User talk:Craigboy/Archive

Image copyright problem with Image:Tv_trigger_t.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tv_trigger_t.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Esanchez7587, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I lol'ed though Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 05:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Glenn Beck. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cptnono (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Glenn Beck, you will be blocked from editing. Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally using an edit summary. Image seems to have support and concerns have not been raised. Take it to the talk page instead of reverting.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are allowed but this is a collaborative project and if you edit in a manner that is disruptive or against consensus then there is a concern. Also, you wpon't be able to get aything done if you get a block so follow the guidleines.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the following: Wikipedia:Consensus amd Wikipedia:Editing policy. Sign your comments by typing four tidles (~~~~) Cptnono (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File talk:USAF PT Uniform.jpg

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ciphers (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied to Talk:International_Space_Station#British_English

FYI Aalox (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Skylon_climbing.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Skylon_climbing.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? feydey (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Craigboy, you have some replies related to this on my talk page here. Hope that helps. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Spaceliner

Dear Craigboy, as it seems that you are very active on the article Spacecraft, I am contacting you. A new article SpaceLiner as been created recently but when one looks for Spaceliner (with a small "l") there is a redirection to the Spaceraft article. I guess the best solution would be to create a disambiguation page in order to let the user choose between the articles. However I am a beginner on Wikipedia and I am not sure what I should do to solve this problem. Thanks in advance for your advices. Best regards. Eypdu (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

space suit discussion

While I'm happy to discuss the merits of the external link to the NASA video on one of the current suits, and other suit related topics, I do not appreciate being told not to edit Wikipedia until I've met your requirements (i.e. reading the NASA Appropriations bill), simply because I've raised questions for discussion.. Please dont forget to assume good faith. I have done this with you and would appreciate the same. Please also remember that individual wikipedia editors do not own any articles, all are free to contribute.--RadioFan (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Hermes Spaceplane ESA.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hermes Spaceplane ESA.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

class="infobox"

is standard fare. And see wp:deviations; the manual of style eschews hard-coded markup. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Uploading Reaction Engines Limited Corporate Logo

Hi! Could you obtain permission from this company to use their logo in the Wikipedia article illustration, as well as upload it to Wikipedia? The editors at Skylon really appreciate your previous work in negotiating with that company on the spaceplane image.--Novus Orator 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Adrian Mann created the CG renderings of Skylon (who also retains the rights to them) and has a pretty open policy about using his stuff if you ask permission but with Reaction Engines's corporate logo you would have to contact the company directly which I have no experience in doing so. I'm sorry I couldn't have been of more help. --Craigboy (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks anyway....--Novus Orator 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at Talk:Strela (crane).
Message added 12:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Downlink: Issue 1

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 1, January 2011
Welcome to The Downlink · Project News · News from Orbit · Article News · Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics · Salyut 2 Welcome to The Downlink Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements. Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details. Project News A new working group has been formed. The space stations working group is expected to work towards creating Featured topics related to space stations. It currently has three members. Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal. A discussion regarding opening relations with the Aerospace biography task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation was held, but no conclusions were reached. The Article Alerts bot has resumed operation, and a problem with the information the bot had been delivering was discussed and resolved. New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented. Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it. Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised. One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{WikiProject Space}} and {{WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class. News from Orbit On 3 December, USA-212, the first X-37B, landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base after a successful mission. On 5 December Proton-M with a Blok DM-03 upper stage failed to place three Glonass-M satellites into orbit, the first of three failures in less than forty eight hours. The NanoSail-D2 spacecraft was supposed to have been ejected from FASTSAT in the early hours of the next morning, however it does not appear to have separated. Finally the Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03, which does not currently have an article. On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower. The CubeSats do not currently have articles. On 15 December, a Soyuz-FG launched Soyuz TMA-20 to the International Space Station, carrying three members of the Expedition 26 crew. It docked two days later. The Soyuz TMA-20 article is currently short, and could use improvements to bring it up to the same level as articles for US manned spaceflights. On 17 December, a Long March 3A launched Compass-IGSO2. There is currently no article for this satellite. 17 December saw Intelsat regain control of the Galaxy 15 satellite, which had been out of control since a malfunction in April. The Galaxy 15 article is in need of serious cleanup and a good copyedit. On 25 December a GSLV Mk.I failed to place GSAT-5P into orbit. A Proton-M with a Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6 spacecraft. These do not currently have articles. Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A Delta IV Heavy is expected to launch NRO L-49 on 17 January. The satellite is expected to be an Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger on mission STS-51-L. Article News It was requested that the article Walter Haeussermann be expanded. Haeussermann, a member of the von Braun rocket group, died on 8 December. Although the article has been updated following his death, a user requested that more information about the engineer be added. Another user requested that the articles Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight. Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term VTVL currently has an article whilst VTHL and HTHL do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain. Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited. The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts. Missile Range Instrumentation Ship is currently listed at requested moves, with a proposal to rename it tracking ship. The only open good article nomination is of the book Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, which is currently awaiting review. Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic. Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project. One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative. To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on Skylab, Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN. This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided. I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content. Selected Article – Salyut 2 Salyut 2 was an early space station, launched in 1973 as part of the Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz mission. The Salyut 2 article describes the station: “ Salyut 2 (OPS-1)(Russian: Салют-2; English: Salute 2) was launched April 4, 1973. It was not really a part of the same program as the other Salyut space stations, instead being the highly classified prototype military space station Almaz. It was given the designation Salyut 2 to conceal its true nature. Despite its successful launch, within two days the as-yet-unmanned Salyut 2 began losing pressure and its flight control failed; the cause of the failure was likely due to shrapnel piercing the station when the discarded Proton rocket upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973. ” The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

TransHab -- THANKS!

