Talk:Space capsule

garbage

Who wrote this garbage? Whoever it was apparently has no idea of the intensive medical studies done by both the US and the Soviets. Or has an agenda.

140.153.231.84 23:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Poorly written and showes no sign of any research at all, can someone re-write this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.225.184 (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not call this garbage, I have rewritten this article 10 years after this post. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Medical issues

This section is irrelevant to the article as a whole. It should be moved to a relevant article and/or deleted. I will do so soon if no one objects. Iepeulas 17:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Straying from topic

The History section as originally written seems to be concentrating more on the history of the early Space Race flights, rather than the design of the capsules. I've started trimming it some, but I need to convert it to the capsule design info. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to improve the lead-in section ?

The lead-in section in particular needs some revisions and adding at least basic references. Any suggestions on where to start first, which sentences to rewrite if they're not sufficient ? --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

For starters, I disagree with the assumption that the introduction needs references added. It should be written in WP:summary style, which means it should be written as a brief summary of the information in the main body of the article (which should be well-referenced.) If that is done well, references shouldn't be necessary in the intro. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

Is there any information on why this thing is called a "capsule" and not a "pod" (as in "escape pod", "med pod")? Where did the term originate and who coined it and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.251.3 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The question intrigues me but I don't think a good explanation will surface. Cabin, me thinks, would have been a better term but when Ham blasted off from Cape Canaveral (followed by Al Shepard). They were sealed in, with no explosive bolts for them to facilitate their own exit. So that is semantically like a sealed capsule rather than a cabin. So I think the term stuck. Think the term Extra Terrestrial Condominium would encourage more (stupidly rich) space tourists to sit upon a large column of ignited, hydrogen, kerosene, oxygen and get blasted into space (were they probably belong any way). Err,.. If your reading this Mark Shuttleworth, the last bit was a joke – No really!--Aspro (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Home Made

We we make a section on homemade capsules? Does anyone know anyone who has made there own? Theres some on internet.

Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halifax734 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

They are not notable enough to be included on here. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was No reason to merge. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Reentry capsule → Space capsule — Nearly all of the reentry capsules are space capsules. Therefore, the article reentry capsule should be merged to the space capsule. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The reentry capsule (Descent Module) is highlighted; it is only part of the complete spacecraft often referred to as a "space capsule". Similarly for the Apollo Command and Service Module.

Oppose The logic in your argumment is flawed: they are not the same thing. Space capsules as we use the term are complete spacecraft which use capsules for reentry; reentry capsules (in crewed cases) are only parts of such spacecraft. Whether we want to merge or not depends on whether it would make Space capsule too big. I also think, since Reentry capsule is little more than a list, that it would hurt the structure of this article (I see no reason to add such a list.) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment This article used to cover the complete spacecraft that are/were capsule-based, but it was stripped down by a problematic editor, 5Ept5xW (talk · contribs), who probably was unaware that Reentry capsule exists. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the stripped information to both articles. It should be manifestly obvious now that they are not quite the same topic. Hopefully that will put out this fire drill? JustinTime55 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Question About Updating

Hey, all! Not sure if anyone will see this, but I suppose it won't hurt to put this here.

With the Starliner capsule having flown twice now (albeit without crew) and Orion now getting to ready to fly for the first time, should we move each of those two capsules from "In Development" to "Active" or should we wait until each have flown with crew (CFT for Starliner and Artemis II for Orion)? Thanks! :) XFalcon2004x (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Good question. The lead text indicates the page prefers crewed capsules, so maybe wait although go with what you feel works best. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)