Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Human spaceflight task force/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight | Human spaceflight task force
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 08:08, 1 November 2010 (Archiving 31 thread(s) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human spaceflight.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2

Augustine Commission

The establishment of the "Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee", also known as the "Augustine Commission", was recorded in the Federal Register May 15, 2009 as shown here. Members were announced by NASA here. The charter is here. Does it make sense to reference these as sources in any existing wikipedia articles? If so, which? Does a new article make sense? (sdsds - talk) 05:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the best place to begin would be Project Constellation, then when the commission starts getting itself together properly, I guess a new article should be made! :-) Careful to disambiguate between this one and the Augustine Commission following Challenger though... Colds7ream (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee

I have created this article – it was a challenge of sorts, long story, but NASA employees themselves kept creating the article with a wholesale copy/paste of the entire NASA microsite. And I kept deleting it. Anyway, see my talk page for more details. I have no idea where to take it now, so feel free to jump in and boldly take it where no article has gone before! – B.hotep •talk• 14:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Spaceflight crew‎‎

I have produced Template:Spaceflight crew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to replace the tables that are being put into Shuttle articles. It does exactly the same thing, and looks exactly the same, but as it is a template, it should make editing and maintaining consistency easier. --GW… 22:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Specification table - ISS modules

I think it's a good ide to make a table with the specifications for a module on it's wikipage. Like size and mass. Arkaska (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You might find this useful: Template:Space station module. Colds7ream (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm new to contributing on Wikipedia so don't really know how that works. I don't even know how it works with projects or anything. Maybe someone else can do it? It was missing on both Node 2 and Node 3 atleast.Arkaska (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong GAR notice

Neil Armstrong has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong needs help

As we near the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11, the article on Neil Armstrong could use just a little work.

  1. Someone has tagged a few sentences "citation needed" - it would be great to get those cleaned-up.
  2. There seems to be a small discrepancy between Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong concerning how much fuel the lunar lander had for landing.

Thanks for your help, JMG (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Some mentoring required

Please give D.martorelli (talk · contribs) some pointers in the right directions. See xyr edits to articles like Mario Pezzi (edit) and xyr creations such as Luigi Gussalli and Center for Studies and Research in Aeronautical Medicine (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Orion missions

Hi all.

We have a vast plethora of articles of the form "Orion xx", dealing with specific Project Constellation missions. One of these - Orion 17 - is listed for deletion, on the not unreasonable grounds that planning a decade out, for a project which won't begin properly flying for five years, is a bit hard to pin down. The discussion seems to be trending towards redirection to the main list of Constellation missions, but it's a bit odd to do that for one of them alone.

So, I thought I'd bring it up here, and see if anyone has any suggestions on how best to go about drawing all these articles together, making sure they best reflect current planning, etc. Shimgray | talk | 16:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a merge proposal (ish) at Talk:List of Constellation missions. Thoughts, please. Shimgray | talk | 23:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This could be particularly relevant given the inevitable schedule shift from the Augustine Commission... Colds7ream (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

White Room

I think we need a stub on the White Room. Am not sure what to title, or where to begin. Just noting notes here, as have no time to research from scratch.

Hope that helps. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a redlink to White room (spaceflight) at the disambiguation page (I wasn't sure how to capitalize, as NASA is inconsistent here). There's a good source of information at www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3408800318.html. Just a nudge. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Some has added a page at Service structure that includes details on the white room. Huzzah! -- Quiddity (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Resupply spacecraft and unmanned test flights

Should unmanned resupply spacecraft and unmanned tests of manned spacecraft fall into the scope of this project, the Unmanned spaceflight project (which I am currently trying to restart), or both? --GW… 22:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting test

A discussion regarding date formatting has been started at Talk:Ares I#Date formatting test
— V = I * R (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Help collaborate on Ares I

If anyone has a moment to spare, I would deeply appreciate it if you could come lend a hand with Ares I. It's recently received a Peer Review, which can be found at Talk:Ares I/Comments. Any and all contributions would be welcome, no matter how small or large. Even if you come and change one comma to a period, that would be useful. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Launch Attempts

