though. I know that a lot of the diagrams and blurbs we see come out of NASA use imperial units, but I wonder if that's not already translated from SI because they know the audience is mostly the mainstream US press. I believe that when Apollo was designed, NASA measured in feet and inches. But I wonder if they don't use SI internally now. (I have no references either way, that's why it makes me uneasy.)
It would make sense that NASA would use SI these days, especially when developing things in conjunction with ESA and the Russians. It would also make sense that the PR department knows the American public feels more comfortable hearing about how many feet long the shuttle is and how many miles high it orbits, even if that means they have to do a little translating before printing a press release.
If that's the case, then WikiPedists shouldn't feel compelled to susbscribe to the same policy. However, since most of the sources we can cite for space mission information are press releases and not actual NASA-internal sources, I don't know that we have a choice. Now would be a good time for a real rocket scientist to weigh in *grin*.
--3Idiot 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The Shuttle internal technical documents are in US standard units. In fact, some documents note that most international partners have switched to SI, so the document provides a conversion table. However, you'll probably see a shift to at least some SI with CEV. Cjosefy 22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! The hair's back down against my neck for now. --3Idiot 17:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say that we should feel compelled to subscribe to a very similar policy. Whatever units NASA may have used internally may influence which set of units is presented first, but the other should be offered parenthetically after regardless. siafu 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This may indeed be a scientific project, but it exists in the larger context of wikipedia. The MoS is designed to create standardization, but also to allow the subject matter to be comprehensible to anyone speaking the language in which the wikipedia is written. That is, I'm of the opinion that we should absolutely include both units in every article, as these two sets of units are the principle (only?) ones in use in the English-speaking world. siafu 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I strongly oppose your point of view. The english wikipedia has (and is supposed to have) a wide, worldwide spread body of users - anyone who reads english, including non-native english speakers. I, for instance, come from a SI country, Italy. // Duccio 15:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You say that you oppose my POV, but you don't say anything in opposition to it. I'm suggesting using both sets of units. Where is the disagreement? siafu 23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I support the idea of using both SI and UScu in space projects where the internal documentation uses UScu (most NASA projects with few exceptions), but I oppose your idea of absolutely including both units in every article and strongly oppose the idea of making the english wikipedia fit the needs of what you call the English-speaking world. // Duccio 15:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So you want a English Wikipedia which only SI-using English-speaking people can understand! I think you will find yourself fighting a losing battle trying to get that. Rmhermen 15:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, the English-speaking wikipedia does serve the needs of the English-speaking world. That's why it's in English. I'm really not sure what the alternative would be, exactly. siafu 18:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is not a question of "understanding": just like I can understand what a pound is by reading once the appropriate article, I guess the average american has enough IQ to understand what a kilogram is, that's not a hard concept. The question is using an international standard or a national standard in an international project, like wikipedia, considered that using the "double units" like 1 m (3 ft) affects readability, in my opinion. Still I think that space projects where the internal documentation uses UScu are a perfect exception to this rule, because having imperial units too makes checking sources easyer. // Duccio 22:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Then you should have no complaints with everything only in American units because having read once pounds, you should be freely and easily converting it in your head to kilograms. For the rest of the world, double units are indicated. Anyway this has been extensively debated at the appropriate place: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement Rmhermen 01:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we at least try to get a consensus here on the Space Shuttle? I propose that for all Space Shuttle articles (hardware, missions, etc.) we use the source units first (UScu) followed by the SI conversions in parenthesis. This would seem to mesh well with the WP:MOS as well as stay true to the original units in which the hardware and missions were designed.

Some Space Shuttle mission articles are starting to become either SI first or SI only articles. I'd like us to reach an agreement on this issue so we can finally standardize. Cjosefy 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that:
1) We've discussed that the applicable internal documents and press releases are in UScu, and
2) The MoS says use source units first with conversions in parens to follow, and
3) A lot of the recent "switch to SI" edits don't follow some of the other suggestions here,
I support your proposal. (And It all boils down to references, in a way... If we are diligent about citing sources for the numbers we throw around, it'll be easier to check "source units" and thereby fend off those who would change everything to SI "just because".)
--3Idiot 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] templates category

I've started a Category:WikiProject Space missions templates, and Template:Space mission, but haven't tagged many articles. Mlm42 08:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STS missions updating

I feel uneasy when i read many of the Space Shuttle mission pages.. most of them, the main body of text is copied directly from a NASA webpage. i don't have a problem with that, except sometimes, (STS-91, STS-92, and many more) the text copied was written before the mission, so is in the future tense.. that's not so bad, because you know what you're reading was the plan, and not neccessarily what happened.. the problem is that some editors will change all the future tense to past tense (e.g. STS-93) - thus apparently fixing the problem! this worries me.. any thoughts? Mlm42 09:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject

I have two questions.. firstly, on the project page, does anyone else get the [edit] link at the side of each section? because they aren't showing up for me.. and i'd like them to.. secondly, shouldn't we change the name of the project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Manned Space Missions, or even Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Spaceflights? Mlm42 10:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that they disappeared a few months ago. I have no idea why though? Maybe ask at the Help Desk. Rmhermen 15:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I think the categories of these missions need some cleaning up.. for example, pretty much everything is in Category:Human spaceflights.. but really, that should be mostly empty with some big subcategories, like Category:Space Shuttle missions, Category:Apollo missions, Category:Soyuz missions, etc. how does that sound? Mlm42 10:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems useful. Any category with over 200 entries is overpopulated in my opinion. (requiring paging through the category list which may not alphabetize correctly) Rmhermen 15:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review request.

I've just finished rewriting pages Soyuz TMA-9 and Expedition 14 - i'd appreciate it if people had a quick look and check I haven't missed anything out, and check for errors. Thanks - Colds7ream 17:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The table on Expedition 14 has several parameters which need to be filled in with "In orbit" or "Still in orbit". Rmhermen 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astronaut/Cosmonaut

See discussion at Template talk:Infobox Astronaut#Astronaut/Cosmonaut regarding the infobox fields and the designation of space tourists, as well as guests on another nation's vehicle. --Dhartung | Talk 06:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solid Rocket Boosters

It's occurred to me that there's an extrenmely major fault with the Space Shuttle SRB page - the entire article is written as if the SRBs carry the Orbiter, when in fact the Orbiter is capable of lifting itself off the ground - the SRBs are only there to heft the fuel tank off the launchpad. Oops! Colds7ream 17:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It says "The Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) is the rocket that provides 83% of liftoff thrust for the Space Shuttle." This statement is correct. While the SSMEs are powerful enough to lift the orbiter off the ground in theory, the vehicle is going to space. The article very acurately states that the SRBs get the vehicle into a position such that the SSMEs can take it the rest of the way into space. I guess I don't see a "major fault" in the article. It describes exactly what the SRBs do. Cjosefy 22:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Space exploration

I've started the Space exploration WikiProject, but there's nothing there right now. My hope is that we will be able impliment the article assessment that's going on at the 1.0 editoral team, as they are trying to Work via Wikiprojects. Over 100 other wikiprojects are already following suit; the articles within the scope of this project could greatly benefit from being apart of this.. thoughts? (discuss here) Mlm42 17:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numer of spaceflight indicators on mission pages?

After some confusion on Soyuz TMA-9, I think I have figured out (from STS-116) that the numbers in parentheses after crewmembers' names on some space mission pages is supposed to represent number of spaceflights by the individual. But is this a number we intend to update each time the individual revisits space?
If so, this seems like the beginning of a maintenance nightmare.
If not, then I think it would be better to clearly indicate that the number indicates number of spaceflights up to (and including?) the mission in question.
Either way, most mission articles presently don't explain the numbers, making them confusing.
I think this information is already better presented on each individual's article and should be removed from the mission pages. If the individual's flight is notable for some reason, it could be spelled out in the article itself. ("This mission was John Doe's twentieth trip into space, surpassing the record previously held by Jane Doe" or "This mission was the first mission since xxx with an entire crew of first-time astronauts".)
--3Idiot 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think that we should keep the numbers, since they are mildly interesting, and already there; perhaps so consistancy would be nice.. i'm pretty sure the numbers on the STS missions is that number of spaceflights they've had up to and including the mission in the article is about. For the Gemini and Apollo missions they seem to list all flights during their career (some of which may need to be updated, therefore).
So, I suggest we go with the number format (i.e. STS-115), with the number meaning "number of space flights up to and including this mission", because it gives an idea of crew experience, which i believe was the purpose. Mlm42 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
They originally just listed the number; I started rolling out "all flights during career" to make it more comprehensible, as a result of cleaning up Apollo 8 during FAC, but stalled halfway through STS-xx. I think it's been removed everywhere but the early missions now, though. Shimgray | talk | 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I recently removed it from the earlier STS mission to make them consistent. I didn't realize it was used elsewhere. I think the numbers are more useful as it relates to the mission itself. (shows who is a rookie). All career flights should be listed already in each astronaut's personal article. Rmhermen 20:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
hmm.. i see. it's hard to get a good idea of what's on all of the STS pages - there are too many! regardless, i agree with Rmhermen; in fact even for the Apollo missions (including the featured Apollo 8), i think we should only include the number of flights up to and including that mission. Mlm42 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


