Talk:2010 in spaceflight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned references in 2010 in spaceflight[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2010 in spaceflight's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MSDB":

  • From Explorer-1': Schwartz, Patrick C. "Launches". Mission Set Database. NASA GSFC. Retrieved 2009-03-23.
  • From 2009 in spaceflight: Schaub, Michael B. "Mission Set Database". NASA GSFC/Honeywell TSI. Retrieved 2008-11-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about November Launch of Vega Rocket[edit]

Is this information correct about the Vega Rocket Launch in November 2010? On the Cubesat website [1] it says this launch is happening in 2009 Awally88 (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the launch has been delayed to November 2010. See: [2] (15 June 2009), and [3] (29 April 2009) -MBK004 06:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link Not Working[edit]

Link 15 on this page doesn't work ("ESA Announces Vega CubeSat Selection". Education Office. European Space Agency. 2008-06-07. http://www.esa.int/esaED/SEM2BPUG3HF_index_0.html. Retrieved 2008-07-23.) Just seeing if anyone else can find if that link still exists, I haven't been able to find it so far but will keep looking. Awally88 (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astra3B COMSATBw-2 launch[edit]

It seems this launch has been delayed until mid-march 2010, please refer to <http://space.skyrocket.de/index_frame.htm?http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_chr/lau2010.htm> or to <http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/> Stefritz (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Question about anti-missile test[edit]

If this is suborbital, someone should add: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gIyJwTWQjzwLtHke9NhVHNS7qiHQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.6 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have a source for whether this actually reached space. Alternatively, if you have a source for the types of missiles used, it might be possible to determine whether they would have reached space or not. I have yet to see either. --GW… 16:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the article 2010 Chinese anti-ballistic missile test. It reached space because the test was carried out during the mid-course phase of the ballistic missile before its atmospheric reentry. By the way, personally I don't believe they used HQ-9. (Alice Muller (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

ESA flag[edit]

As can be read at the Public sector space agencies template talk page the EU flag shouldn't be used as ESA flag as some countries of the latter don't participate in the former and both are unrelated organisations. Tom Paine (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only it isn't the EU flag. This has already been discussed ad nauseum, and there has been no consensus to remove it from TLS pages. --GW… 19:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABL target[edit]

From this article, it seems that there are some missile launches that are not included on this list. I do not know if these target missiles were capable of reaching "space", but it presents an interesting case: What to do when the target missile is attempting to complete it's ascent, but the test is designed to destroy it before it does. Other failed launches are still included on this list.--SkiDragon (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both launches mentioned in that article are already listed here. --GW… 08:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Minitour IV 4/22 Launch a failure?[edit]

The article on the Minitour IV states that the 4/22 was a success, bu the article on 2010 in spaceflight says it was a spacecraft failure. Which was it/ user:mnw2000 00:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mission was two parts. The Minotaur IV portion was a success, but the HTV-2a portion was a failure. The LV performed nominally, and the payload did not. This launch is therefore correctly notated as a spacecraft failure per the guidelines set forth here: Wikipedia:TLS#Mission_outcomes. -MBK004 00:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the table of contents placed oddly?[edit]

Why is the table of contents placed in the middle of the article, rather than near the top as in most Wikipedia articles? N2e (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the presence of the {{toclimit|limit=2}} template, which not only restricts the depth of heading that is shown in the TOC, but it also forces the position of the TOC. It went in with this edit; sections started to be added above it with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed - TOC had drifted down the page as it was missed when content was added above it. The TOCLimit tag is necessary to prevent it becoming excessively long. --GW… 16:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you! N2e (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change of picture at the top of the page[edit]

Because the end of the space shuttle has been delayed until next year, the picture about the shuttle ending in 2010 needs to be changed, along with lots of text throughout the article. In place of the picture, maybe there could be the Falcon 9, the Dragon, the SDO, or something else of the sort. 66.67.22.212 (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done, I've replaced it with an image of the Falcon 9, and replaced the Juno one in 2011 with the one that was here. --GW… 11:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manned spaceflight[edit]

Section needs adjusting, I think, for the delay of STS-134 to 2011-02-26. And I think Vega is now next year. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is NARO-1 Considered Angara?[edit]