I'm looking for information on launch attempts, something that lists each attempt, why it was scrubbed, and preferably when the decision to scrub was made. I'm not finding anything in NASA's website with this kind of historical information. When a shuttle mission is scrubbed, the pages are quickly updated with the new target date and time and previous missions are left with information about the successful attempt, looking through the archives on the nasa site, details of previous attempts are hard to find. Anyone know of any other resources that might have this information?--RadioFan (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this when writing STS-8. There's a table in Dennis Jenkins' book which lists all scrubs for flights up to STS-100(?), though usually not their reason; most are, however, noted in the summary for that mission. The Shuttle flight data and in-flight anomaly list (there's a version up to STS-74 on NTRS) has a similar table, which I suspect goes into slightly more detail. Shimgray | talk | 18:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
CBS News's archive goes back to STS-81, I'll have to look into that book to fill in the blanks for the Shuttle program. Any ideas on Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, unmanned launches, Soviet, ESA, China, South Korea, etc.--RadioFan (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Spaceflight missions by quality

I've hacked together a list of (almost all) manned missions, in a table listing the article quality assessments, at User:Shimgray/Space quality. Might be of interest, if anyone's looking for something to work on! Shimgray | talk | 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! :-) Gonna be one heck of a project, what? Colds7ream (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Almost all Start, though it's interesting to notice that after 2005, the Shuttle articles start being of a generally higher quality - because they're the ones we were writing about at the time... Shimgray | talk | 23:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've been adding a lot of detail and cites from two secondary sources I have on the Soviet manned space program. I've added quite a bit of detail to pretty well all the Soyuz manned flights starting with Soyuz 12 in 1973, through to Soyuz 35 in 1980 on which I've started a rewrite.

Looking at the later shuttle pages shows an extraordinary amount of information, while most of the milestone missions of the Soviets from the 70s and 80s have almost no information on their pages. It's time to add more information and context to some of these flights.

I plan to continue doing this through to the end of the 80s, and I note that many of the pre-Soyuz 12 manned Soviet flights are rather haphazardly written, so I may start to tackle some of those as well.

One issue here, once Salyut 6 started to have multiple crews, is whether the flight (example Soyuz 32) should also describe the expedition. I've not seen my sources use the expedition numbers universally (EO 1 is used sometimes to describe the first long-duration crew of salyut 6, for example). So I've written the articles detailing the expedition launched by the particular flight. If, down the road, it is decided to split the flight descriptions from the expedition descriptions (like with ISS), then it would be a simple matter in large part re-naming, for example, the "Soyuz 26" page the "EO-1 expedition" page, then doing something with the original Soyuz 26 page. Canada Jack (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In my limited experience, Soviet/Russian station mission numbering was complicated! Perhaps it would help if we had a timeline page showing which expeditions and increments were when, and how they related - does such a thing exist?
As to Soyuz, hurrah! I've some material handy - I'll try and expand some as well. Shimgray | talk | 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've found the numbering more straightforward than, say the shuttle numbering system. If it flew, it was given a sequential number. Shuttle numbering, in contrast, is from initial assignment which often changed flight order. The issue I have with "expedition" numbering is I've not seen it consistently used. Sources would describe "expeditions" by Soyuz flight number - one source I have makes no mention I can see of any "expedition" number I've seen elsewhere. It may have been a post-facto assignment here, as the ISS uses an Expedition numbering system that is quite distinct from the particular flight numbers. But we don't generally use Nasa's numbering of Soyuz and Progress flights (the first to ISS in 2000 is "Soyuz 1" for example, when the Soviets assigned that number to a 1967 flight), and I wonder if these expeditions for the Salyut 6, 7 and Mir flights are also Nasa creations. Perhaps someone here knows the answer to this. Canada Jack (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked in the voluminous NASA history of Mir, "Mir Hardware Heritage", and the followon "Mir Mission Chronicles". Both use "Principal Expedition" terminology - eg/ "Mir 15", principal expedition 15. I was wondering if this was an odd use by NASA, but it seems to have been the Soviet standard, ever since the second-generation Salyuts:
...permitted guest crews (known officially as Visiting Expeditions) to visit resident crews (known officially as Principal Expeditions). Visiting Expeditions could trade their Soyuz for the one already docked to the station, leaving a fresh vehicle for the Principal Expedition.
Note the "officially" :-) These are reported distinctly from Soyuz numbered flights, though they often overlap closely; I think this might be the standard form we want to aim for. Shimgray | talk | 20:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this is Nasa's terminology, not necessarily the terminology the Soviets and Russians were using. And, given what I said earlier about Nasa's tendency to ignore Russia's numbering system for Soyuz and Progress flights (see, for example, Soyuz 15, and you will see a note is needed at the top as Nasa chooses to number them differently), I hesitate to embrace that numbering system without a Russian source. While this may not be an issue for the ISS, as the Expedition numbers are set in stone (if confusing), I'm not so sure this is the case for Salyuts 6 and 7 and Mir. I have several very detailed books on the Soviet space program and one, while offering voluminous detail on Salyut 6, 7 and Mir to 1990, never mentions these "expeditions" that Nasa talks of. It refers to the "Soyuz 26" crew or "resident" crew, not to "EO-1" or what have you, notation I have seen crop up in various places.