Great find in the NASA archives! Thanks for finding it, and adding it to the TransHab article so that others could benefit. I have looked it over and made a comment here: Talk:TransHab. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 2, February 2011
Project News · News from Orbit · Article News · The Charts · Yuri Gagarin Project News A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing. A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles. The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field. Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list. Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved. A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them). Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk · contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project. News from orbit Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article. On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission. The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January. Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit. A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space Shuttle Discovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank. At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February. Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable. Article news Reaction Engines Skylon is currently undergoing peer review, its discussion page can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Reaction Engines Skylon/archive1. A user requested feedback on major changes which had been made to the article, however at the time of writing no responses have been offered. Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria. Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved. A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle Questions surrounding the transliteration of Russian names resurfaced, with a proposal to rename Vladimir Chelomey to Vladimir Chelomei being closed with no consensus, and a proposal to rename Yury Usachov to Yuri Usachev ongoing. Several long-standing merger proposals were closed. A proposal to merge Venera 15 and Venera 16 into Venera 15 and 16 was closed as no consensus, with the combined page being moved to Venera 4V-2 to reduce the overlap in the articles' scopes. Returnable satellite was merged into Fanhui Shi Weixing. Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures was nominated for Good Article reassessment due to concerns over the article's quality. Doubts were also expressed over the thoroughness of the original review conducted upon its nomination for GA status. It was also suggested that the article's title may not be the most common name for the experiment, and that it might be necessary to move the page. Concerns were also raised regarding whether Space Interferometry Mission was up-to-date, however these are being addressed. Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet looks likely to be promoted to GA status. Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article. Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight. Stop press: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet has now been promoted to GA status. The Charts There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories. № Article Movement 1 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster ↑14 (15) 2 Richard Branson ↑5 (7) 3 Neil Armstrong ↑2 (5) 4 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster ↑16 (20) 5 Global Positioning System ↓2 (3) 6 Apollo 11 ↑2 (8) 7 Satellite ↑4 (11) 8 Space Shuttle Challenger ↑42 (50) 9 Apollo 13 ↓3 (6) 10 NASA ↓1 (9) For the full list of the top 1,500 popular pages within the project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages (or the archived record for January). Selected Article: Yuri Gagarin Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968. His article describes him and his spaceflight experience: “ Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin (Russian: Ю́рий Алексе́евич Гага́рин, Russian pronunciation: [ˈjurʲɪj ɐlʲɪˈksʲeɪvʲɪtɕ ɡɐˈɡarʲɪn]; 9 March 1934 – 27 March 1968), Hero of the Soviet Union, was a Soviet cosmonaut who on 12 April 1961 became the first human to journey into outer space. On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky. ” The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 3

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 3, March 2011
Project News News from Orbit Article News Direction of the Project The Charts Europa Project News There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger. An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project. User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation. News from orbit Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites. A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space Shuttle Discovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not. Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed. 4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data System communications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew. A Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle is expected to deploy the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft during a launch in March. The flight has been delayed several times, and was expected to have launched last month, however it is currently scheduled to occur no earlier than 20 March. On 29 March, an Ariane 5ECA will launch the Yahsat 1A and New Dawn communications satellites. Both currently require articles. On 30 March, a Soyuz-FG will launch the manned Soyuz TMA-21 mission to the International Space Station carrying three Expedition 27 crewmembers. On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear. Article news Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities. Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected. It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user. Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed. A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy. A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain. A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions. It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested. Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list. Editorial: Direction of the Project Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project. Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far. Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch‎, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks. Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated. In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-) The Charts Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off. Satellite was the most popular article of February, up six places from seventh in December. STS-133 was the highest climber in the top 10, up 78 places from 88th. January's most popular article, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, dropped seven places to eighth. Moon landing remains ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories for the second month in a row. Of the top ten, two articles are featured content, two are listed as Good Articles, and the remaining six are assessed as C-class. № Article Movement 1 Satellite ↑6 (7) 2 Space Shuttle ↑11 (13) 3 NASA ↑7 (10) 4 Neil Armstrong ↓1 (4) 5 Apollo 13 ↑4 (9) 6 Global Positioning System ↓1 (5) 7 International Space Station ↑5 (12) 8 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster ↓7 (1) 9 Apollo 11 ↓3 (6) 10 STS-133 ↑78 (88) For the full list of the top 1,500 popular pages within the project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages (or the archived record for February). Selected Article: Europa Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it: “ The Europa rocket was an early expendable launch system of the European Launcher Development Organisation (ELDO), which was the precursor to the European Space Agency and its Ariane family of launchers. The programme was initiated by the UK and the first launch occurred in August 1967. Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage. The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects : Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed. ” The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Spacecraft Docking and Berthing Mechanisms

Good work on starting the Spacecraft Docking and Berthing Mechanisms article. The comparative differences between docking and berthing, and the many different (and proprietary) spacecraft systems to date was something that sorely needed comparative coverage in Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Craigboy (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There's some systems that have been left out temporarily because I had to start somewhere, they are the Kontakt docking system (info in summary) and Shenzhou's (info). Also I'm having trouble finding official names, and sometimes I see different names being used with the same systems.--Craigboy (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of caps in "international Low Impact Docking System"

