Talk:Satish Dhawan Space Centre

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Satish Dhawan Space Centre article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

India: Andhra Pradesh Start‑class Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Andhra Pradesh (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocketry High‑importance

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shorter names in Spaceport template[edit]

Regarding the template {{Spaceport}} used on this page, please join the discussion at Template talk:Spaceport#Shorter names.

(sdsds - talk) 23:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

Write here

80 degrees east instead of 70 70 puts you in the Arabian Sea 216.36.151.192 (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BrainMarble (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the status o application fo electonic mech[edit]

sir i have applied for above said subject si want to know about this application —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.139.226 (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the centre layout[edit]

The article would be much improved with an image of the physical layout of SDSC. I've seen one image in the Encyclopedia Astronautica link that is in the External Refs, but does anyone know of one that would be free to use on Wikipedia? NASA makes all of their public info free to use on Wikipedia, but I'm unfamiliar with ISRO policy on the matter. N2e (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location justification[edit]

Any justification on why this location has been picked will be highly appreciated. What is it about Sriharikota that makes it ideal for rocket launching? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why 4 articles?[edit]

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 apparent consensus was Do Not Merge. Votes - 0 Support, 2 Oppose and 0 Neutral. Closing this discussion after 2 weeks of no comments relating to the subject. - Jayadevp13 01:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with

Why do we have this article and an article about each launch pad? Shouldn't the other three articles just be merged into this one?--ukexpat (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me, depending on the amount of sourced detail about each launch pad. Long history of many lauches, with significant sourced material about the launch pad in particular might argue for sub-articles. But if not, I would support a merge. If you get around to making a formal proposal, with links to the articles you think ought to be merged, rationale, etc, invite me back and I'll weigh in on the formal proposal then. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, splitting articles should come once the length is so great and the individual subjects so notable that splitting them is necessary, not in anticipation of that. With 28 at the first and 10 and the seconds pad, I would expect more info to be available to create an article but apparently not. Essentially it's WP:too soon, especially for launch pad 3 which has yet to be used. Not enough information available about this topic to warrant a dedicated article. This can be adequately covered in the parent article. A dedicated article on each pad is not necessary. Perhaps one day but not today. RadioFan (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioFan: According to WP:too soon the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered. It is clearly said if sources do not exist only then it's too soon. But the all the sources in the TLP article are secondary or tertiary and not primary ones. - Jayadevp13 12:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose, the FLP and SLP articles are already beyond stubs and have plenty of room for expansion. No real case has been made to merge. I'm also confused as to why we need separate discussions on this. --W. D. Graham 23:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment each article on the pads are barely beyond stubs and could easily be covered in the main article on the site. There isn't that much unique to say about each launch pad and there is much duplication between the articles. Better to merge them back into the main article than have them lost to deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. While they are a little short at the moment, there is scope to expand them - with enough time and research we could produce something like Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 - indeed several articles on US launch complexes are already well beyond stubs which proves it can be done. If there is no article to expand then it will never get expanded. I think having them "lost to deletion" is an unlikely scenario - if they are even nominated and the nominator can make a sufficient case - which I find unlikely, the outcome of that discussion is at worst going to be a forced merger. In the meantime we have a chance to make something of these articles to prove that they shouldn't be deleted. --W. D. Graham 11:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose according to instructions at Wikipedia:Merging section Reasons for merger. It is written that merging should be avoided if - "topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles" and "topics are discrete (different) subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short". All the three articles are much above stubs. The TLP article is long enough and the sources can also be trusted. It was even fully reviewed for a successful DYK nomination (see article's talk page). I literally do not see anything in common between the TLP article and that of FLP and SLP. - Jayadevp13 04:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 is an excellent example of why a merge is appropriate here and your idea to use KSC articles as models is an excellent one as SDSC makes progress towards manned spaceflight. The LC39 article encompasses 2 launch pads, precisely what is being proposed for the pad article here. LC39A and LC39B do not have individual articles, each pad and it's specifics are mentioned in the infobox. Perhaps merger to a central Satish Dhawan Space Centre launch pads would be a good compromise here. These articles are not 'a little short', they are stubs, as was judged by 3 separate projects (Spaceflight, Rocketry, and India). The article on the space center itself is rated 'start'. Instead of spending time breaking out these articles with the hope that they grow, the focus needs to be on expanding them, something that is going to be more difficult with 4 articles than 1 (merge into Satish Dhawan Space Centre) or 2 (merge into Satish Dhawan Space Centre launch pads).--RadioFan (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LC-39 is a single complex with two pads, whereas here each pad has its own complex, so it's not the same scenario (the use of "pad" in the titles here is a matter of terminology). If FLP and SLP used the same integration and support facilities, and it was just a matter of which pad the rocket was placed on, then merging to a single article about the pads would make sense, however these are completely different. --W. D. Graham 15:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the 45 year history, 150+ launches of LC39 A & B and description of its facilities including support for human spaceflight can be covered in a single article, certainly the 2 active pads plus one intended for human spaceflight under construction at SDSC can be similarly covered in a single article rather than 3. I'm not seeing much differentiation in the support facilities at each pad. Could you weigh in on the proposal to merge to a single article on the pads, I think the proposal to merge to this main article on the center is off the table at this point.--RadioFan (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are very significant differences between the two complexes - to give one example example at FLP the rockets are stacked on the pad, while at SLP they are assembled off-pad and rolled out vertically - so each article can include details of the assembly process and the SLP article can also talk about the integration building and transportation process, while the FLP one can discuss the pad's MST (for the record SLP doesn't have an MST). With regards having one article for all three pads, I'm still against that - again, LC-39 is a single complex with two pads, while SDSC is several distinct complexes. If the articles are too short then expansion is the logical solution. While I realise the current situation is not ideal as ISRO don't publish much about the history of the pads, we can still include a detailed launch history, details of how the rockets are processed, and we can try to find out more historical information to add to them. Once you merge, you take away that opportunity for expansion and it is hard to go back to having separate articles once somebody is willing and able to expand them further. --W. D. Graham 21:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support what WDGraham said. - Jayadevp13 15:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioFan: Just for your information, the Satish Dhawan Space Centre First Launch Pad article was last accessed in March 2012. It was then about 1 Kb but now it is 3 Kb. Almost tripled. The Satish Dhawan Space Centre Second Launch Pad article was also last accessed in March 2012. It was then about 2 Kb but now it is 3 Kb. The Satish Dhawan Space Centre Third Launch Pad article is already about 5 Kb. It has not yet been accessed though. I don't want to use this data for anything but just telling that there has been a slight improvement in these articles. - Jayadevp13 16:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for bringing those numbers to the discussion. That "slight" improvement doesn't do much to demonstrate an interest from the community in maintaining these articles in their current state. Other editors seem to be having the same problem I'm having finding reliable 3rd party sources which cover the individual launch pads in any detail. Much easier to find sources and tell the story of the three launch facilities together. Even ISRO includes the two pads on a single page in the description of the facilities there, and doesn't even mention the 3rd pad--RadioFan (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioFan: Welcome! But I do like your idea of creating a single page for all launch pads. Just inform here and wait for 2-3 days before making any move. - Jayadevp13 15:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioFan and WDGraham: I propose closing this discussion on/after 23 July 2013 (2 weeks of no comments relating to the subject). Since you both are the people making most of the comments here (excluding me), I need to make sure that you have no problem with my proposal. You have 3 days time to give your opinion otherwise this discussion will be closed by me. Regards. Let peace be upon you - Jayadevp13 07:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please restate your proposal.--RadioFan (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioFan: I didn't understand understand what you meant. Could you please explain? - Jayadevp13 15:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just above you ask that we make sure that we " have no problem with my proposal", please restate what that proposal is so that we are all clear before moving forward.--RadioFan (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See I was just proposing to close this discussion. The final decision will be that your merger proposal has been rejected per consensus. - Jayadevp13 16:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Interesting math in Section "Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)"[edit]