In the end, the issue here is whether we stick to the "Soyuz" pages, or create separate "Expedition" pages (as with the ISS) for Salyut 6, 7 and Mir. There will probably be many cases where the expeditions are identical to the Soyuz pages, particularly with the Mir missions. My preference would be to stick to the soyuz pages.Canada Jack (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, hmm. The problem is any English-language source is likely to tend to use a NASA style of "historiography", so we're going to have to dig really hard! I think, pending resolving this with Russian-language sources, your approach of sticking to Soyuz missions is best - list events under the relevant upwards flight. Shimgray | talk | 21:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, seems I am wrong on one point, at least. While one major source, Dennis Newkirk's 1990 "Almanac of Soviet Manned Space Flight" fails to ever refer to the missions in question as "EO-1" or what have you, my other main source, Phillip Clark's 1988 "The Soviet Manned Space Program" does. But only in passing. For example, it only calls the Soyuz 26 crew residency "EO-1" before the flight, when a previous crew was to be the "EO-1" crew but failed to dock. For the actual duration of the flights, the mission is called "the Soyuz 26 residency," or what have you, even when said crew lands in another Soyuz. This is similarly done for the EO2 and EO3, but not for anything after, not for the Salyut 7 missions, nor the Mir missions (to the summer of 1988). I have followed that practice in doing those pages so far.

These Soyuz pages hardly engender heated debates. But here is my justification for doing it this way if it does become an issue. Canada Jack (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of tables and wake-up calls

I've just removed a table of wakeup calls from an article, on the grounds I felt it was over-detailed clutter, and it got me thinking. I've noticed a growing tendency for information in articles (most generally on recent spaceflights) to be presented as large tables rather than prose. For example, STS-128 has four in-text tables (crew, launch attempts, EVAs, wake-up calls). STS-123 has four including a "mission payload" table, which is a new one to me, and STS-119 even includes a second crew table - if this had the wakeup calls presented in the usual table format, there'd have been six tables.

I can't help but think this is overkill. We're presenting an awful lot of material to the reader, some of it very specialised (the precise location of payloads?), and I wonder if this is actually making these articles less easy to read. It provides a lot of unnecessary information formatted for quick-reference, which draws the eye away from the prose, and breaks up the reader's ability to work through the article comfortably. It also seems to give undue weight to the significance of these fairly technical details, by the way we're presenting them separate from the prose. My feeling is that a lot of it could easily be presented as prose, or cut entirely, but I'd be interested to hear other thoughts. Shimgray | talk | 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

