Talk:NASA X-38
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Whew! fixing the verb tenses took a lot more time than I thought! Somebody else do the links! AlainV 17:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Merge tag
I have no problem with the proposed merge, as long as "X-38" ends up being the title (or prominent in the title) of the article to be consistent with the naming of other articles about X-planes. Akradecki 15:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Like, err, the Lockheed Martin X-35? // Duccio (write me) 16:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, except the X-38 didn't have a main mfr (though Scaled did built the airframe), so how about "X-38 Crew Return Vehicle"?Akradecki 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- That was supposed to be a joke since you said as long as "X-38" ends up being the title (or prominent in the title) of the article to be consistent with the naming of other articles about X-planes while the Lockheed Martin X-35 redirects to F-35 Lightning II, where I see no "X". // Duccio (write me) 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- D'oh...yeah, I shoulda caught that....Akradecki 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- That was supposed to be a joke since you said as long as "X-38" ends up being the title (or prominent in the title) of the article to be consistent with the naming of other articles about X-planes while the Lockheed Martin X-35 redirects to F-35 Lightning II, where I see no "X". // Duccio (write me) 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, except the X-38 didn't have a main mfr (though Scaled did built the airframe), so how about "X-38 Crew Return Vehicle"?Akradecki 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
NB: the X-38 isn't the crew return vehicle -- there have been several proposed that have nothing to do with the X-38. It's OK to call it the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle, but even that is stretching it as the X-38 was just a demonstration vehicle.ThreeE 03:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:X-38
- This discussion comes from the old Talk:X-38 page. For unsigned comments or other problems, see the Talk:X-38 history.
The X-38 was not a Scaled Composites Project. Scaled was one of several capable contractors involved, but the Project was not owned by any contractor. In fact, the whole point of the project was to show that the civil service workforce at NASA could develop the vehicle in a new way. Scaled built the shell of the drop test vehicle, but had nothing to do with the other test vehicles -- including what was to be the space qualified unit.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] X-38 Crew Return Vehicle
[This thread is being copied here from my talk page so that everyone may participate] Akradecki 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I see you moved Crew Return Vehicle to X-38 Crew Return Vehicle. Are you sure that's a good idea? I've already shown you on the article talk page that when a X-designation is used for the development project and not for the final aircraft the article on wikipedia is named after the final name: see again the Lockheed Martin X-35 redirect to F-35 Lightning II. Additionally, the aircraft is more popular as Crew Return Vehicle, returning more results on Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=Crew%20Return%20Vehicle returns 8,080,000 while http://www.google.com/search?q=X-38 returns 5,000,000), so unless you have some valid arguments to keep X-38 Crew Return Vehicle it is my opinion that the article should be moved to Crew Return Vehicle, but I'd like to hear your points before proceeding. // Duccio (write me) 14:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is almost always standard to have the aircraft model in the title. Because the program was cancelled, it will never become like the X-35/F-35 - that one's the exception, and we shouldn't be makeing a standard based on that. By far, the X-planes always have the model number in the article title. Some examples:
- Want more? See the majority listed in:
|
|||||
- Note that in the template, it's listed as "NASA X-38". Maybe that's a better option? Akradecki 16:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- That is absolutely not an option since this is not NASA's, it's a joint project, and now that you bring this to my attention I'll edit the template. I still think Crew Return Vehicle is a better name for this article because of the popularity, because the F-35 is not an exception (see X-39, another example you missed) and because X-38 is the name of the development project for the Crew Return Vehicle aircraft - and aircraft name should be the name of the article - but I see there is no consensus and there won't be unless someone else joins the conversation, so I'll go back contributiong to the article leaving the name point for the future. // Duccio (write me) 10:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- That actually is a good option as it was a NASA project -- Scaled was just a vendor. NASA did all the project management, testing, and integration. Remember, the X-38 was never built -- only the drop test article. The pictures in the article are of the drop test article NOT the X-38. The X-38 was to be a space qualified vehicle lofted in the Shuttle's cargo bay -- but of course that never happened...ThreeE 20:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd agree if the Crew Return Vehicle was ever to be built, but since it was cancelled, and the X-38 is all that actually existed, the name should reflect it, not a proposed project that will never make it into the real world. Maybe it should be unmerged? Akradecki 15:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, there isn't enough for two articles, and the result of merging is great, particoulary with the now added images, media, references and so on. I'll make some more small contributions (there's not much left to do) and then look for a peer review, consider making some contributions too. // Duccio (write me) 16:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I plan on it, as a part of my project to document all of Scaled's