How can you say it's not a style error? Look at all the text in the table; every entry starts with a capital letter (sentence case), whether the first word is part of an acronym or not ("Original Soyuz probe and drogue docking system", "Modern Soyuz probe and drogue docking system", "Common Docking Adapter, future US vehicles", etc.). So it should be "International Low Impact Docking System", regardless of whether "international" is part of the name. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand what a style error is, I was previously under the belief that you believed the "I" had simply been forgotten to be capitalized.--Craigboy (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you in essence saying the only reason you reverted the change is that you objected to the description? I'm sorry if I offended you by using the word "error", but there's no reason to use the lowercase "i" and it just looks wrong. Actually, since "International" is not part of the name, it should really be outside the wikilink. With your permission, I'm going to change it again. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Objected? "I misunderstood". And it is part of the name, the the Low Impact Docking System page needs to be updated, see its talk page.--Craigboy (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I finally get it. But I think the world is going crazy when NASA decides to be "clever" and use a mixed-case acronym in defiance of all convention; I still can't see a good reason for it. Notice even their document follows the rule of using sentence case, capitalizing "International" when it's used in the section titles. And renaming the article using lowercase would violate our article naming style (I don't think the exception made for things like "eBay" would apply) and would just add to the confusion.

Whatever; life's too short. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at Talk:Unmanned resupply spacecraft.
Message added 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would appreciate your input on a question I just put out. N2e (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at Talk:Spacecraft Docking and Berthing Mechanisms.
Message added 22:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. I appreciate your input on the previous Talkback, on the Unmanned resupply spacecraft article!

But I would like to get your input on the unmanned/unpressurized/robotic spacecraft docking question also on the Spacecraft Docking and Berthing Mechanisms article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hi Craigboy !

If you have a moment, please drop by the ISS article and look over my new work in the Costs and to a lesser extent Education and cultural outreach sections. I hope you think they are crap and object to their inclusion, or not, whatever you think. Please be the first to have your say ! lolz. ....(seriously I am desperate for help here, It's so lonely I've started talking to myself and answered the poll as if I was a third person, they'll come to take me away soon!) Penyulap _talk 08:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do but I wont have enough free time till this weekend, so I'll go over it then.--Craigboy (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Image requests‎‎.
Message added 03:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW… 03:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

justin

hello, thanks for the link on justin mission from the iss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 08:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at GW Simulations's talk page.
Message added 07:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW… 07:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:Orbital Space Plane Program, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Oneiros (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

robonaut moon and nuclear power

hello, i have found a video on the net about robonaut installing a nuclear powerplant on the moon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhpvNLJgtUc i guess you seen it since you write the article i am not sure about linking it to the robonaut article , what do you think ? --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've haven't seen it before, but the video seems be more about showing what Robonaut could be used for more than what its currently planned to do (testing on the ISS). I don't think the video would be relevant because it only shows one specific (and most likely formerly) proposed mission. The video shows the Altair lander which was canceled along with the Constellation Program and it shows R1 instead of the current R2.--Craigboy (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Proposal comparisons.png

Thanks for uploading File:Proposal comparisons.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Multi-Purpose Logistics Module image

The reasons why I prefer STS-114 Raffaello module.jpg is because the MPLM is the focus, you're able to see the CBM's petals, more detail on the MPLM can be seen and the contrast on the image is better. What's your opinion? --Craigboy (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will grant you that much, I preferred the unobstructed view. But your argument stands. Lets always discuss in future. Thanks for the reasoned response. Leebrandoncremer (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved discussion to Pressurized Mating Adapter talk page--Craigboy (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, I didnt want to argue, I thought Wiki was a living thing, one that changes with new information. I have been adding alot lately, People come along and have a flurry of changes, additions and well I wanted to contribute. I had no intention of being malicious, simply thought the idea was to improve pages. Like I said no one owns these pages, but like you I get offended when someone deletes or changes their work. Would be better if we coordinate and discuss from now on, if that is ok with you. Leebrandoncremer (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and keep in touch as much as possible. I also hope none of my posts came off as too aggressive.--Craigboy (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No you wern't, Ok I wasnt too certain that was the inside of PMA-2 but the NASA description said it was. Do you have an internal (empty) PMA pic? Leebrandoncremer (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No but the image you put up looks good.--Craigboy (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Found an image showing PMA-1 lined with bags.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-134/html/s134e009323.html --Craigboy (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Craigboy.

It's probably a bit of a late reply, but I've put a note here first time I read that page I think.. Penyulap _talk 12:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the mess that the ISS article is in at the moment, the re-organization is causing havoc with the references, which are either wrong or missing in many places. At the moment, the references the article has are probably not as good as a google. It'll take a little while to fix up, hey, what do you think of the layout diagram ? a bit flashy ? ok ? just what we needed for ages ? it sure makes navigation easier. Penyulap _talk 07:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary wasn't intended to be a complaint, but meant to be more of an explanation. The diagram looks like it took a long time to make but it takes up a lot of space and the majority of the information is already shown in "ISS configuration 2011-05 en.svg" and what's not may be easier to explain just in the text.--Craigboy (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there is overlap of the function, but in the back of my mind that configuration svg has always annoyed me, I've always wanted a decent photographic image of the entire station, so things can be labeled and people would know what they are looking at. I know you and I can work it out, but exploded rendered instructions are a pain in the old noodle to work out for many people, some people can assemble furniture out of a box, some can't. We almost had a fix before, but the guy gave up before finishing it. I still think you are right, and the other guy is also right. I firmly believe that neither the Svg nor the new layout do the job adequately by themselves. What I think will end any debate would be an annoted image. Like the new colorful layout, you'd be able to click on it and jump direct to that article. The SVG isn't clickable, and the new layout doesn't look anything like the station. But we need a decent image of all the modules in place first. So far I haven't seen one where they're not obscured. Penyulap _talk 09:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No cut and pastes

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Spacecraft docking and berthing mechanisms a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive the templating of a non-newbie, but it's the easiset way to spell out the rationale and give the links. However, as you're not a newbie, you should know that C-&P moves aren't permitted by now already. Please don't do it again. - BilCat (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The presence of a redirect page has made it not possible to move the article. --Craigboy (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not possible for you or me to move the page, but an admin/sysop can do it, hence posting on WP:RM. Sometimes you can personally ask an admin to do it, and they usually will. Also, you can add a {{db-move}} header to the top of the redirect page, and the page will be moved within 24 hours by an admin, if it is clearly an uncontrovesial case. - BilCat (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mercury and Gemini

Thank you for the message.