It is not part of the Angara family. The first stage is a Universal Rocket (modified with lower thrust engine) which is used in the Angara family. However the NARO should not be considered part of the Angara family, nor should it be considered Russian. It would be like considering the Atlas V to be a Saturn IB launch vehicle because they both use a Centaur second stage. --71.214.237.152 (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Angara and Universal Rocket have nothing to do with each other, apart from the fact that the former will replace the latter in orbital launch roles. Naro and UR definitely have nothing to do with each other. Saturn IB and Centaur had nothing to do with each other. The Naro and Angara rockets have common first stages, which were built in Russia, hence it being considered part Russian. I would suggest that you check your facts before trying to "correct" other people's. --GW… 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. I meant to say the Universal Rocket Module, which is the first stage for Angara. The project is driven by South Korea, not Russia. It should be considered South Korean. South Korea is using the Russian First stage because they lack finaces to develop their own. Putting the Russian flag first is incorrect, as they are not the primary drivers of the project. Also if you look on the Naro-1 page, it effectively states that the rocket is the first of the KSLV family, hence it is not part of the Angara family. Placing it there just because it uses the same first stage as Angara is incorrect, especially since the avionics and control systems in the two are not the same. --Aflafla1 (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also I should have said Titan III instead of Saturn IB, it was the Titan III that used a Centaur upper stage. --Aflafla1 (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The prime contractor is Khrunichev, which is Russian. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, the flags are in alphabetical order, and there are several examples of rockets being categorised as part of the same family simply because they share common first stages. At the time of its use on the Titan III, the Centaur was considered an upper stage not an integral part of the core vehicles. --GW… 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Russian flag should stay. Clearly, the rocket is partly Russian because of its first stage. By the way, Khrunichev has stated that no problems were found in the first stage during the failed launch.[4] Perhaps we should change the accident explanation to "unknown reason"? Offliner (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Oko launch?[edit]

What is the source for the 30 September Oko launch? Offliner (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HEAT1X-TYCHO BRAHE[edit]

Shouldn't this one be mentioned with it's failed 5 september launch?--Narayan (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, for two reasons. Firstly it didn't fail, it was scrubbed, and secondly, even if it had launched successfully, it would not have been a spaceflight. --GW… 12:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Bulava launch[edit]

Today's Bulava launch was successful: [5]. For some, I'm unable to add this without breaking the syntax. Offliner (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll handle adding it. -MBK004 06:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flyby of Hartley 2[edit]

Other sources give November 4th, about 14:02 UT (ERT??). 82.163.24.100 (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could link to some of those sources you refer to, don't you think? -MBK004 06:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That should not have been necessary; there were sufficient obvious sources. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helen[edit]

Should Helen (2?) launch be mentioned since its altitude was 40km [6](so not a spaceflight)? Fact sheet will also need changing86.41.38.9 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Altough a remarkable achievement, spaceflight commonly used definition (reach 100km) should be respected and thus remove references to this launch. Tom Paine (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soyuz TMA-20[edit]

According to the latest statement, the launch should still take place in December. Offliner (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Iran planning to launch Simorgh next year[edit]

No news has been received yet regarding preparations for the launch of Iran's Simorgh rocket. Is it possible that the delay in the maiden flight of Simorgh could be influenced by Western pressure on Iran not to launch the rocket, since Simorgh has the potential to be used as an ICBM?68.4.61.237 (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

November 2010 Photo Op?[edit]

What's this? Space Shuttle, Delta IV Heavy, Falcon 9, and Atlas V all being launched from KSC, Cape Carnival in November. Might be possible that all four are on launch pads at the same time. Likely you'll see at least two. --71.214.211.224 (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is helen 2 from ARCA included?[edit]

As far as I can see, the helen 2 rocket did not reach space. An altitude of 40 km is mentioned in various sites, for example [1]. But only rockets reaching 100 km are supposed to be included here. RubenGarciaHernandez (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was included because the initial press release from ARCA was a work of fiction. It should be removed from the body of the page, and the infobox. --GW… 22:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, since it did not reach space, I have gone ahead and removed all mention of it. -MBK004 02:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://stratocat.com.ar/indexe.html

SMDC-ONE[edit]

First US Army satellite in 50 years: Army nanosatellite on first flight, was one of the nano-payloads on Dragon C1 yesterday. Is this sort of thing worth mentioning? I don't know, but I could not find it on Wikipedia: SMDC-ONE. "the first U.S. Army-built satellite in more than 50 years. U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command is the Army lead for the SMDC-ONE nanosatellite program." Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence[edit]

The first sentence is due for refurbishment. None of those are now expected, because all have happened. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last flight for 2010[edit]

I wonder what happened with the last planned launch for 2010 : suborbital CanadaBlack Brant IX from White Sands? I was not able to find information on that. Did it happen? If it did not, we should consider removing it from the article. BloodIce (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nanosail-D[edit]

Hi. It seems that Nanosail-D might not be dead after all. Ejection was confirmed Jan. 19, 2011[1], and chances are it is still alive and may carry the mission out. It is transmitting a radio beacon[2] and is supposed to unfurl the sail soon. RubenGarciaHernandez (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Seeks_Amateur_Radio_Operators_Aid_to_Listen_for_NanoSailD_999.html
  2. ^ http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/smallsats/index.html

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2010 in spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2010 in spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 in spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 2010 in spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 2010 in spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_in_spaceflight&oldid=1196579295"