projects. It's been in the queue, but I'll bump it up. Akradecki 16:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remember 1) there have been several crew return vehicles -- the X-38 was just one of them, and 2) Scaled did not design the X-38 -- they just built the fuselage per NASA's specs for the drop test vehicle. The X-38 was most certainly not a Scaled project. ThreeE 20:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Anyway at some point one design was selected, and that design was developed in the X-38 program. If you write that "several crew return vehicles over the years with varying levels of detail" have been designed, please provide links to reliable sources in the form of references (this way), or at least a list of those alternative designs on websites like astronautix - I can't find anything like that, just some 1960s crazy designs never taken into serious consideration. // Duccio 23:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, for example, from the site you suggested -- NASA pursued several options for assured crew return from the Space Station. This ongoing effort included the Assured Crew Return Vehicle. Note that the astronautix site shows the X-38 as one in a list of four alternative CRV designs. I know references are important, but if you are going to claim that the X-38 is the one and only crew return vehicle design the burden of proof is just as much on you. Anyone involved in manned spaceflight knows that there have been oodles of designs.ThreeE 00:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- The ACRV was not a design for a return vehicle for crew at the International Space Station. Actually, I see a lot of proposals for different pseudo-CRVs for early stations designs, and some also for Space Station Freedom, see here for some of them, but still the only one that has been seriously taken into consideration seems the X-38 lifting body design. Anyone involved in manned spaceflight knows that there have been oodles of designs - please avoid this kind of statements, they apply to any kind of spacecraft and are not noteworthy unless a second design was developed at least to an early stage. // Duccio 00:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- ACRV was a design for the ISS -- long before it was called ISS. In fact the Soyuz is called a CRV too. The term CRV isn't specific to any vehicle. It's like calling a Ford Pinto "The Car." Anyone that has looked at car knows there are oodles of cars.ThreeE 01:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- The ACRV was a design for a early Space Station proposal rescue vehicle, like the ACRV astronautix article says. The article doesn't say which one. If you find a reliable source claiming ACRV was a design for a ISS CRV, cite it. Soyuz is often called a CRV substitute because of the X-38 project interruption. You see it called a CRV? Cite the article. That's the only thing
I askwikipedia policies ask. // Duccio 11:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)- It's clear you are not interested in listening and you are the only one, as far as I can tell, that holds your position -- so this will be my last post. I don't really care what you do with the article, but calling the X-38 "The CRV" is clearly not correct. You continually ask for sources, but have yet to provide one yourself. The ISS was largely designed before it was even called the ISS. Anything NASA looked at for any post-shuttle station is largely withing the same design trade space. Whatever.ThreeE 15:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't provide one, I provided five, they're already in the article. // Duccio 15:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's clear you are not interested in listening and you are the only one, as far as I can tell, that holds your position -- so this will be my last post. I don't really care what you do with the article, but calling the X-38 "The CRV" is clearly not correct. You continually ask for sources, but have yet to provide one yourself. The ISS was largely designed before it was even called the ISS. Anything NASA looked at for any post-shuttle station is largely withing the same design trade space. Whatever.ThreeE 15:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- The ACRV was a design for a early Space Station proposal rescue vehicle, like the ACRV astronautix article says. The article doesn't say which one. If you find a reliable source claiming ACRV was a design for a ISS CRV, cite it. Soyuz is often called a CRV substitute because of the X-38 project interruption. You see it called a CRV? Cite the article. That's the only thing
- ACRV was a design for the ISS -- long before it was called ISS. In fact the Soyuz is called a CRV too. The term CRV isn't specific to any vehicle. It's like calling a Ford Pinto "The Car." Anyone that has looked at car knows there are oodles of cars.ThreeE 01:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- The ACRV was not a design for a return vehicle for crew at the International Space Station. Actually, I see a lot of proposals for different pseudo-CRVs for early stations designs, and some also for Space Station Freedom, see here for some of them, but still the only one that has been seriously taken into consideration seems the X-38 lifting body design. Anyone involved in manned spaceflight knows that there have been oodles of designs - please avoid this kind of statements, they apply to any kind of spacecraft and are not noteworthy unless a second design was developed at least to an early stage. // Duccio 00:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, for example, from the site you suggested -- NASA pursued several options for assured crew return from the Space Station. This ongoing effort included the Assured Crew Return Vehicle. Note that the astronautix site shows the X-38 as one in a list of four alternative CRV designs. I know references are important, but if you are going to claim that the X-38 is the one and only crew return vehicle design the burden of proof is just as much on you. Anyone involved in manned spaceflight knows that there have been oodles of designs.ThreeE 00:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Anyway at some point