I have changed the info boxes since they were about the spacecrafts and not the projects. The tables about missions and astronauts are moved to separate articles and some red links are deleted, but everything can still be found if you go a month back in the history of the articles. Soerfm (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to say, I am working on a separate article for the Mercury spacecraft but I am not sure if there is enough material. It can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercury_spacecraft&redirect=no by clicking Edit, removing "#" before REDIRECT and then press Show Preview. Soerfm (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

About the Gemini spacecraft, no unfortunately I have not started that article yet. Soerfm (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Tiangong

Hi Craigboy, I'd like to move your graphic and the infobox up to the top of this page, I didn't want to do it myself, as I'm not a studied expert on the subject, sure I've studied, but I'd rather have your opinion as well first at the very least, you obviously know what is going on there. At the moment I am working out the best way to include Tiangong as part of the ISS's context. It's a similar project after all. I left a comment on the talkpage. Penyulap _talk 05:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Which image?--Craigboy (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

sorry, takes a while till i go back and check where i chat. that one, looks rather like it should be at the top of the page. While there are so few articles and there is so little information, the large orbital station may as well be the focus of the article. That'll probably be where the greater interest lays in the end too. Penyulap _talk 09:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dreamchaser ISS DOCKINGsmall.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dreamchaser ISS DOCKINGsmall.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Space rendezvous

Hi Craigboy. You've done a lot of good work with Spacecraft docking and berthing mechanisms, and I've attempted to help at the margins. If you get a chance, I'd appreciate your eyes on, and review/improvement of, Space rendezvous. I've made a few small improvements recently, but it still needs a LOT of work. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't really know much about rendezvous.--Craigboy (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for considering, and for the response. Understood. Let me try one more angle. As long as we can find sources, it is not necessary that every Wikipedia editor be an expert. But with your work on the docking and berthing article, I'm hopeful you can, at minimum, help edit to encourage better quality to Wikipedia standards, and perhaps help think with us about what sort of material ought to go into each of the several related articles. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In International Space Station, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Scott Kelly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ROS pic

I've added the text in ENG and RU, but couldn't work out the two white lines (in a hurry), maybe you could ? I've got to say it looks a whole lot better now. Do you think the arrow is needed ? probably not considering the new, better shading you've done eh ? That's what I think. Penyulap _talk 05:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

ISS talkpage

Talk:International Space Station#Hey Craigboy, how about this talkpage thingy ?

Penyulap _talk 17:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A trout is way too big really, but come on, 5RR ? slow down man take it easy! Penyulap _talk 05:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

U5K0 didn't, or hasn't yet suggested I mention to you that my Glaring -(O)-(O)- wasn't working.

I never like talking about people behind their back, I wanted to let you know I mentioned your nefarious activities (Perhaps too strong a word, but I am exaggerating, so it's probably a well proportioned exaggeration) here where I was saying about your cutting in, but I was kind of unsure if you were getting the point or not with the hints I was dropping about it, well, anyhow I was blowing off steam about this whole "Change penyulap's text' business and reverted U5K0's edit when I had a look and saw there was no prospect of any reader knowing who was talking in so very many sections. Penyulap _talk 02:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Matthewrbowker's talk page. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Brillaint work !

		The International Space Station Barnstar
		For almost two years of striving to make the ISS article not suck so much ! Great work, keep it up !! Penyulap talk 05:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Mad work on the OPSEK pic, it's been crying out for an image for ages. The launch of Buran, Polyus, and the NM and Nauka are all like man, so crying out too. If you don't get to it sometime, maybe I'll follow your lead on that one. Inspiring. Penyulap _talk 16:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make it, its a copyrighted Roscosmos pic.--Craigboy (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I always think it's quite annoying to need to justify the usage. It still brings the article to life. Penyulap _talk 09:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

APAS docking

Craigboy, what is a better way to put it, cause although I think it's true that the shenzhou use apas, it's also true to say that the mech is based upon apas instead. Can we say 'based on' ? Penyulap _talk 09:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can say its based on APAS because we don't have any sources that specifies that it is. but I think we can say something like