...anyone? After some thought, I'm particularly concerned about the wake-up calls section - this really isn't interesting material to the general reader, and it takes up an awful lot of screen space for what is basically a glorified radio playlist with links to mp3s. I'm not wanting to start removing them without some kind of consensus opinion, but I really can't see much justification for keeping them, and they do seem to be lowering the quality of our articles. Shimgray | talk | 00:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Right, I've kickstarted a discussion at Talk:STS-8 - hopefully if we can get some general feedback there we can think about what to do more generally. Shimgray | talk | 14:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I am against removal. It has been done since Gemini and will probably be continued through Constellation and so on. I don't think it adds any undue weight to the article or makes it longer. In fact I think it makes it easier to see what wake up call was given and to what crew member, who the artist was and links to hear the actual wake up call. It's kinda like the crew section, before it was a plain boring list, now it is a neater, easier to read table with all the important details. Just my 2 cents.--NavyBlue84 14:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The table is nicer than a bare list, I agree entirely on that, and makes it easier to look up what was played for who... but do we really have a non-trivial number of readers who come to our articles to find that out? I'm amazed if so.
Including tables for crew is something I've come around to (at least for non-solo missions) now that we can integrate the table more cleanly into the text and surround it with prose, but there it's something that a reader plausibly will want as a quick-reference. "Who was the CMP on Apollo 15? [tab, scroll] Ah, right." I just don't see the wakeup calls getting used in the same way. Shimgray | talk | 14:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree for people who know about it and follow the shuttle program closely it is trivial. However, someone who doesn't know a lot about the shuttle program, who is scrolling through the articles see's and learns something they didn't know. I think based on that fact alone it should be included. Wikipedia is a place for people to learn new things and we should include all things that have historical significance or are interesting and notable, and I think the wake-up calls fall in both. I think we should keep it the way it is, so people who are new and don't know can find the information easier. Therefore the table and its own section should be kept.--NavyBlue84 19:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see much harm in including them, they seem fairly well referenced (or at least the examples I have seen do). I would certainally prefer a tabular format to a bare list. It might be trivial information, but it could still be of interest to some people, so I would say WP:NOTPAPER applies. An alternative, if this is determined to be an example of too many lists, would be to include information on the wakeup calls as prose, in each of the flight day sections. --GW… 17:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
How about putting the table into a separate list article, for easy reference, and just link to it? Then it can grow however it likes, without weighing down the rest of the article. It seems trivial to me, but I can appreciate that some folks would not want to discard it entirely. Wwheaton (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the whole wake-up call stuff is very silly, and for me it's been one of the biggest eye-rolling irritations that NASA insists on publisizing. (Another is the scripted "can-do" exchanges often heard. Okay they may not be scripted, they just sound that way.) That being said, however, there is almost invariably media reports on these wake-up calls, so I would say that warrants their inclusion. Canada Jack (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I admit that's partly my reasoning, too ;-). That said, I'm really not convinced that "has media coverage" = "warrants inclusion". Allows yes, requires no. Shimgray | talk | 23:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Shuttle–Mir Program FAR

I have nominated Shuttle–Mir Program for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Colds7ream (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Experts needed...

Outline of space exploration is a branch of Wikipedia's outline of knowledge. It presents the subject of space exploration as a tree structure (outline), so that readers can easily see how topics are related (parent, child, sibling, etc.) by how they are arranged on the tree.

And because topics are linked to corresponding articles, the outline doubles as a table of contents or site map for Wikipedia's coverage of space exploration.

The outline is incomplete, and needs developers who are interested in the final frontier.

Please take a look....

Is it structured well?

What's missing?

Can you improve it?

For more information on outlines, see WP:OOK, WP:OUTLINE, and WP:WPOOK.

For some specific examples of well-developed outlines, see Outline of the United States, Outline of Vatican City, Outline of robotics, and Outline of classical studies. For examples of even more detailed outlines, see Outline of forestry, Outline of cell biology, and Outline of Buddhism.