To quote the mathematically-impossible line from the titular section

Since then out of 23 launches, PSLV has recorded 23 successes, 1 failure and 1 partial failure.

ibsteve2u (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You can do it, too! Cheers, N2e (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Satish Dhawan Space Centre. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050820031940/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/SPACE/space-centers.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SPACE/space-centers.html#SHAR%20-%20Sriharikota%20Launching%20Range

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Satish Dhawan Space Centre. 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) 08:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Satish Dhawan Space Centre. 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://web.archive.org/web/20101030063119/http://www.sharicons.com/shar.html to http://www.sharicons.com/shar.html

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) 20:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Private Companies[edit]

Hello , just a doubt , as of the publication of this private companies like Agnikul Cosmos also are setting up launch complexes on shriharikota island, inside SDSC what should we do to creat articles like Agnikul Launch PAD 1 ( Dhanush ) ? Pls see links and can someone clarify this ?
www.indiatoday.in/amp/science/story/agnikul-cosmos-begins-integrating-rocket-on-indias-first-private-launchpad-2422518-2023-08-17
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/agnikul-cosmos-to-launch-rocket-from-own-launchpad/amp_articleshow/108659725.cms
https://www.business-standard.com/amp/companies/start-ups/history-set-to-be-made-india-s-first-pvt-launchpad-readies-for-takeoff-124020500896_1.html
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/chennai-based-agnikul-cosmos-begins-integration-of-its-first-satellite-rocket-with-launchpad-at-sdsc-shar-in-sriharikota/article67205052.ece/amp/
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/chennai-based-agnikul-cosmos-begins-integration-of-its-first-satellite-rocket-with-launchpad-at-sdsc-shar-in-sriharikota/article67205052.ece/amp/

Thanks in advance! RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]