"A representative of the Chinese manned space program stated that around the year 2000, China and Russia were engaged in technological exchanges regarding the development of a docking mechanism. Foreign sources have stated that the docking mechanism strongly resembles APAS-89/APAS-95, with one American source going as far as to call it a clone. There have been contradicting claims on the compatibility of the Chinese system with both current and future docking mechanisms on the ISS."--Craigboy (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll find better sources then. It's going to be impossible to find sources that are any worse than the ones that badmouth it as a clone, which is unacceptable. Penyulap _talk 20:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored.--Craigboy (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We have to find a way to include it all Craigboy, the 'clone' the APAS Russian, the Chinese flavor, everything, the whole picture, we have to put it somewhere on wiki, because it's all properly referenced, and like that Chinese guy saying what needs to be done to make it compatible, needs to go somewhere on wiki. Needs to be linked into the China section. Also, even if they are badmouthing it, that shouldn't rule out us using it. There was the properly referenced things I used in the section here of another article, so if we say who they are, then it should go in. Just because what they are saying is completely wrong doesn't mean we cant use it. It would be good though if we mention some of the co-operation they have had, where they actually DID get it. this bit here might be useful too. So if we wind it altogether thats cool, but if it is simply a matter of they signed up and made a purchase, but western commentators are completely ignorant because they dont care to find out, maybe they aren't notable, but I'd support your stance on that. Let's get it all in there, the whole lot. We can't have an article without it any longer. Penyulap _talk 02:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Pen you need you recognize your own bias (remember how you preferred that obvious error filled obituary over the Boeing document, Beoing was the company that integrated the APAS mechanism into the PMAs and the Space Shuttle's Orbiter Docking System). Clone doesn't mean they stole it (we have sources in the paragraph that mention Russia was involved in the tech exchanges), it could just mean their design deviates very little from APAS-89/95. My long term goal is to have each docking mechanism have its own page but right now I don't know if we have enough info yet to do that for the Chinese mechanism but we can try.--Craigboy (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

here is some relevant stuff

http://www.space.com/11048-china-space-station-plans-details.html

Regarding space cooperation, Jiang said China intends to strengthen exchanges with other countries in the field of space science research and applications. He explained that the rendezvous and docking project hardware is compatible with the International Space Station

http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/China_n_%20Second_Space_Age_1003.pdf

In 1994, Russia sold some of its advanced aviation and space technology to the Chinese. In 1995 a deal was signed between the two countries for the transfer of Russian Soyuz spacecraft technology to China. Included in the agreement was training, provision of Soyuz capsules, life support systems, docking systems, and space suits. In 1996 two Chinese astronauts, Wu Jie and Li Qinglong, began training at the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center in Russia. After training, these men returned to China and proceeded to train other Chinese astronauts at sites near Beijing and Jiuquan. The hardware and information sold by the Russians led to modifications of the original Phase One spacecraft, eventually called Shenzhou, which loosely translated means “divine vessel.” New launch facilities were built at the Jiuquan launch site in Inner Mongolia, and in the spring of 1998 a mock-up of the Long March 2F launch vehicle with Shenzhou spacecraft was rolled out for integration and facility tests.

it would help a rewrite Penyulap _talk 03:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't know if the Chinese system is truly compatible with ISS which is why I would leave in the contradicting claims part. Your second link seems to be a good source. I've started a draft article, it can be found here. Unsure how we will deal with the name but maybe if we're lucky enough we'll be able to find an official one.--Craigboy (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just go with what everyone would call it in common conversation. Never let not having a title stop you writing an article :) Penyulap _talk 06:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the ISS China section now? any better? the 1995 deal I don't have a cite for, though we have no reason to doubt it, on account of the suits for example, they used both kinds on some mission before. Anyhow, I got the 94 95 date from the CSS article and in turn from the Chinese space program article, but as I mention I have no reason to doubt the dates and I can't see it as controversial, all things considered, I'd just love to read the document really, too see what is interesting in it. Come to think of it, it is probably tootally under wraps just exclusively to keep the american press out of it, lolz. that would explain it perfectly. Penyulap _talk 00:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally stole some material from your sandbox and hid it in the CSS article. I feel ashamed on one hand and blame NASA on the other :D but any sprucing up you can do would help, you have a better eye for docking information that I ever will. Penyulap _talk 19:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

CSS Pics

If you have a look at the ISS article, there are both, but I figure you saw how they have a configuration as well as a photo. We don't have a photo, and we certainly don't have a final configuration as yet. The Chinese ____Require_____ an airlock module in order to have a long term crewed station, and seriously, we need some of their pics for that, I can't find 'em, except the one I was using as a muse, and then I left it out at the last minute. Have a look at Freedom or the ISS itself, and see how many times they change the overall designs before launch. Science power modules and so forth. Plus, whats wrong with the picture that the Chinese government has on it's own website here, should we tell them it's not allowed ?

How about we call it an early depiction ? Like the power tower or dual-keel in freedom, or the umbrella thing for the ISS, actually come to think of it, we kind of need a series of the different pictures of the ISS in the ISS article don't we, I mean they don't belong anywhere else do they ? hmmm. I am intending to start work on another depiction of the CSS with newer tiangongy textures, what would you say is the best and latest of the configurations I should work with ?

If you can answer on my tp that would be cool, Penyulap _talk 05:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese may intend to have an airlock in the Core Module or on one of the Laboratory modules. In regards to the accuracy of image hosted on their English page, the Shenzhou spacecraft aren't shown with solar panels, the Luch-like antenna is shown being used as a RMS and the station looks nothing like any of the descriptions or images released these passed few years. Not sure if this was ever even a design because it looks like something a graphical artist tossed together.

