Jump to content

Talk:ARCAspace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:ARCA Space Corporation)

Odd outfit

[edit]

First, this article reads like the company website.

Second, they do not seem to have succeeded at ... anything. Or at least there is lack of evidence.

Thing is, building a rocket is hard. Getting a new design for a rocket engine to work is hard. You build small versions first, and test. You build full-size versions, and test. Rocket engine tests make for dramatic photos and video ... which they entirely lack.

As far as I can tell, they build mockups.

I cannot tell is this outfit is an intentional fraud, or just some very woolly folk.

pbannister (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @pbannester,
I agree with your assessment above. It's even more obvious when you look at the edit history for this page. It was created in 2004 by a user who disclosed that they were being paid by ARCA Space Corporation for their contributions to wikipedia: User:Dragos_muresan.
As you mentioned in the Help desk, I'm not sure what actions (that don't murder the article) would be best to fix this... ChunyangD (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "outfit" is more comparable to Copenhagen Suborbitals than billionaire spacebaron companies (as an original X-Prize contestant it predates modern commercial Newspace).
Most of the other X-Prize contestants were similar semi-amateur projects, and achieved much less. ARCA at least had actual prototypes built and yes, suborbital test launches done.
For some reason ARCA seem to attract all kind of haters, when other similar underfunded projects efforts attract much less.
Why does an article about ARCA even mention dismissed charges against it's CEO. ? It is a borderline BLP violation. Helixdq (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The images that are used for ARCA society english.wikipedia all articles are listed next:

No. crt Name registered domain addresses list
1 Dem2b vehicle.jpg  ROU Conrad Haas
2 Dem2 vehicle.jpg  ROU Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Dem2b_vehicle.jpg
3 Orizont vehicle.jpg  ROU Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Orizont vehicle.jpg
4 Stabilo1b.jpg  ROU Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Stabilo1b.jpg
5 Stabilo orbit mediu.jpg  ROU Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Stabilo orbit mediu.jpg
6 Haas.jpg  ROU Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Haas.jpg
7 ARCA-logo-300x177.jpg  ROU Special:WhatLinksHere/File:ARCA-logo-300x177.jpg

Same info goes to all pictures' TalkPage

Paul


Image:Arca logo.jpg is being used on this article. 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ArcaLogo.jpg

[edit]

Image:ArcaLogo.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.

BetacommandBot 08:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumitru Popescu

[edit]

Does someone with a little more writing flair care to add information to this page about Dumitru Popescu, president of ARCA, and perhaps create a page for him? Here's a short bio on him, and other members of the ARCA team, from the ARCA website. [1] --Vampus (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that, say nobody is available right now . Roger Roger, please come back... clakc: Paul

File:Dem2 vehicle.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Dem2 vehicle.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Dem2 vehicle.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

350.000mc

[edit]

I see a few references to this, one with a citation needed flag after it too. Is it 350000 mistyped as 350,000 except with a decimal point instead of a comma? Because a 350cm balloon doesn't need accuracy to three decimal places! Also, why is the balloon a one dimensional figure? Shouldn't it be cm3? Also, 350 m3 would be the way to note it, whilst 350,000 sounds far more impressive. It's also not the largest balloon, perhaps 'of it's type,' and given that it takes 144000m3 to lift 3t with helium I strongly doubt that mystical sun warmed black magic measuring 411 times smaller will lift 23.3t of weight.

Surely these are errors? And if they are, they're a gross oversight as they are also reflected on several of this companies websites I have viewed it's specifications on. But we here at Wikipedia have a shrewd eye for detail and notice such atrocious number fudging! The only reason it's taken this long to be brought up is because every other Wikipedian was busy elsewhere, saving the world, and building nuclear reactors in their basement when not reviving dinosaurs by patching together millions of corrupted samples of DNA to bridge the gaps of destroyed parts! Right? >_> Right!

I'm not close to this article, in fact, I know jack about this stuff besides what I've seen in the last ten minutes. Thus I'm posting this here hoping a better person than I can make the required changes to fix this article up a bit with the specification changes required. If you're a corporate lurker for ARCA, perhaps you can clarify this weird numerical and decimal issue for us? As well as clarify a few other elements that--for the purpose of science--I have attributed to black magic. Thanks in advance. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

[edit]

As a fellow wikipedian and thus a fellow human seeking ever-expanding knowledge, I would think that it were obvious enough that Romania uses the dot (.) in lieu of the comma. Therefore:

350.000mc is Romanian (trei sute cinci zeci de mii de metri cubi) for 350,000m3 (three hundred and fifty thousand cubic meters)

I think it's fairly obvious the number is in Romanian format, and simply copy-pasted from the Romanian version of the ARCA Website.

I understand Romania is a backwater in science and technology, but,

Considering Herman Oberth, the father of Astronautics, came from here, Considering the jet engine and the first apparatus to fly by itself came from here, Considering our history,

Someone who knows a thing or two about space/astronautics, should, if not know these things, at least hint at the fact that the number format is not English/American/SI[IS]. Not to mention the same format is also used in France (virgule)

Thank you for your attention. 95.76.136.228 (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Popescu-Diaconu stabilization method

[edit]

The "Popescu-Diaconu stabilization method" makes no physical sense and is nothing but a variation of an old misconception in rocketry.

Take two 1 kg masses with a 1 km tether, at 45 degrees to vertical...the angle that maximizes the restoring force from the gravitational gradient. Place the lower one at 0 altitude...maximizing the steepness of the gravitational gradient, which falls off with the cube of distance. The difference in gravitational force is 2.2 mN...that's millinewtons. The component of that force that pulls the tethered masses toward vertical is 1.5 mN.

With a total mass of 2 kg, a rocket just resisting the force of gravity is exerting a thrust of 19.6 N. If the engine thrust is more than 0.004 degrees off, the sideways thrust from the engine exceeds the maximum correcting force the gravity gradient can achieve. For all practical purposes, the rocket is completely un-stabilized.

This is not opinion and not vandalism. Gravity gradient stabilization is a challenge to use even on satellites with only tiny perturbing influences, it is completely useless for rockets. Stop reverting the page to the old copy-paste from ARCA's publicity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.19.21.128 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it's the Rocket Pendulum Fallacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotainmentorbman (talk • contribs) 05:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ARCA Space Corporation. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add section for ARCA HAAS 2CA and Executor aerospike?

[edit]

Noteworthy because of the engine design (linear aerospike), fuel (high-test hydrogen peroxide and RP-1), mission (SSTO satellite launcher), and estimated cost to LEO (USD10000/kg). I don't see anything on ARCA's web site, but as of mid-September 2017, several news outlets carried an announcement that fabrication of the Executor aerospike engine is complete and the engine is to begin testing.[1][2]

Can't be sure, but it looks like what's about to be bench tested is a scaled-down version of the Executor aerospike for the Demonstrator 3, a suborbital craft.[3]

Eshafto (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4909814/Rocket-engine-radical-single-stage-aerospike-ready.html
  2. ^ http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Demonstrator_3_linear_aerospike_ready_to_start_tests_999.html
  3. ^ http://www.arcaspace.com/en/demonstrator_3.htm
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on ARCA Space Corporation. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ARCA Space Corporation. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add new section for AMi project?

[edit]

Now that ARCA has launched the AMi project, they've basically completely reinvented their entire operation towards asteroid mining. I think it would make sense to condense everything relating to it under its own section, considering how much of a departure it is from virtually everything else they've worked on (and how much of a departure it is from the relative sanity of everything else they've done, as well).

Also worth noting that considering the new attention there may be an influx of vandalism. SpaceAlex1 (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ARCAspace&oldid=1217067124"