The Transhumanist    22:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station

Just to let everyone know the ISS has been put up for a sixth Peer Review at Wikipedia:Peer review/International Space Station/archive5 - please leave a comment! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)‎

Request for Comment

Please see Talk:Shuttle-Mir Program for an RfC on whether NASA references constitute reliable sources or not. Colds7ream (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant deletion debate.

Folks, there's a deletion debate ongoing over at Commons about File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg and related files which is very relevant to us here - please swing by and comment at the deletion discussion. Colds7ream (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC 4

Just to let everyone know that International Space Station is up for a fourth FAC, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive4. Do please comment and make improvements! Colds7ream (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Help on STS-135

Some help would be appreciated on STS-135. An editor has recently greatly expanded this article from a redirect using a single reference, closely paraphrased. Some massive clean-up as well as re-formatting to make the article in-line with other Shuttle articles. -MBK004 21:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As much as we all hope it'll happen, I'd say this violates WP:CRYSTAL at the moment... Colds7ream (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I definitely agree, and have therefore added the appropriate tag. Since I've got finals to study for, if you believe this needs AFD, by all means go ahead. -MBK004 23:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

NASA image datestamps are systematically incorrect

NASA seems to have a systematic problem dating photographs - an image of the Mercury 7, including Gus Grissom, was supposedly taken January 20, 1971, which is impossible, since Grissom was killed in the Apollo 1 fire on January 27, 1967. Another image is titled on the Commons as Alan Shepard before MR-3.jpg, yet the image is dated September 9, 1963. Apparently there are other mislabeled images. Is NASA aware of this, or is it uploading errors on our part? --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 16:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Super-vision in space?

Wtf.

I'm currently holding a translation of The Pocket Encyclopaedia of Spaceflight in Colour - Manned Spacecraft (1967) by Kenneth Garland, then vice president of the British Interplanetary Society. According to the book, astronaut Gordon Cooper spotted single roads, smoke from smokestacks, individual vehicles and a train during the Mercury-Atlas 9 mission. It goes on to note that this seemingly defies the laws of optics, and that claims of hallucinations persisted until the Gemini 5 mission confirmed his reports.

The book also calls the confirmation the most important result of Gemini 5, and gives a lot of detail. Apparently Cooper and Pete Conrad could spot the wakes of ships in the oceans, and consistently spot the trail of an airplane that landed on the El Paso International Airport every morning. They once spotted the airplane first. They also spotted two Minuteman missiles and the waves caused by a "water-braking rocket sled" that were all launched to test the astronauts' sight.

The book gives Cooper's visual acuity as 20/12 on the "Snellen scale," on the basis of the Mercury flight. It paraphrases NASA doctor Eugene B. Konecci on several theories: the atmosphere may act as some sort of gigantic lens, long objects may make smaller nearby objects easier to see, and stimuli may (UNTRANSLATEABLE) in the central nervous system. It notes that photographs from space were found to be much sharper than ones from airplanes, when they were expected to be somewhat less sharp, and that Gemini 5 proved that the human eye can distinguish objects as small as half a minute of arc instead of the expected one.

So:

  • Has anyone else heard of this?
  • What turned out to be behind this?
  • Where would I go to learn more about this, aside from this page?
  • Where is our coverage on this? The Mercury-Atlas 9 mission has two sentences and no cites, and I can't find an article. Worth covering, don't you think? --Kizor 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Mercury-Atlas 9 is actually sitting in a much-rewritten version in a text file on my desktop just now, but I haven't got to that bit yet. Watch this space ;-)
More prosaically, I have heard this before; my understanding is that one contributory factor comes from lines being much easier to see than points, so that things like contrails and pathways will show up better than anticipated. There's some discussion of this in chapter 19[ of NASA SP-45, the MA-9 mission report Shimgray | talk | 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ISS ECLSS merge proposal.

