Talk:New Shepard (spacecraft)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
An entry from New Shepard (spacecraft) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 July 2006. |
 |
++Lar: t/c 15:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas. |
Contents |
[edit] links and info
The extarnal link document refers to "space travel participants" throughout and also references the DC-X which had a crew of three and no passenger capacity. After re-reading, I believe this means: space travel participants (total personnel on board) = crew + passengers. Also, powered verticle-landing passenger vehicles are unusual enough that you might want to put more emphasis on that. Also, I recently worked on IOS, a nearly identical company that uses different design philosophy; would it be appropriate to link the two articles as they are so closely related? Just some thoughts to try and help you towards your DYK bid :) --Doc Tropics 19:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Indeed, I went back to the document and Blue Origin is using the term "space flight participants", which is the exact term used by NASA to designate the three tourists who have already flown to the ISS (Tito, Shuttleworth, Olsen). So I think that space flight participants should be the space tourists themselves. Anyway since the number of paying passengers is critical to the business plan of such a project, I understand quite well that Blue Origin does not want to disclose too clealy such an information. IOS goes to a disambiguation page ??? Thanks a lot, please edit the page to improve it, I think it is an interesting topic ! Hektor 19:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see your point about participant/tourists...you convinced me. As for the link I suggested, not only does IOS link to a disambig page, the article I worked on Interorbital Systems isn't even listed there! I guess I need to fix that. I agree that this is a very interesting topic; I suspect that the future of space travel is in the hands of individual companies like these rather than government agencies. Your article is informative and well written; good luck to you :) --Doc Tropics 00:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confusing tense and other questions
Hello, the article says this is a planned spacecraft, but he present tense is used throught - such as "The New Shepard launches vertically..." Has it ever been launched? If not, future tense would be more appropriate. When is the first launch? What is the name of the launch facility which it plans to use for launches? Our article on spaceport does not seem to mention a site in Texas so this site should be added to that article. Has it been licensed yet by the FAA? Thanks for helping me with these questions. Johntex\talk 01:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
There may be confusion because the New Shepard is basically a newer version of the DC-X, which did have 8 successful (more or less) test flights. As far as I can tell, the New Shepard itself is still in the design and licensing stage. --Doc Tropics 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- But this article isn't about the DC-X. If the New Shepard has never flown, then references to its flights should be in the future tense. Do you know anything about my questions related to the spaceport they plan to use or where it stands in getting FAA approval? Johntex\talk 04:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right that those segments should be written in the future tense; I was just trying to explain the possible confusion that the author might have had, but I didn't want to take it upon myself to do a rewrite. I did try to check the company's current licensing status but didn't get far. When I confirmed the licensing of IOS through the FAA it took bloody hours, so I'm inclined to let the author pursue that on his own :) --Doc Tropics 05:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I re-read my comments and I realize I sounded snippy. I'm sorry about that. I didn't mean to be rude. I'll re-write the tense and we'll see if anyone comes up with the other info. Thanks! Johntex\talk 05:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- No problem JT, it's hard to emote well in text. Besides, you were right. --Doc Tropics 05:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New link
I added a "Related article" link. Feel free to delete if inappropriate. --Doc Tropics 02:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name change
- What is the rationale for the change in the name of the article ? I thought the convention was name of the aerospace company + name of the vehicle... like Boeing 707 or Orbital Sciences X-34. Isn't it no longer the case ? Thanks for clarifying. Hektor 04:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have switched back.. Hektor 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