OK, I think I like the idea of indicating "crew experience" for each particular mission. I wonder if it might be better in sentence form: "The crew of STS-xxx had a combined total of 10 previous spaceflights; 3 for John Doe, 4 for Jane Doe, and 3 for Little Billy Doe"?
If we stick with the parentheses format, we need to explicitly state on each article what the numbers represent: "Numbers in parentheses indicate crew member's total spaceflights up to and including this one" or similar.
Either way, I think we should revisit Gemini/Apollo/etc and clean up those.
--3Idiot 15:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
i think explicitly stating what the numbers mean is the way forward, rather than sentence form.. the crew names are going to be in a list anyway. Mlm42 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
See how STS-1 explains it. I think that is used on most of the STS missions. Rmhermen 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

How do we want to treat backup crew?
--3Idiot 14:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

They are listed when known. Look at the Apollo missions which I think all list backup crews. Rmhermen 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but does the "current mission" count in their total? If so, it seems a little misleading. If not, then the "up to and including this one" text (or similar) is not quite accurate maybe?
--3Idiot 12:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
...or Apollo 1?
--3Idiot

[edit] article assessments

as some of you will have noticed, i've been tagging many article, under the broad topic of Space exploration, with the tag {{WP Space exploration}}. this banner has a built in assessment feature.. you can rate the articles quality (out of Stub/Start/B/GA/A/FA), and the importance (Low/Mid/High/Top). The quality has a pretty clear grading scheme, but the importance is much more subjective.

anyway, to do this, for example, add {{WP Space exploration|class=B|importance=Mid}} to the Talk page. the banner also has a link to a pretty bot generated list (update once a day, around 10am UTC) of all articles with the Space exploration tag. so feel free to help out, and tag and assess some articles. :) also, when rating an article, you may feel a desire to justify your rating; if so, a comment on the Talk page with the heading "Assessment" seems appropriate. Mlm42 09:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] space exploration and spaceflight

Please comment on the merge proposal. Rmhermen 01:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crew of Soyuz

  • I prefer the old system of describing the Soyuz crew:
  • Crew up (the two or three guys)
  • Crew down (the two of three guys)

I know that makes repeats, but I think that the "trick" used to avoid to repeat names makes the lists difficult to read and understand. I am for clarity even if it means repeating names.Hektor 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For those joining us late...take a look at this change [1].
I agree with Hektor. The newer presentation:

  1. is more cluttered, and
  2. makes more sections in the Table of Contents (ToC) that don't need to be there, and
  3. takes up more screen space.

But, there has been no recorded discussion/consensus that I can find on presentation of the crew section of mission articles. So, we decided to bring the discussion here to get a wider audience, to get some consistency across space mission articles, and because WP:Space missions has discussed related things recently..
I propose something like this (fake data for example purposes only):

[edit] Crew

Mission XXX was a transport mission for the International Space Station (ISS) Expedition NNN crew. The flight delivered ISS Commander Pavel Vinogradov and ISS Flight Engineer Jeffrey Williams to the station to replace the Expedition MMM crew members. Flight Engineer Marcos Pontes joined the XXX crew for the ascent and docking with ISS, spent approximately eight days aboard the ISS conducting experiments, then returned to Earth with the outgoing members of Expedition MMM aboard Mission ZZZ. Vinogradov and Williams were joined on their return trip to Earth by Spaceflight Participant Anousheh Ansari who launched aboard Mission VVV and spent approximately seven days aboard ISS conducting experiments for the Fake Space Agency.

Primary Crew

Launched
*Pavel Vinogradov (2), Commander - Flag of Russia Russia
*Jeffrey Williams (2), Flight Engineer - Flag of United States United States
*Marcos Pontes (1), Flight Engineer - Flag of Brazil Brazil

Landed
*Pavel Vinogradov (2), Commander - Flag of Russia Russia
*Jeffrey Williams (2), Flight Engineer - Flag of United States United States
*Anousheh Ansari (1), Spaceflight Participant - Iran / Flag of United States United States

*Number in parentheses indicates number of spaceflights by each individual prior to and including this mission.

Note: Marcos Pontes returned to Earth aboard Soyuz TMA-7. Anousheh Ansari launched aboard Soyuz TMA-9.

Back-up crew

Support crew

Some things I think we need to decide up front:

  • Where do citations go? I think a cite for the whole section could be sufficient, but putting it on the "Crew" label makes it appear in the ToC, which is ugly. Putting the cite on either the first or last group doesn't make it clear that the cite is for the entire section. Putting a cite on each group could work, even if they all point to the same source.
  • I don't think each group needs to be a subsection in the ToC. These are mostly going to all fit on one screen, so being able to navigate to "Crew" is probably sufficient.
  • We've already discussed the (#) notation for crew experience. But we left unsettled the application of the notation to backup crew. I propose it not be applied to anyone who doesn't actually enter space as a result of the mission in question.
  • Country designators? Flags or text only? Who gets them? Right now, I'm indifferent to the flags, and propose that country designators only be applied to flight crew and backup flight crew.