one design was selected, and that design was developed in the X-38 program. If you write that "several crew return vehicles over the years with varying levels of detail" have been designed, please provide links to reliable sources in the form of references (this way), or at least a list of those alternative designs on websites like astronautix - I can't find anything like that, just some 1960s crazy designs never taken into serious consideration. // Duccio 23:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remember 1) there have been several crew return vehicles -- the X-38 was just one of them, and 2) Scaled did not design the X-38 -- they just built the fuselage per NASA's specs for the drop test vehicle. The X-38 was most certainly not a Scaled project. ThreeE 20:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- I plan on it, as a part of my project to document all of Scaled's projects. It's been in the queue, but I'll bump it up. Akradecki 16:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, there isn't enough for two articles, and the result of merging is great, particoulary with the now added images, media, references and so on. I'll make some more small contributions (there's not much left to do) and then look for a peer review, consider making some contributions too. // Duccio (write me) 16:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- That is absolutely not an option since this is not NASA's, it's a joint project, and now that you bring this to my attention I'll edit the template. I still think Crew Return Vehicle is a better name for this article because of the popularity, because the F-35 is not an exception (see X-39, another example you missed) and because X-38 is the name of the development project for the Crew Return Vehicle aircraft - and aircraft name should be the name of the article - but I see there is no consensus and there won't be unless someone else joins the conversation, so I'll go back contributiong to the article leaving the name point for the future. // Duccio (write me) 10:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, guys, let's step back a moment. Wikipedia guidelines state that the article should be called what the subject is most often referred to. We have four references for the article, three from NASA, one from ESA. The ESA one calls the X-38 a "prototype" CRV. Two of the NASA references call it simply "X-38". One NASA reference calls it X-38 CRV. Seems to me that the current title closely matches what the actual built hardware was called. Dropping the "X-38" from the title goes against guidelines. Can we just leave it the way it is and get on with editing? Akradecki 02:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wrong decision
I have just discovered that some clever minds have merged both articles. As a former member of the X-38 team, let me tell you this was really a wrong decision. These were two different vehicles with two different industrial organization. For a start, the X-38 was NASA's while the CRV would have been produced by an Industrial Prime Contractor. The X-38 was a prototype, while the CRV was human rated. The X-38 was unable to attach to the ISS, while the CRV could be berthed to the Station by the Canadarm... I could continue. Really, bad, bad, bad... 193.56.37.1 13:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, there really should be two articles. Frankly, I consider the X-38 to be more a "technology demonstrator" than a "prototype" per se. If it had gone into production, you can be pretty sure the industrial prime contractor would have given it a different name since "CRV" is too generic. Perhaps the articles would best be named something like "NASA X-38 Crew Return Vehicle Demonstrator" and "Crew Return Vehicle Concepts" (with emphasis on the plural). This would allow the CRV article to grow to be more than a stub essentially related only to the X-38. There have indeed been "oodles" of concepts, so just covering the more notable ones would be a fine encyclopedic reference article.Askari Mark | Talk 15:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- As the person who reluctantly agreed to do the merge, and am now regretting it given the contention it's raised, I'd gladly seperate them out into two articles again, but I'd appreciate a few more editors agreeing that this would be the best course of action. Given the contention, a clear consensus is essential in this case. Akradecki 16:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The main reason that made me merge these articles was that too much information should be shared between to make them comprehensive. The X-38 was the development program for the CRV, so a CRV article would share 80% of the sections with a X-38 article: in both articles you'll have to mention that it's a lifting body, that it uses a parafoil, that it lands on skids, and so on - because that's what a X-38 did and that's what a CRV would have done, and so you have to say it in both articles. Unmerging really makes no sense to me: one thing that I'd support would be to rename the whole article Crew Return Vehicle, and making a X-38 section , like the one that now is called Development, but I doubt that there could be consensus on this as Akradecki already said he prefers X-38 Crew Return Vehicle, if I understood correctly from the early discussion on merging. // Duccio 22:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- More correctly, "The X-38 was the development program for "a" CRV ..." — not "... for "the" CRV ...". That's why I suggested there be an article on CRVs in general, rather than on this CRV specifically. Askari Mark | Talk 23:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You are not the first one rising this point, see the discussion above. However, as I said before with another guy that considered the X-38 the prototype for "one possible CRV" instead of "the CRV", I couldn't find any single reliable source telling different possible designs, or at least one single alternative for the ISS CRV. The CRV development, like any other space related program, probably featured an initial stage in which engineers brainstormed and came up with many designs, but "probably" and "we think it's gone this