Hey folks, just to let you know that I've a merge proposal going on at Talk:ISS ECLSS - weigh in with your thoughts! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Moon science

FYI, Moon science has been nominated for deletion via AfD.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

China National Space Administration

FYI, China National Space Administration has been requested to be renamed.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Human spaceflight task force/Archive 2/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Human spaceflight task force/Archive 2/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

ISS Research

There's a discussion been opened at Talk:International Space Station#Scientific research article needed? with regards to the scientific research section of the International Space Station Featured Article. PLese swing by and see what you all think! Colds7ream (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Research and Science on the International Space Station has now been created and it's going to be a huge job to make itno something presentable.--U5K0 (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Muslim astronauts

FYI, List of Muslim astronauts has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wake-up calls: history

Most WP shuttle mission articles have a section called "Wake-up calls", which includes a list of music clips used for that purpose. I was recently curious about when the practice began, and saw that in each case, the article section began with this statement: "A tradition for NASA human spaceflights since the days of Gemini, mission crews are played a special musical track at the start of each day in space." That struck me as worth double-checking, as I didn't remember musical wake-up calls during Gemini or even the early Apollo missions.

I checked the NASA PDF cited as the source, and indeed it did not say that. According to the source, "Use of music to awaken astronauts on space missions dates back at least to the Apollo Program, when astronauts returning from the Moon were serenaded by their colleagues in mission control with lyrics from popular songs that seemed appropriate to the occasion," specifically mentioning Apollo 15 as (apparently) the first instance of a musical wake-up call. In light of that discrepancy, I changed the introductory sentence for the shuttle mission articles to reflect that the tradition apparently began with Apollo 15 (although the case can be made, based on the source, that it really began with Apollo 17).

Fellow Human Spaceflight WikiProject member RadioFan, however, reverted these changes, commenting that "The reference dates back to Gemini" and that my changes reflected "over analyzing it a bit." I responded that I felt the existing statement in each shuttle article should be changed to accurately reflect what the source said under the WP principle of verifiability; RadioFan then asked that I take the issue to this page for discussion (our exchange can be read on RadioFan's talk page).

Although the cited source does document that music was transmitted to Gemini crews, it does not state it was used to awaken them; further, it does document a "tradition" of wake-up music that seems to have actually begun with Apollo 17. As it seems clear to me that the source does not support the WP article language, I suggest that readers are currently led to believe something that is incorrect, according to the cited source. On behalf of RadioFan and myself, we would welcome your comments and discussion.

Thank you, RadioBroadcast (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this information is or potentially will be used on hundreds of mission pages, the first change that should be made is move it to a template and manage it from there. I'm neutral on whether the focus should be on these being wake-up calls or simply music played from mission control to the spacecraft, but do feel that the fact that this dates back to Gemini should be noted. The time of day is unimportant here, this tradition and how it is tied to individual astronauts and mission objectives is what is important. It should be noted that NASA calls these "wake-up calls" regardless of the time of day they are used (see reference above) but other opinions are welcome.--RadioFan (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, RadioFan, we aren't getting much input here. I like your idea of a common template, and since the great majority of flights had what could correctly be musical wake-up calls, how about this: a "Wake-up calls" template is added to all flights beginning with Gemini 3. For Geminis and Apollos with no music played at all, of course, it would say None. But I think it would then be true to the source for all the other flights until Apollo 15 to have a sentence that said: "Music on this flight was played to the crew as entertainment while awake" or something similar. I would also then add that musical wake-up calls became a tradition starting with Apollo 17, since that's really how it reads to me. Let me know what you think. Thanks, RadioBroadcast (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
RadioFan, you are forgetting that crews on orbit are usally in a different wake/sleep cycle then people on the ground. The music played for shuttle crews is indeed a wake up call as the crew is asleep when it is played. As for wether or not the crew was awoken by music during Gemini/Apollo or not is open for debate, as I am not sure if they were awoke by music or not. As for the template idea, I think it is a good idea as it makes less work for whoever adds the wake up call. Another idea for it would be to have the links added automatically if possible. I just read the PDF and I agree that what was there was misleading. A simple re-word of the paragraph about it would work and I don't think it is really that big of a deal.--NavyBlue84 03:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Human_spaceflight_task_force/Archive_2&oldid=394132682"