Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Manned Orbiting Laboratory
The following discussion 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.
Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Manned Orbiting Laboratory[edit]
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Manned Orbiting Laboratory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Secret US Air Force project to develop a manned spy satellite. Article has been around sine 2004, but the release of documents in 2015, including an official history, allows its story to be told. Has recently passed a GA review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Image review
All images appear to be free and correctly licensed. However, I do wonder if the article could be improved by reducing the galleries a bit by removing a few images. For instance, it's not obvious to me whether the reader's understanding is improved by the picture of the heat shield. (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- The major difference between the Gemini and its Air Force twin Gemini B is the hatch in the heat shield. Its mentioned five times in the article. Testing it was the reason for the test flight. I thought the readers might be curious as to what it looked like. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Comments Support by Constantine[edit]
Looks very interesting, will read and comment here over the following days. Constantine ✍ 20:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
but concerns were raised as to whether permission to land in Brazil would be forthcoming why is this relevant here?Just out of curiosity, how plausible was to expect anyone to overlook the project's military purpose when the POTUS announces an orbital facility run by USAF instead of NASA? Put another way, what was the public justification (including to Congress) for a parallel space programme, given the already enormous costs of NASA? This is sort-of mentioned in the article when dealing with its delays and eventual cancellation, and the "concerns about how the MOL was viewed by the international community" are hinted at, but perhaps it should be explicitly stated.- In the early days of the space program, the distinction between military and civil uses of space were uncertain and unclear: communications, weather, geodesy and global positioning all had military as well as civil uses, and the military had all the resources in terms of rockets, development and launch facilities, and trained scientific and technical personnel. That NASA picked up the manned space program was something of a quirk of fate. Debate in Congress is discussed in the Launch complex section. I have added a couple of extra paragraphs to the "Public responses" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Gen. Schriever's photo is the first image in the main article, but he is first mentioned in the text further down. I'd recommend adding to the caption an explanation that informs the reader at a glance of his connection/importance to the MOL program. Ditto for Bleymaier.
Otherwise this is really an outstanding article, that deals with the subject in a comprehensive way. Given its length and complexity, I will do another couple of read-throughs, but I don't think there are any major obstacles to supporting. Constantine ✍ 09:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I just completed a re-read, and these are my final concerns:
Mayo argued that the resolution provided by Gambit 3, and proposed something is missing here- advice to fly the first mission manned was a mistake but the first mission was flown unmanned? The gist in this section seems to be that they should have flown manned, which then would have prevented cancellation, but this doesn't fit. Is something missing?
- Good point. I think by "empty can" he still meant a crewed mission, but without the optics. reworded this paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- There's still the "Although" which doesn't quite make sense. Constantine ✍ 11:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Good point. I think by "empty can" he still meant a crewed mission, but without the optics. reworded this paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The file with the caption "The MOL program used state-of-the-art computers for design and simulation" appears somewhat unconnected to the section it is placed in. I'd also suggest adding a reference to the caption itself, since this is an assertion that requires attribution.
Otherwise I really cannot find anything to complain about... Constantine ✍ 19:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- No further comments, switching to support. Constantine ✍ 19:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Support Comments from Ykraps[edit]
Not my area of expertise but looks like it's in danger of being overlooked, which would be a shame. Here goes...--Ykraps (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Lead:
"Astronauts selected for the program were later told of the secret reconnaissance mission". I feel I'm missing something here. What secret reconnaissance mission?
Infobox:
Infers it spent 40 days in orbit but from what I can gather from the lead, it was cancelled before it went into space. Am I missing something?
Background:
"In July 1957.... .....telescopes and other observation devices". I'm having trouble understanding this sentence. Can you check for typos, omissions etc?
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I think I understand now. It looks like 'the employment of space vehicles' was the title of the paper. I think it's much better to leave it out altogether, as you have done, but if you really wanted to keep it, you could capitalise the initials and put in quotation marks or italics. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. Assuming it is a title of course.
"The USAF already started..." Shouldn't that be had already started?
"...that it was hoped that spy satellites..." Do we need the second 'that'?
