Talk:List of basic space exploration topics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
THE SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER Space Shuttle Challenger (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation or OV-099) was NASA's second Space Shuttle orbiter to be put into service, after Columbia. Its maiden voyage was on April 4, 1983, and it made eight further round trips to low earth orbit before breaking up 73 seconds after the launch of its tenth mission, on January 28, 1986, killing all seven crew members. This Space Craft would be replaced by the space shuttle Endeavour, launched six years after the disaster.
THE SPACE SHUTTLE CREW
THE SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER DISTASTER The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred in the United States, above the state of Florida, at 11:39 am on January 28, 1986, when the Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrated 73 seconds into its flight after an O-ring seal in its right solid rocket booster failed. The seal failure caused a flame leak from the solid rocket booster, which impinged upon the adjacent external fuel tank. Within seconds, the flame caused structural failure of the external tank, and aerodynamic forces promptly broke up the orbiter. The shuttle was destroyed and all seven crew members were killed. The crew compartment and many other vehicle fragments were eventually recovered from the ocean floor after a lengthy search and recovery operation. The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the shuttle program and the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed by United States President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident. The Rogers Commission found that NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes had been a key contributing factor to the accident.
[edit] How much commentary?
I've been beefing up the text headings in some of the sections, but find myself wondering if this is really redundant in what is really mostly just a list of pointers to other articles. Any thoughts about the "right" balance here? Thanks for any thoughts y'all may have. Wwheaton (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It also, if carried very far, starts to demand sources, etc -- which may be the reasonable place to draw the line. Wwheaton (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your point about sources is a really good one! Wikipedia space exploration pages, including this one,, currently have a major problem in this regard. Namely, the claim in this article that "Space exploration is the physical exploration of outer space" is not supported by any cited reference. Quite the opposite, in fact! The only cited reference in the space exploration article includes earth-based (visual-only) astronomy as part of "space exploration". (sdsds - talk) 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I've noticed the uneven enforcement of the rule, for technical subjects generally I suspect, as opposed to literary or "humanistic" ones. I am afraid I have developed bad habits myself as a result of writing mainly on the technical side. On the other hand, there are times when it seems useful to put in uncontroversial facts that one is essentially certain are correct, and hope someone with more time can come along later and supply the right reference, as opposed to leaving out useful explanation altogether. Anyhow, I will strive to be less cavalier about the matter myself, and hope also that sharp-eyed critics will tag when documentation is needed, rather than just delete at once. Hope we can all work together to balance the need for information with the integrity of the project, as speedily as possible. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- As an exercise I tried to do a search for definitions, and of course it was not too easy. The first one I turned up with Google{"definition of space exploration"} (23,000 hists....) was the Wiki one given in this article, which probably just underlines the need for a better reference. Then there was one from the British National Space Center by Jeremy Curtis, coordinator of the 'Space Exploration Working Group' [sounds reputable], part of a presentation given 3 April 2007: "The systematic exploration by robotic and human means of Solar System destinations upon which in the foreseeable future humans will live and work."[1] Not exactly awful, except it excludes everything outside the Solar System, so what is HST, which does both? What about Magellan, which explores the high-latitude parts of the heliosphere? What about Gallileo and Cassini, which significantly explore Jupiter and Saturn, on which no one expects to live and work in the forseeable future. Of course I could go on through the list, but picking one is not NPOV, and do we really want to go off into a discussion of all (if not actually thousands, then likely hundreds, apparently) the possible definitions? I suspect this may be a case where some studied ambiguity is OK, better not to fight this battle, but maybe just discuss various options here, pick one common-sense choice by consensus, and leave the debate on the talk page as a historical reference?
- Beaten but unbowed, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of space exploration topcs ?
I just commented out a reference at the top of the article page to the above title, because no such article (same as this one, except "basic" omitted) seems to exist. If this is not an historical anachronism, someone may want to repair it, but I suspect it needed to go. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
