Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Please replace this template ({{TLS-N}}) with {{WPSpace|TLS=yes}} >

	Space Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
Related projects:
	Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Standardise date formats (use D MMM YYYY format, eg 28 October 1971, 2 September 1970, etc) Create articles for 1974-1980, and 1987-1994 Transclude {{TLS-H}} onto all pages Maintain Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch Add missing launches to all pages Review article/project status Replace old succession boxes with the new {{TLS-L|year=XXXX|nav=on}} navbox

v • d • e Timeline of spaceflight
1950s Earlier 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960s 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970s 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980s 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990s 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000s 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010s 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Contents 1 U.S. spaceports 2 Is this text necessary? 3 Referencing 4 Missiles 5 Project directory 6 Rename? 6.1 Reorganisation proposal 7 Just joined 8 Wikipedia Day Awards 9 Category:Space Launches by Month/Year 10 Definition of "Failure" 10.1 Support failure standardisation 10.2 Oppose failure standardisation 11 Spelling of "Rendezvous" 11.1 Poll 11.1.1 Use "Rendezvous" 11.1.2 Use "Rendez-vous" 11.1.3 Do not standardise 12 Table format 12.1 In favour of format change 12.2 Against format change 12.3 Discussion 13 Language and date 13.1 In favour of proposal 13.2 Against proposal 13.3 Further discussion 13.3.1 Avoid conflict 14 = As regards the Shavit payload 15 NASA document on wikisource that might be helpful 16 "Next" tag and unknown dates 17 Stuff that needs sorting 18 Proposals to improve the timeline 18.1 Proposal 1 - Colour coding 18.1.1 Discussion (1) 18.1.2 Poll (1) 18.2 Proposal 2 - Flags 18.2.1 Discussion (2) 18.2.2 Poll (2) 18.3 Proposal 3 - Move start point 18.3.1 Discussion (3) 18.3.2 Poll (3) 19 Status review 20 Russia vs CIS

[edit] U.S. spaceports

Please use Kennedy Space Center for U.S. manned launches and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (probably best as a pipe-link [[Cape Canaveral Air Force Station|Cape Canaveral]]) for unmanned launches from the Florida coast. The Cape Canaveral article is a disambig and geography article and the two space centers are separate, although adjoining, places. Rmhermen 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks. BTW, I think that the early (Mercury & Gemini) flights were from CCAFS rather than KSC. I'll check it before making changes though.

[edit] Is this text necessary?

Copied from Talk:List of spaceflights (2006):

_{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_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In general it is best to place these type of remarks on the talk page, and wanted to raise this concern to the project at large. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Under the new overhaul of all such pages, this tag will be moved to the talk page --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To me, it looks like a mild case of WP:OWN. Even if you truly have a good reason for not wanting editors to make major edits without discussing them first (and if so, it should be explained), it should be rephrased more flexibly, such as:

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 it may be a good idea to discuss major edits on the talk page, or WikiProject talk page before making them, due to [reason].

Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 22:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

I've noticed that the articles in this WikiProject (or at least the ones I've seen) are unverified. It seems they are new, so this is understandable. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency provides a chronological history of spaceflights, divided by topic. However, it seems less complete than the lists of this WikiProject (although it would definitely be an improvement over no references). However, if there is a better source you are using to find the information in the articles, it would be helpful if you could tell me so I could add it to the articles at some point. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 22:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• • It's a case of cross referencing between SFN, Encyclopedia Astronautica, NASA, other Wikipedia articles, and two text documents I downloaded from some website last week. None of them are complete, so the others are used to fill the gaps. I'll add your link to the ones I use.

I would suggest adding the references to the 2005, 2006, 2007, 1967 and 1970 articles, and the Template:LSY-F (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) template, as other articles will be modified using the template system, which will overwrite their current content. An alternative would be to simply post them on the main page, List of spaceflights by year. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 22:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I've tracked down the text files. They are called "launchlog" and "satcat", they came from http://www.planet4589.org/jsr.html.

[edit] Missiles

Should the scope of this project be adjusted so that rocket-propelled missiles with apogees greater than 100km are excluded? johnpseudo 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say include them. They are still spaceflights, and in the edits I have made, I am trying to treat them eaqually. The only problem I have is finding information of suborbital flights after 2005. (Astronautix is the best source before then.) --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This link: http://www.orbireport.com/Log.html also gives you a couple of clues on suborbital and ICBM flights. although their list of Russian ICBMs is incomplete.

Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename?

[edit] Reorganisation proposal

Just to clarify changes that would be made under the proposal:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of spaceflights by year moves to Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight
• List of spaceflights by year moves to Timeline of spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1957) moves to 1957 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1958) moves to 1958 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1959) moves to 1959 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1960) moves to 1960 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1961) moves to 1961 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1962) moves to 1962 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1963) moves to 1963 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1964) moves to 1964 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1965) moves to 1965 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1966) moves to 1966 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1967) moves to 1967 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1968) moves to 1968 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1969) moves to 1969 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1970) moves to 1970 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1971) moves to 1971 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (1972) moves to 1972 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (2003) moves to 2003 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (2004) moves to 2004 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (2005) moves to 2005 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (2006) moves to 2006 in spaceflight
• List of spaceflights (2007) moves to 2007 in spaceflight
• Template:LSY-H moves to Template:TLS-H
• Template:LSY-F moves to Template:TLS-F
• Template:LSY-R moves to Template:TLS-R
• Template:LSY-0 moves to Template:TLS-0 is depricated and replaced with Template:TLS-C and Template:TLS-P
• Template:LSY-1 moves to Template:TLS-1is depricated and replaced with Template:TLS-C and Template:TLS-P
• Template:LSY-2 moves to Template:TLS-2is depricated and replaced with Template:TLS-C and Template:TLS-P
• Template:LSY-3 moves to Template:TLS-3is depricated and replaced with Template:TLS-C and Template:TLS-P
• Template:LSY-0n is depricated and replaced with conditional formulae in Template:TLS-0 Template:TLS-C and Template:TLS-P
• Template:LSY-1n is depricated and replaced with conditional formulae in Template:TLS-1 Template:TLS-C and Template:TLS-P
• Template:LSY-2n is depricated and replaced with conditional formulae in Template:TLS-2 Template:TLS-C and Template:TLS-P
• Template:LSY-3n is depricated and replaced with conditional formulae in Template:TLS-3 Template:TLS-C and Template:TLS-P
• Template:WPLSY-M is depricated
• Template:WikiProjectNotice-LSBY moves to Template:TLS-N
• Template:LSF moves to Template:TLS-A
• Template:User WPSFBY moves to Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/Userbox

I think that's all of them. In addition, I would like to do away with the 1 year rule (which seems to have disappeared anyway) that prevents the creation of pages more than a year in advance. (eg, List of spaceflights (2008) cannot be created untill 2007. The reason for this is that it originally seemed to speculative, however there seems to be sufficient information now to proceed with these, especially because of the expansion caused by other elements of the proposal. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just joined

Cool, never knew about this project. Just wanted to say that the the best site for a list of spacefliights is here. I would also like to ask about the tables that are used for the lists. They seem to have too much stuff on them. It should just have the payload, date, rocket, location, and the organization that launched the rocket the other stuff seems exesive. – Zntrip 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That does seem very useful. I don't think that the other information is excessive, however, because it is important to know where it went, what it was for, and when it left space, as well as whether it failed and if so how. Launch times are also important for a full and clear idea of when it was launched. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That information is sort of exesive beacuse it could be found out on the spacecraft's article, if the mission is important. I guess it could all me summed up in a slot called "mission type" or something. I'd like to hammer out a definate standard for everything before I start editing everything. This is what I have in mind:

Launch date and time (UTC)	Rocket	Launch site	Organization	Payload	Mission type	Remarks
January 19 19:00	Atlas V	Cape Canaveral	NASA	New Horizons	Interplanetary	Flyby of Pluto in 2015

There's kind of a lot of info on the pages and some is just too specific. Also, I don't know if having suborbital flights on the list is a good idea since there are way too many and there are tonnes of Soviet ones that are we are never going to find out about. – Zntrip 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - it reduces the amount of information which is not always a good thing, and as for sub-orbital flights, how about Mercury-Redstone 3, MR-4 and SpaceShipOne.

Your new format:

1. Does not probide information on the outcome of the flight
2. Does not explain when the mission ends (re-entry), not that it is appropriote with this example, but it is still inportant.
3. Does not explain the type of orbit that it was placed into.

I summarise by saying that spaceflight is a highly technical buissness, and therefore justifies the technical terminology. Also, I will add that very few sub-orbital "spaceflights" actually qualify for this, as most go nowhere near space (100km up).