What program are you using to to make the image? I recommend using these images as reference. Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4. Although for some reason no docking mechanisms are depicted.--Craigboy (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned it on my tp or the article tp, i can't recall which, cause I sometimes forget to check here for replies, sorry ! On a completely unrelated matter i found this ref which is a nice size ref to use, not too big, not too small, but just right for readers. I have no idea where it'd be used though, looking at the pages, so i thought i'd drop it off to the resident expert. It's just the size to keep little fingers quiet. :) Penyulap _talk 09:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Tiangong 3 and the CCM

Should these be merged ? I put a marker for your comments at Talk:Core Cabin Module, I figure you'll have a good idea about it. Penyulap _talk 12:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now I'm still under the impression that they're part of different space stations so I would keep them seperate.--Craigboy (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A new bot is ready for work on Tiangong 1

I opened a discussion about a new bot that Z and I have been working on, it's not ready for big things yet, but it can do some small tasks and I've outlined them on Talk:Tiangong 1. I would very much like you to suggest whatever you can Craigboy, as you like to chat and I love to listen ! I could really use some of your ideas. Penyulap _talk 11:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't have much experience with the bots.--Craigboy (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That's ok, hey, I wanted to let you know I wrote a bit for the docking and berthing article, so you could go and check it. I stayed on course topic-wise for docking and for the section, un-cooperative docking, and popped in the notable one with just enough to tell the story. I did say who the guys were, but didn't mention they are both twice heros of the Soviet union and one was awarded the order of Lenin :) on account of that is not what that section is about.

However ! I did put in two pics, which were as good as I could find of the two guys who did the docking, and that is a bit off course, because I have no idea where to get a picture of the docking mechanism used, and that section looks like it's a bit hungry and deprived in the picture department. Anyhow, I think you should pay close attention to the two extra guys in the pics. One has this chin thing going on and the other has this eyebrows thing going on. It's hilarious. The Chinese have puppies and toddlers, and Russians have eyebrows and chins, and the Americans have ghost music and haunted rockets back in that era as per the comment here, what a blast.

Do you know about nasa TV copyright ? how can i find out if a video (not that one) on their youtube channel is PD or ok to use ? I'm sure I cannot simply assume it's all good to go, can I, do you know about it ? Penyulap ☏

After a quick look it all seems pretty well written, although it may need an intro and some of your info on autonomous docking may need to be moved into its own section. I'd prefer if we used images that weren't stamps because they seem to have a bit of a propagandist feel to it (which is common to artwork of significant events) but since we have no other images of the crew then I guess these will do.--Craigboy (talk)

What kind of section or title ? Penyulap ☏

Saylut 7 was equipped with this docking mechanism and Soyuz T-13 was equiped with this one. Most NASA video shares the same copyright rules as their pictures, the only time it doesn't is when the video displayed was created by a third party.--Craigboy (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, there is a big ask, a photo of crew that doesn't have a propaganda feel to it. Is there such a thing for any countries program ? I really doubt it. I'll say it is a bit harder to see for anyone who grew up within the influence of the country concerned though, like with the wikiproject icon. I'd figure the stamps compared to the chinese stuff I found is rather tame, but still mildly amusing, well, at least to me it is. Penyulap ☏

There's different levels of propagandist appeal. For example if you were to choose an image for the Apollo-Soyuz article which would you choose, 1 or 2?--Craigboy (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

They are both interesting images, and there are many answers, which would look towards the editorial feel of the article, the second image is good for an article about spaceflight, the first is good for an article about the 'space race'. The first is more about photo realism, but the second removes aesthetically offensive items like the stand in the first, and broadens the time period beyond the chairs in the first. Penyulap ☏

The pics there are the class of mech, but not of the old ones on the station itself. Very hard to find free images like that. Penyulap ☏

The above pictures are of the exact same design used on Salyut 7. I know its hard to find free images and that's why I'm not asking you to do so.--Craigboy (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I know it's a list of mechs, but what about some pics of the ships used in a notable docking ? I'll leave it to you to think of or do if you think it's an idea, unless you request help. Penyulap ☏

No, that wouldn't make any sense.--Craigboy (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

True, I think you're going for a straight technical article by the looks of things, whereas I go for what I think is a nice read across the demographic with the dramatic style :) it depends on the author I guess, you're more specific to your intended audience I think, while I'm broader. Penyulap ☏ 03:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Cygnus (spacecraft), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATK (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited Dragon (spacecraft), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terra firma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SpaceX COTS 2 emblem.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SpaceX COTS 2 emblem.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

COTS Demo 2 Flight Emblem

Hi: Do we know for certain that the COTS Demo emblem is not in the public domain? Since it is a NASA mission, I am assuming -- possibly too much -- that it would fall under the same copyright as a NASA mission. I just came across it on SpaceX's Facebook page. Your thoughts?--Abebenjoe (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure but just to be safe I uploaded it under fair-use. If it turns out to be in the public domain then we can always change the license.--Craigboy (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Got a reply back from SpaceX, they own the copyright. I've just sent a request to a get CC3 license.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the 7 May launch will be pushed back, according to updates 2 and 3 of Chris Bergin's article. If this happens, then a delay of at least a week, likely more, due to range issues and traffic at the ISS.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Move of Dragon C2+

Since the COTS 2 article was moved (and COTS 3 merged into it) to Dragon C2+, which we found is not the actual name of the mission, I have suggested it be moved to come in line with how we named CRS SpX-1. Discussion can be found here. Cheers! Wingtipvorte^X (talk) ∅ 18:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Wingtipvortex#DragonRiderMockup.jpg

Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at Wingtipvortex's talk page.
Message added 01:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wingtipvorte^X (talk) ∅ 01:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Wingtipvortex#DragonRiderMockup.jpg

Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at Wingtipvortex's talk page.
Message added 00:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Making images for wikipedia, why bother

editors like the CSS image, but you keep on deleting it, which always makes me think, 'why bother making any more images for wikipedia if they just get deleted'

thing is, we need free images of things for wikipedia, if some articles are to be illustrated at all, the Chinese and Russian space stations especially, as there are no free images and there won't be. Fair use doesn't apply to drawings of the stations, and I don't think you get that part, so I'll show you with opsek, so someone else can explain, and accuracy is in the eye of the beholder, after all, anything less than a photo is not accurate, well, to most people. Penyulap ☏ 19:02, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated File:Proposed OPSEK.jpg as improper fair use rationale, because if artists could be bothered, then the articles about subjects that don't yet exist could be illustrated. Penyulap ☏ 19:12, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Pen, because you failed to create an image of CSS. You created an image of something else, you even agreed with me on that and joked about how poorly created the image you based your drawing off of was. If I make a picture that looks like the ISS and say it represents a Salyut station then it should not be used to do so. Why can you not understand this?--Craigboy (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand it perfectly, up to the point that it can't be used, which is not correct. We can use whatever we want to, same as the government website is doing. There, they can do it because it is their program and website, here, because there is clear consensus in favour of it. Arguing and deleting against consensus just damages the whole project and reduces the chances of getting decent illustrations which cannot exist any other way.

No picture is perfect, and the CSS has 3 dimensions, not 2, so mine is better for the overall image and yours is better for configuration. I'm not alone in thinking this either.

Also, I think it might be naughty to delete the nom on that opsek pic. Penyulap ☏ 13:05, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Pen, I've tried reasoning with you. I'm done.--Craigboy (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning: Edit warring on International Space Station

Your recent editing history at International Space Station shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Both you and Penyulap have already violated the three-revert rule. Discuss it on the talk page, and don't change the article until you both agree on a compromise. If you can't find anything to agree on, then go to dispute resolution or open a request for comment. I am sending this warning to both parties, I won't report either of you at this stage, but if you continue then you will be blocked. --W. D. Graham 13:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Formerly planned Unpressurized Cygnus.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Formerly planned Unpressurized Cygnus.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Wingtipvortex#WikiProject Spaceflight

Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at Wingtipvortex's talk page.
Message added 01:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Artist Cygnus high.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Artist Cygnus high.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at WT:SPACEFLIGHT.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--W. D. Graham 20:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

re: Did you even read the deletion discussion? - File:Artist Cygnus high.jpg

"The result of the discussion was: Delete - by the standards that Wikipedia uses the image is replaceable with a free alternative and fails WP:NFCC#1"
I'm furious because you came to a decision that is entirely inconsistent with what was discussed. I demand for you to tell me how you came to this conclusion.--Craigboy (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did read the discussion. There is a physical mockup (as shown by the flickr link). An image could be taken, and released under a free licence, of this physical object. I can see this asserted in the debate and no refutation of it. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read "an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information"? The mock-up is merely for display purposes and was created by Orbital Sciences and thus all pictures of it would still be copyrighted.--Craigboy (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi Craigboy,

Let me say I admire (truly) your ability to continue editing (I assume that is what you are doing) without getting involved in the Wikiproject Spaceflight issues with Penyulap. You originally brought up the issue however, so if you have any comments or input I'd appreciate it. Please don't feel that I'm forcing you to, but given that I was rather uninvolved in all the issues and I am apparently the only one who is doing something to get the problems between WDGraham and Penyulap solved, I would definitely not mind the help. Its a pity two of the best editors in the project can halt so much. I'm doing all I can to try to get them to move on, but my willingness is running out and could use other ideas on where to go.

Best,

--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

For the next month I'm going to be swamped with work so I don't know if I have the free time to look into it.--Craigboy (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya, no worries. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

'I am apparently the only one', are you sure about that ? I have observed that Mlm42, Mir, and wingtip are 'apparently' 3 editors. Although, I have a pending sockpuppet cleanup yet to complete. Penyulap ☏ 08:52, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about?--Craigboy (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not important at all right now, I want you to go about your work without being distracted by another editor, my recent contributions would explain if you are too curious. I just don't want to see someone winding you up is all. (That's my job after all :) Penyulap ☏ 09:50, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I still don't know what you mean by "I am apparently the only one", can you clarify that statement?--Craigboy (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't make any reference to you Craigboy, I was solely speaking with someone else. But you could always ask him what he meant when he said it first. Penyulap ☏ 10:28, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't you respond to the original comment?--Craigboy (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand.. original comment where ? Penyulap ☏ 12:09, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

The one posted at "00:11, 21 July 2012". Instead of indenting from the post you were responding to, you instead indented from a later post. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation --Craigboy (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Chronological ordering overrides it in this case, it's the whole 'monument to the failure' and 'dum****'. It's still going on, I have compared it to a bank robbery, where everyone was rather upset 3 years ago about the stolen status quo, and even today, there is the same ill-feeling between the other editors (hence the recent monument/dum**** comments) as well as the inappropriate claims of a consensus using templates. WDGraham seems to claim robbing a bank, (tying up a poll back to front) is acceptable once you get a certain distance from the scene, or rather, the authorities will allow them to keep the cash instead of negotiate with the other editors who are still upset, once a certain time limit passes. Ckatz seems to have realised that difficult questions mean it's better he has no further part in the misbehaviour, and that I welcome any comment from him, but won't chase him if he is not continuing to have a part of all this.

