Talk:Pioneer P-1
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified (January 2018)
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pioneer P-1. 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:
- Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67wWFrqjB?url=http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlsable.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlsable.htm
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) 13:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Potential merge
[edit]@JustinTime55 and Huntster: Seems like this could be merged into Pioneer P-3 and nothing of value would be lost. Any particular reason it should be kept as a standalone article and not merged? Kees08 (Talk) 16:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Kees08, I suppose it could, but what harm is there in simply keeping this. I say this as someone who is not a fan of merging and condensing articles unless they are absolute, positively incapable of standing on their own, and I don't feel this article (small as it is) meets that. All that said, there is some weirdness here... it says the spacecraft was launched on 24 September 1959, but then says the LV was destroyed during a static test. The spacecraft was launched (and then failed) during P-3. I'm guessing this date was when the failure occurred, rather than any kind of launch or even planned launch date? — Huntster (t @ c) 17:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah the 24 September date is the date when the rocket exploded and the satellite was not on it. The corrected text would be something like:
- Pioneer P-1 was a failed mission in the Pioneer program.
The spacecraft was a 1-meter diameter sphere, with a propulsion module.A pre-launch static-test firing occurred on 24 September 1959 on an Atlas C-Able launcher.It was to carry a TV camera and a magnetic field sensor. It was to be spin-stabilized and was known as a 'paddlewheel' spacecraft.The Atlas-Able launch vehicle was destroyed in an explosion on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral.during a pre-launch static firing. The payload of P-1 spacecraft and Able IV space engine was not present on the launch vehicle when it exploded, and the payload was later used in the P-3 mission. - I think that could easily go in the (not-yet-existing) launch section of Pioneer P-3. If, in the event that a large amount of information is found on the P-1 static-fire explosion which would clear up the cause and the fixes, the article could be recreated and the information added in. I just don't see any point to a couple sentence article on a static-fire explosion. That said if anyone feels strongly about keeping it that's fine. I just think that if an article can never be expanded past a stub (generally regarded as >1.5kb) it should be merged into existing articles, if applicable. Kees08 (Talk) 17:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- *Shrug* I like stubs. It's a visual encouragement (significantly moreso than redlinks) for those interested to expand an article. I'd rather have the specific, pertinent information about P-1 here rather than cluttering the P-3 article. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, doesn't particularly matter to me. Kees08 (Talk) 18:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- *Shrug* I like stubs. It's a visual encouragement (significantly moreso than redlinks) for those interested to expand an article. I'd rather have the specific, pertinent information about P-1 here rather than cluttering the P-3 article. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)