--3Idiot 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Generally these facts should be readily available in the references of the article anyway, but if one really desires inline citations, then next to '''Launched''', etc, seems appropriate.
2) I agree that each group doesn't need a separate subsection, especially if there isn't very much text there to support the list. Speaking of which, it seems desirable to have a sentence or two about the crew under ==Crew==, before launching into the list.
3) The (#) notation doesn't seem as appropriate for a backup crew, since it would mean "The number of spaceflights they would have had at the time of launch".. while somewhat relavant (i.e. "backup crew experience"), it looks nicer with numbers only next to people who actually went on the spaceflight - which is a distinction that should be emphasised.
4) Country designators for the support crew somehow doesn't seem appropriate.. i can't pin-point why, though. i suppose, by analogy, astronauts are like olympians - but it's the nationality of the athlete, not the coach, that counts. and flags looks pretty, but i don't know how one could standardize, since we would want to include the space agency - for example the ESA, then what would the flag be? Mlm42 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there are policy as to what support crew should be included? I have been adding flight directors to the lists for the Apollo missions, because I believe that their contribution is notable and because it is something that people are likely to look up. But where is the line drawn? If we are to list flight surgeons, then what about other flight controllers? (Note that I'm not against the idea, just raising it as a possibility.) MLilburne 10:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I had a related thought yesterday when I realized that a lot of the Soyuz TMA-# articles are really just crew lists and a few factoids. For missions that are more than just crew transports, maybe we should move and/or break up the crew listing. Is the crew really so importatnt as to be the first section of the article? Does the answer change depending on what extent of "crew" we include? Subpage?
I don't have any answers to these questions yet...just recording the questions and fishing for your thoughts.
--3Idiot 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
A subpage or a different position might well be necessary if a larger definition of crew is used. I realised how long the list could get when thinking about the later Apollo missions, where you might have six or seven Capcoms plus six or seven flight directors. However, I can't yet think of a logical place where the list would belong. I'm still thinking. MLilburne 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
On the larger question... I am new to the Soyuz crew issue, so perhaps my comments will be useful. Never having seen the Soyuz crew lists, I found the newer presentation almost impossible to figure out. The proposed version above is much clearer and more logical. MLilburne 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
To Mlm42's point #2 above, I have edited Soyuz TMA-7 and Soyuz TMA-8 according to the proposed crew listing format above and added some text to the section. It was writing this text that made me notice that the Soyuz ISS crew transport missions really don't have much to say about them other than they took a few people to ISS and they brought (mostly) the same people back to Earth several months later.
Take a look at those and speak up with thoughts.
--3Idiot 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
To Mlm42's point #4, ESA has a flag, if that helps.[2] (But it doesn't...now we're mixing nationality with "employer" or "affiliated agency"...).
--3Idiot 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Some more work on the matter has led me to believe that this can be cleaned up even more. With good introductory text, the "Launched" and "Landed" breakouts can be eliminated and just list the crew in the list and explain if there is a crew change mid-mission in the text.

I've made such a change to the proposal above. Thoughts? --3Idiot 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Box

Hey, I am really into space, and think this project is cool. I was just wondering if there were userboxes for user pages? Thanks. Jmclark911 15:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is now! Don't know how long it'll last, but i've put together a userbox for the project like this:

This user is a member of WikiProject Space Missions


It's at Template:User WikiProject Space Missions. Hope everyone likes it! Colds7ream

Update: Following the unexpected deletion of the Vostok 1 launch image, I've replaced the image with that of the Atlantis-Mir combined spacecraft. Hope the new arrangement is acceptable to everyone. Colds7ream 12:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Location of the Crew section

  • I think that human spaceflight is fundamentally about launching a crew. Therefore I don't want to have to scroll down halfway through the article to find out who the crew was. Therefore, I wanted to express here my preference for the "traditional" organization of the articles where the crew is the first or one of the first sections. Hektor 22:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think human spaceflight is about accomplishing things that can't be done without human minds/hands/etc. But the _mission_ is the key. And I think often the description of the mission coming before the listing of the crew can help explain peculiarities in the crew listing, like crew members that go up, but don't come down with the mission.
I agree that space tourism is about launching someone into space for the sake of launching someone into space, and would agree that mention of such should be in the mission description near the top of the article.
And (for STS and Apollo missions, we need to fix Soyuz, Salyut,...) the crew is listed in the info box near the top if you just want to see a list near the top.
--3Idiot 02:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olympus Mons

Hello, I just nominated the Olympus Mons article for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive because I think that that article deserves to be class A. I thought this nomination might be of some interest to you all. Thanks! S.dedalus 06:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Space_missions_8601.html"