But recently, a single editor has come up with the bright idea that sockpuppets are a good way to try to slip past me. Thing is, it's an epic failure, as nothing he does or why, or where, or how, escapes my attention. So where he used to centre his attention around me, until I put a stop to it because of the violations across bright lines, he figures to take up the time your time and attention. I don't think it's a good thing for me to allow to continue. I did want to use the SPI as an illustration on the Village pump (policy) but I guess anytime I see his antics annoying editors like before with the inane questions at the teahouse, I want to intervene to prevent that, as your time is precious in my opinion, for what it's worth. Penyulap ☏ 12:54, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Well, interesting that this page would be the catalyst. See here, indef block by ANI. Just thought you'd like to know. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Manned and cargo Dragon spacecraft.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Manned and cargo Dragon spacecraft.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy

Regarding your excellent graphics here, [1], I just learned something that might suggest a slight change to the graphic may be in order. Brian Mosdell, the head launch guy at the Cape for SpaceX, indicated a several-feet length difference between the central core and the two strap-on cores of the Falcon Heavy: the strap-ons are longer. The podcast may be downloaded here: [2]. I had not heard any SpaceX-released specs, nor media coverage, of that length difference before now. This is around 12:20 minutes into the one-hour interview (Falcon Heavy discussion starts at 9:50). At any rate, thought you might like to know about it. (and Grasshopper is discussed at c. 9:00 minutes.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've actually already listened to that interview but I appreciate you trying to keep me updated. On drawings based on designs that aren't finalized I usually try to avoid editing them that often because sometimes people misspeak and certain edits can be very time consuming (although not this one). In this case I think I might wait until SpaceX publishes an image showing the elongated boosters before modifying it.--Craigboy (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TaurusII Wallops.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TaurusII Wallops.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

NASA has took a picture of today's rollout. It being PD, I have replaced the fair use image with this new one in the article per the fair use rationale of using it until there is a free replacement. If you think the fair use image adds significantly to the article, please re-add it and remove the di-orphaned notice from the file page. Thanks, Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at Talk:SpaceX CRS-1.
Message added 14:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent Musk lecture

Hi Craigboy. I see you've listened to the lecture, from your notes on Grasshopper rocket Talk page.

Just an FYI. I've made a ton of edits to the various SpaceX rocket engine pages today, especially Merlin and Raptor, and have also created a new article SpaceX rocket engine family as it was becoming very hard to find an article on which to make non-Merlin and non-Falcon substantive edits on the new LOX/methane engines. Would appreciate your review and improvement of any of them. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know much about SpaceX hardware with the exception of the Dragon and this next month I'm going to be swamped with work so I really won't have time to make any major edits. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help.--Craigboy (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. Just wanted to let you know as you had been doing some work on various related pages. N2e (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Kathleen Rubins

Hi Craigboy, can you deliver a source for the nomination of Kathleen Rubins to be part of Expedition 36/37 aboard the International Space Station? I'm wondering about that. Is Kathleen Rubins a replacement for Karen L. Nyberg? There are no hints to find in the Web. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I confused the two, I'm reverting my edits.--Craigboy (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with ISS secret Christmas section code.

Hi Craigboy, I just posted on the the ISS talk page about a strange problem. It seems to involve something Penyulap worked on a year ago, but I don't understand it. Can you take a look? It needs attention. Thanks! Wwheaton (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Manned and cargo Dragon spacecraft.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Manned and cargo Dragon spacecraft.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at Talk:Cygnus Mass Simulator.
Message added 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

W. D. Graham 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Grasshopper rocket comparative graphic

Hey Craigboy.

Would you be willing to consider developing a comparison graphic of the Grasshopper v1 rocket to the other Falcon family rockets? I'm thinking something like your File:Falcon 9 v1.0 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Falcon Heavy.svg

image but with the Grasshopper v1 shown in the progression after Falcon 9.

Now, after that, and since SpaceX has publicly announced that they are developing a longer Grasshopper v2 vehicle, assuming you can find the length in a source somewhere, it would be really cool to have the Grasshopper v2 shown as well. But maybe not, maybe better to wait on part 2 (Gv2) until the first photos of the v2 Grasshopper emerge.

However the Gv2 question is answered right now, I would really appreciate you taking a cut on a good Grasshopper comparative graphic for us with the Grasshopper v1. Then I would intend to use that graphic in the Grasshopper (rocket) article right away. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't I think I have enough free time to draw it.--Craigboy (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for considering it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

First? photo of the 9-engine circular-configuration on Falcon 9 v 1.1

Hi Craig.

I think you'll find a particular photo interesting. Look at the source on the "restartable ignition system" statement in the SpaceX reusable rocket launching system article. Musk just posted that yesterday. Looks like there is a LOT of room between the outer engine bells and the center engine bell, just like your drawings. My guess: allows for a lot of gimbaling which will be needed for the controlled descent and landing phase of bringing the boosters back. Enjoy. N2e (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As a side note to this, I'd like to point this out [3]. As you can see, the corner fairings still remain in that rendition, and it shows the new octal configuration so it's not an out of date concept. So until we get something official from SpaceX, I still stand by my opinion that the graphics that assume the new stage to have no skirt/fairing are not verifiable. TMV943 (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That drawing is inaccurate and was created by an artist with no association with SpaceX. The only renderings released by NASA and SpaceX show no engine fairings.

Falcon 9 v1.0 engine configuration (left) and Falcon 9 v1.1 engine configuration (right)--Craigboy (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The Falcon 9 v1.0 has four engine fairings because engines upper-left, upper-right, lower-left and lower-right are further from the center than engines upper-middle, middle-left, middle-right and lower-middle. The reason why the same four fairing configuration would not make sense for Falcon 9 v1.1 is because all eight exterior engines are equidistant from the center.--Craigboy (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is the rendering from NASA and/or SpaceX? To my knowledge there hasn't been any TMV943 (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The first one can be found here (page 13) and here (page 20). The second one can be found here.--Craigboy (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the sources provided in the previous comment, it now appears it would be incorrect for purposes of this encyclopedia to show the Falcon 9 v1.1 with the corner engine farings, or with engine skirts that extend over the nozzles at all. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)