way" simply isn't a reliable source. Additionally, the X-38 was internally developed, there were no competitors, no alternatives, at least since the X-38 program start. // Duccio 08:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Your are absolutely correct Askari, the X-38 was the development program for "a" CRV ..." — not "... for "the" CRV ...". In fact, the X-38 wasn't even a CRV -- it was never going to be attached to the ISS. It was a prototype that was going to be delivered to orbit in the Space Shuttle's payload bay with a deorbit stage. If things went well, a new, larger vehicle built by a contractor would have served the role of a CRV. The program was cut, and the Soyuz is currently used as a CRV. At best, the X-38 was a prototype for a CRV -- one of several considered by NASA. I have no more energy to argue this obvious point though -- see the previous thread.ThreeE 19:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The above, to me, gives ample reason to re-seperate the two. As a part of WikiProject Aircraft, the X-38 deserves its own article. It's an X-plane, it flew test missions, there's plenty of verifiable information on it, and an article on X-38 by itself would survive an AfD hands down. There's no reason to make the info on the X-38 as subsection of another article. That's why I'm strongly opposed to calling this article "CRV" or the like, and reducing the X-38 to merely a subsection. There is a place in this encyclopedia for an article dedicated to this vehicle and its test program, and because of my personal interests, that's where my attention is focused. If other editors want to have an article dedicated to the various CRV concepts, I think that's a great idea...I believe such an article would be a valuable asset to the encyclopedia from the point of view of the researcher, and having a subsection of that article which summarized the project goals of X-38 (rather than getting bogged down in the vehicle's specs and test details) would certainly be appropriate, especially if accompanied by a "main article" tag that pointed to the X-38 page for those who want more specific details on the test vehicle. Someone looking on CRV information would naturally find such an article a valuable research tool, as long as sources support the article. That's not where my interests lie, so I'm not going to focus on writing that article, but it sounds ThreeE and others here could do a very effective job. I'm ready and willing to do the work to seperate the two, I'll detail out the X-38 article, and leave the CRV article for those with more knowledge and interest in that side of things to take if from stub to full article. Does this sound like an acceptable compromise to everyone? Akradecki 00:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The rough consensus rule gives you the right to proceed without everyone's agreement. As the only - to date - article contributor among those participating to this discussion, I cited five highly reliable (NASA, ESA; the federation of american scientists) sources that consider the X-38 a prototype or the development for the CRV, but you decided to ignore them and refuse to cite any reliable source telling about other, alternative CRV designs for the ISS: it's your right, Wikipedia is consensus-driven, so just go on and split. // Duccio 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's not that I've refused to provide sources, its that the couple dozen other sources are not related to the X-38 version of the CRV, and therefore not appropriate. I've rethought my statements above, and will take up the task of writing a thorough CRV article...there's certainly enough material out there (helps to Google under "Assured Crew Return Vehicle"). It'll be done by the end of this week. Akradecki 16:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Because of real life, I may not make the end of the week deadline, but progress is being made. If anyone wants to view the draft of the CRV article, its on my sandbox. There's still a ton of refs that I need to glean info from, but basically the article is a chronological look at all the designs that have come and gone in the quest for a workable, affordable CRV. I've learned a lot in doing this research, all of which really supports the idea of splitting these two subjects apart. Akradecki 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's not that I've refused to provide sources, its that the couple dozen other sources are not related to the X-38 version of the CRV, and therefore not appropriate. I've rethought my statements above, and will take up the task of writing a thorough CRV article...there's certainly enough material out there (helps to Google under "Assured Crew Return Vehicle"). It'll be done by the end of this week. Akradecki 16:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- The rough consensus rule gives you the right to proceed without everyone's agreement. As the only - to date - article contributor among those participating to this discussion, I cited five highly reliable (NASA, ESA; the federation of american scientists) sources that consider the X-38 a prototype or the development for the CRV, but you decided to ignore them and refuse to cite any reliable source telling about other, alternative CRV designs for the ISS: it's your right, Wikipedia is consensus-driven, so just go on and split. // Duccio 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] New CRV article
As promised, the new Crew Return Vehicle article is done and up. It could probably use a good copy edit, if anyone's interested in doing so. I'll now refine this X-38 article to focus on the actual X-38 part of the program. Last change to comment on a new name. To keep with Wikipedia "most common name" guidelines, and to make things easy for folks looking for info, I am proposing simply "NASA X-38". Akradecki 21:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- A masterful job putting this article together! I concur with the name "NASA X-38". Askari Mark | Talk 04:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Auction
http://gsaauctions.gov/gsaauctions/gsaauctions/ and type "X-38" 65.166.89.2 21:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
