Talk:2006 in spaceflight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
List This article has been rated as list-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Successful so far

Does that mean "We haven't heard anything went wrong" or "We know that it is working as of now" ? Military and Chinese satellites will often have nothing in the public domain about failures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.23.132 (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interlinks

I think the list should be linked from the various space agency articles, e.g., ESA, NASA, ... -- Robocoder 16:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suborbital in spaceflight list

I was wondering why the the spaceloft XL suborbital flights are included in this list. They go into space with regards to altitude but don't achieve orbital speeds. If you include such suborbital flights you also have to include other sounding rocket flights (such as Maxtor) and ICBM test launches, IMHO.

Sub-orbital is not a disqualifying factor - the advice on WP:LSY is to include anything that crosses, or is intended to cross, the Karmain line. The only reason there are no other sub-orbital flights is because the main reference of these missions only goes up to 2005. If you can find information on other sub-orbital flights, then there is no problem with adding them. There are sub-orbital flights in some of the older articles, such as the early '60s, etc. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this text necessary?

The lists are maintained by the Lists of Spaceflights by Year WikiProject, but all users are, of course, still free to edit and improve them, but please refrain from making major edits without discussing them on the talk page, or WikiProject talk page first.

I realize that the text is in small type, but this will not bode well with our mirrors. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Might be a matter to discuss on the wikiproject talk page. It may be possible to move them onto the talkpages. --GW_SimulationsTalk | Contribs | E-mail 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major edit

I am in the process of modifying this article to be centred around the spacecraft rather than the rocket. Please do not edit whilst this is in progress. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 12:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Just a preview of the new layout - should be ready soon, all comments welcome:

Launch Date/Time Launch Vehicle Launch
Site		 Launch Contractor Payload Operator Orbit Mission/
Function		 Re-Entry/
Destruction		 Outcome Remarks
January 19
19:00 GMT		 Lockheed Martin Atlas V (551) LC-41 Cape Canaveral ILS New Horizons NASA N/A Flyby of Pluto and KBOs N/A Successful so far First probe to visit Pluto
January 24
01:33 GMT		 H-2A Tanegashima NASDA Daichi (ALOS) NASDA LEO Observation satellite Still in Orbit Successful so far
February 15
23:35 GMT		 Yuzhnoye Zenit 3SL Ocean Odyssey
Pacific Ocean		 Sea Launch EchoStar 10 EchoStar Geosynchrous Comsat Still in Orbit Successful so far
February 18
06:27 GMT		 H-2A Tanegashima MTSAT 2 Japanese Government ATC and weather satellite Successful so far
February 21
21:28 GMT		 M-5 (M-V/Mu-5) Uchinoura NASDA ASTRO-F (Akari) Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
 Infrared astronomy satellite. Still in orbit Successful so far
Cute-1.7+APD Still in orbit
February 28
20:10 GMT		 Chelomei Proton Baikonur ILS ARABSAT 4A ARABSAT Comsat Intended: Geosynchrous February 28, 2006 Failure Upper stage malfunction.
March 11
22:33 GMT		 Aérospatiale Ariane 5 ECA ELA-3, CSG (Kourou) Arianespace SPAINSAT Spanish Government Military comsat Geosynchrous Still in Orbit Successful so far
Hot Bird 7A Eutelsat Comsat Geosynchrous Still in Orbit Successful so far
March 22
14:03 GMT		 Orbital Sciences Pegasus L-1011, Vandenberg AFB Orbital Sciences Space Technology 5 (X3) NASA Study Earth's Magnetosphere. LEO Still in orbit Successful so far
March 24
22:30 GMT		 SpaceX Falcon 1 Omelek SpaceX FalconSat 2 US Air Force Acadamy Plasma research satellite. Intended: LEO March 24
22:31 GMT		 Failure Rocket lost power shortly after launch. Probable engine fire.
March 30
02:30 GMT		 Soyuz (A-2) LC-1, Baikonur RFSA Soyuz TMA-8
3 Cosmonauts		 RFSA LEO - docked to ISS Still in orbit ISS Expedition 13 Successful. First Brazillian in Space

GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking nice, but for missions that failed during launch, couldn't you state it as a T+X time? I think T+10 seconds or similar would be more useful than a date/time that only shows a minute's difference.Night Gyr 20:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll incorporate that. GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Finished. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some errors in the table (now corrected)

I've just spent the last hour correcting the table here (as there were lots of formatting errors) and I put in more exact links, like LEO instead of LEO, etc. But I can see that all the other list of spaceflights pages have similar problems. I don't think I'm going to edit them all (as it's mind-bogglingly boring), so I suggest others attempt to correct these types of errors in the other pages. --Hibernian 14:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirect states that Wikipedia Policy is that redirects should not be bypassed unless they are broken, or redirect to a redirect page. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you’re saying, Do you think that it is better to link to a Disambiguation page than to the actual article?
What would be the point of that? How is LEO more useful to readers than Low Earth orbit? (I would think it is fairly useless to link to LEO, particularly as that is a Big disambig. page, and frankly it's very confusing to anybody who doesn't know what L.E.O is.)
--Hibernian 04:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not one of Wikipedia's redirect policy, but rather its disambiguation policy, which clearly states that When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page. It is likely that someone visiting a list of spaceflights and clicking on a particular orbit type link would probably not expect to be redirected to a disambiguation page listing famous people named Leo, and abbreviations for owls, Pakistani terrorist groups and newspapers belonging to the Louisville alternative press scene. Daen 13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. Editors should take the time to link to the exact pages instead of just to the abbreviations, which only takes you to the disambiguation pages. I hope people will do this in future, so that we don't have to go through the laborious task of re-editing it. --Hibernian 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that was a redir. I have no problem with it then. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 launches

A number of 2007 launches are creeping into the table. I don't have the spare time right now, but if someone else hasn't beaten me to it over the next four hours I'll move the offending entries into the 2007 table. Daen 09:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved three entries to the 2007 page. I didn't move the AMC-14 launch to the 2007 page (it was written in the table as 2007) because quite a few sites (example) say that AMC-14 is due to launch in August (with date TBC). I can't actually find any sources that say that the launch will be in 2007, but if someone can find a recent source, please feel free to move the AMC-14 launch to the 2007 page. DarthVader 22:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well done that man! Yesterday was just another day of over-optimistic time estimates for me ... Daen 10:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)