Your idea is not without its uses though. I would be in favour of setting up a version of this project on the Simple English version of Wikipedia, and your layout could be useful for this project. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well here's the thing: information on the outcome of the flight, re-entry, when the mission ends and the type of orbit isn't that doable since most of the launches are for classified military payloads or commercial payloads. I'm guessing this is geared for scientific missions. Also with the number of launches every year increasing, every launch will not be that notable. Making the list more consise is always better. As for the sub-orbital launches, I agree that notable scientific ones should be on the list, but all of the Minuteman flights aren't that important. – Zntrip 02:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This may surprise you. The launch industry is in decline, and far from increasing, the trend for total number of launches per year is going down quite steeply. 2006 is likley to have more launches than 2004 and 2005, but it will be nowhere near some previous years, such as 2000. I disagree with your "notability" principle, as who is going to define notability. As for classified payloads, there are always ways to find out. I happen to know that a Russian "classified" satellite failed on orbit earlier this year, so it is not impossible, if you know where to look. De-orbits are easy, because anything low enough to de-orbit is low enough to be observable, except nanosats, but I am unaware of any classified nanosats. Orbits can usually be worked out, based on type of rocket, type of spacecraft, operator, whether it is observable or not, where it is launched from, which direction it launches in, etc. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Space Launches by Month/Year

Someone recently made this category, and started doing what this project seems to be doing.. just thought you should know. 131.111.8.103 09:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just redirected the (two) articles to 1957 in spaceflight, and taken the category to CFD. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of "Failure"

I would like to raise the issue of what defines a "failure" within TLS articles. For PR reasons, some launches are claimed to be "partially successful" when they have failed to deliver the payload to a usable orbit, because they have reached any orbit, or in some cases, simply because they have reached space. In order to maintain a consistent and neutral point of view, I would reccomend that a fixed definition of the usage of such terms within these articles.

The approach that I would favour is as follows:

Successful is used when

The mission is complete, and

All objectives have been accomplished

Failure is used when

No primary objectives are met, or

There is an LOC or LOCV scenario on a manned flight, or

The rocket fails to orbit (does not apply to sub-orbital launches), or

The spacecraft is placed inexerably in a useless orbit, or

The spacecraft fails to contact the ground after seperation, or

The spacecraft malfunctions within three months of reaching the correct orbit

Partial failure is used when:

Some primary mission objectives are met, but some are not, or

The carrier rocket places the payload into an incorrect orbit, but

The spacecraft can still operate in the incorrect orbit, or

The spacecraft can correct its own orbit

This will ensure that all TLS articles are consistent in their definition of what is successful, and what is not.
I would appreciate feedback before I initiate a poll to implement it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In lack of further discussion, I will initiate the poll anyway.--GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of "Rendezvous"

Discussion at Talk:2007 in spaceflight has resulted in the adoption of the spelling "Rendezvous" over "Rendez-vous". Are there any objections to implementing this as project-wide policy? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table format

Currently, all the articles are using the somewhat mix-and-match formatting

{| border="2" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="2" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #555 solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 90%;"

Resulting in:

Launch Date/Time	Rocket	Launch Site	Launch Contractor	Payload	Operator	Orbit	Mission/ Function	Re-Entry/ Destruction	Outcome	Remarks
10 January, 03:53 GMT	PSLV	Satish Dhawan Space Center	Indian Space Research Organisation	Cartosat 2	ISRO	LEO (Sun synchronous polar orbit)	Earth observation	Still in orbit	Successful so far
				SRE-1	ISRO	LEO (Polar)	Technology development	January 22, 2007 04:16 GMT	Successful	First Indian spacecraft recovery
				LAPAN-TUBSAT	LAPAN/TU Berlin	LEO (Polar)	Earth imaging	Still in orbit	Successful so far
				Pehuensat 1	Asociación Argentina de Tecnología Espacial	LEO (Polar)	Comsat	Still in orbit	Successful so far
11 January, 22:28 GMT	DF-21	Xichang	Chinese military	ASAT	Chinese military	Sub-orbital	Intercept satellite	N/A	Successful	Destroyed Feng Yun 1C satellite

I recently noticed that the 2007 article had been changed to

{| class="prettytable"

Which produces:

Launch Date/Time	Rocket	Launch Site	Launch Contractor	Payload	Operator	Orbit	Mission/ Function	Re-Entry/ Destruction	Outcome	Remarks
10 January, 03:53 GMT	PSLV	Satish Dhawan Space Center	Indian Space Research Organisation	Cartosat 2	ISRO	LEO (Sun synchronous polar orbit)	Earth observation	Still in orbit	Successful so far
				SRE-1	ISRO	LEO (Polar)	Technology development	January 22, 2007 04:16 GMT	Successful	First Indian spacecraft recovery
				LAPAN-TUBSAT	LAPAN/TU Berlin	LEO (Polar)	Earth imaging	Still in orbit	Successful so far
				Pehuensat 1	Asociación Argentina de Tecnología Espacial	LEO (Polar)	Comsat	Still in orbit	Successful so far
11 January, 22:28 GMT	DF-21	Xichang	Chinese military	ASAT	Chinese military	Sub-orbital	Intercept satellite	N/A	Successful	Destroyed Feng Yun 1C satellite

Although I have reverted this change for consistency with the other articles, I would reccomend that it is instated across all articles, replacing the existing formatting, as it looks better, and is clearer. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language and date

[edit] Further discussion

Closing to allow implementation of core policy, not implementing all exceptions at this time pending further discussion (here) over concerns raised about naming of Chinese launch sites (only US-specific exceptions to be implemented at this time). --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid conflict

I think it might be a good idea to try to avoid names with different spellings as much as possible. For example, by using shortened forms, acronyms/abreviations, and alternative names. Examples of this would be:

Xichang or XSLC instead of Xichang Satellite Launch Centre (or Center)

Kennedy or KSC instead of Kennedy Space Center

CSG instead of Guiana Space Centre

MoD instead of Ministry of Defence

DoD instead of Department of Defense

This could also be extended to some words, such as:

Military instead of Defence/se

Rocket instead of Carrier Rocket/Launch Vehicle

This is just a suggestion, but it is one which I think would serve to make the articles more internationally-friendly. I would appriciate feedback. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] = As regards the Shavit payload

This recent (10 June) launch makes a great example. The cited source article at the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website uses Ofek 7 and OFEK 7. If we use Ofeq, we should cite a source that uses that spelling, and it should be a source more authoratative than the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The question to ask is, "When the people directly involved spell it in the Latin alphabet, what spelling do they use?" (sdsds - talk) 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NASA document on wikisource that might be helpful

I have been working on a document the S:Mir Hardware Heritage on wikisource that might be of some use for Russian part of the project. It is about half timelines.Chris H 00:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Next" tag and unknown dates

Currently, the "next" tag on 2007 in spaceflight resides on a launch with no specified date. Therefore, it is speculative to say that this is the "next" scheduled launch (especially as the order of these launches with unspecified dates is completly random). Therefore, I would suggest that the "next" tag is applied to the next launch with a confirmed date, even if there are unconfirmed dates in the month before. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the suggestion. It might also be a good idea change the text which links to the tag to say something like, "the next launch with a specific launch date". I will admit to being a bit confused by these launches in the current month without specific dates. My sense of launches is that, if a launch provider can't announce a particular date for a planned launch by the first of the month, it isn't likely to happen during that month at all! Has that been the case historically? (sdsds - talk) 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, quite a few launches, particuarly Russian, Israeli, and Chinese ones, come out of the blue, as do about 95% of suborbital launches. We know that it is going, but no-one actually knows exactly when. Incidentally, most of the ones scheduled for July have now been delayed, but this is not always the case. The Shtil appears to still be scheduled for July, and it could possibly launch this month. We only had 2 days notice on the last Zenit, and the last Soyuz was in orbit before anyone knew it was even going to be launched. The recent Shavit launch wasn't believed to have been scheduled until something like October, so they really can come out of nowhere. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff that needs sorting

I have moved this section to its own page, as it is getting too long. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/Dump. Also, not being a talk page, launches can be grouped rather than spread out, so it will look less of a mess. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals to improve the timeline

Three proposals to improve the TLS articles:

A sample for 1 & 2 can be found here. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status review

I've started to review project status. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/Status. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 14:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russia vs CIS

Currently, the flags of Russia, Ukraine, etc are used for former Soviet launches in the table, but the flag of Russia is used in the statistics. I would like to suggest that "CIS" is used for former Soviet rockets, as they are all launched by the same people, but due to political changes, the technology comes from differnt countries. It would be unfair to say that Ukraine has developed its own launch capability, however it has such through former Soviet programmes. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)