Talk:Spaceflight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spaceflight article.
Article policies
WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Top

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article had its chronology/history sources verified On: 26 August 2007
by WP Timeline Tracer
To-do list for Spaceflight: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand: Reaching space section should have a better intro. It's not all about the Karman line.
  • Stubs: Space mission currently redirects here. That topic deserves its own article which would include mission planning, ground support, etc.

Contents

[edit] Merge Difference between sub-orbital and orbital spaceflights

It seems that anything not covered in the orbital spaceflight and sub-orbital spaceflight articles should be placed here, rather than having its own article. Mlm42 15:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT--aceslead 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I've redirected Difference between sub-orbital and orbital spaceflights to this article, after extracted what i believed to be all the usable content, and putting it in either orbital spaceflight or sub-orbital spaceflight. there were some energy calculation at the end of the Difference between.. article, but after trying to re-write them and put them in the sub-orbital spaceflight article, i found then rather dubious, and decided to remove them.
if someone is willing to reproduce those calculations, or make them clearer, feel free. they were an attempt to compare the energy required for a sub-orbital flight, and the energy required for an orbital flight. Mlm42 10:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging?

Some parts of this article (early flights, reusable spacecraft) overlaps with Space exploration article. I think it'd be good to exclude overlapping parts to separate articles. What do you think? --LeszekKrupinski 07:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thumb image size

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images says,

  • Specifying the size of a thumb image is in general not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified as preference, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:
  • On images with extreme aspect ratios
  • When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
  • When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region
Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.

Do any of these cases apply to the image in the lead of this article? Sdsds 09:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] transportation -> movement

In the lead definition I replaced "transportation" with "movement". That's because the spacecraft isn't usually being transported by something else. Of course a spacecraft which is still the payload of a carrier rocket is being transported. It would be good to get the word (and link to) "transportation" back into the article, because after all the purpose of spaceflight is to transport something (humans, cargo, scientific instrumentation, etc.) through space.... Sdsds 19:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

The section part could do with better flow and citations to sources (footnotes perhaps?) There are many historical references missing Librarian2 16:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Private Spaceflight

Probably just as good as part of the human spaceflight paragraph as being a separate sub-paragraph. Not every fact covering about 100 words requires a separate sub-paragraph.Inwind (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is still a bit stubby really. The editing strategy I've been using is more to create reasonable headings and then hope that people will fill them, rather than grow the paragraphs organically; this does mean you often get quite short sections though until they fill out.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)