"...and March 1959..." Should that be "and in March 1959"?
Could do with a link for sub-orbital. Not sure which is most appropriate, Sub-orbital spaceflight or Geocentric orbit perhaps?
Planning:
RFP?- A request for proposal Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Missed that, sorry.
- A request for proposal Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
"...one that secret and publicly unacknowledged.." Is that, "onethatsecret and publicly unacknowledged" or "...one that was secret and publicly unacknowledged"
What's a shirt-sleeve environment?- A shirt-sleeve environment is one where you don't need to wear a spacesuit. Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Missed that too. Although I could probably have worked it out if I'd thought about it a bit more.
- A shirt-sleeve environment is one where you don't need to wear a spacesuit. Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The flight schedule at the end of this section; is it a proposed flight schedule or did some of it actually occur? I notice that bullet point 3 says, "would have". Can we make it equally clear which bits did not happen? Or, if none of it went ahead, you could just label it "proposed schedule", or similar.- "Schedule" doesn't mean anything happened; but added "planned". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- wikt:schedule: "A procedural plan, usually but not necessarily tabular in nature, indicating a sequence of operations and the planned times at which those operations are to occur." I considered adding "planned", but another Wikipedian would likely remove it as a tautology. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Modules:
- I think
imperial units[[United States customary units]] ought to come first in an Am Eng article.I don't suppose you call them imperial units so I hope you understand what I mean
Also, I think there is a way to get the template to spell metre as meter.
I like to think most people are familiar with nautical miles but you can add a link to the template by adding lk=on Just a suggestion.
"...the main Dorian camera had..." Switches to imperial units first template. See my first point in this section.
On subsequent mentions, you can abbreviate nautical miles by adding abbr=on to the template. Again, just a suggestion.
Gallery:
- It would be well worth having a word with the people at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop to see if they can straighten that image. You know the one! I won't let it hold up this review though.
Spacesuits:
Link Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Unless I missed that one as well.
Astronauts:
"When it came to selecting astronauts for MOL, the commandant of the ARPS, Schriever took the advice of Colonel Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager, the commandant of the ARPS, and restricted selection to ARPS graduates". I'm a little bit confused here by the apparent repetition of "the commandant of the ARPS". Is this sentence correct?
"To prevent their return to the Navy, Finley and Truly stayed at ARPS as instructors until the announcement". I Don't quite understand why they would be required to return to the Navy. Also, would this sentence be better after the list, when Finley and Truly have been introduced as MOL pilots and linked to their articles.- because they were Navy officers. The navy expects its officers to sail ships and fly airplanes and the other stuff sailors do. They were at ARPS on a training course.
- I assumed they had been released from their normal duties.
More to come.--Ykraps (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Training:
Probably explained already but what are win sessions?Why would launched from the west coast lead to assumptions the mission was reconnaissance?
Cancellation:
"...could shift from its regular 80 nautical mile orbit to a 200 to 300 nautical mile..." you could use nmi abbreviation here."...for the MOL to be cancelled..." Canceled?
Legacy:
"At the time of the MOL was cancelled..." Don't think 'of' should be in there and 'canceled' again."Those that did not transfer..." Shouldn't that be those who did not transfer?I think Wright Patterson Airforce Base is a duplicate link.
That's all folks! --Ykraps (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Source review - pass[edit]
This one's been waiting over a month, so I'll get to this later today. Hog Farm Bacon 17:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm willing to discuss any and all of these points.
- What makes Encyclopedia Astronautica a reliable source? It appears to be WP:SPS by Mark Wade. What kind of credentials does Wade have?
- Encyclopedia Astronautica is listed as a RS on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190#Johnston's Archive - self published site. Used on 12,000 articles. has some pretty solid endorsements. [1] I think he's an aerospace engineer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ditto with Gunter's Space Page
- Some of these PDFs really need page numbers. United States Air Force (8 May 1968). MOL Flight Test and Operations Plan is 523 pages long and lacks page numbers. At that point, it's like citing an entire book. I get that it's numbered within sections, so it's 7-1 and such for pages, but when the PDF is over 500 pages long, I feel like there needs to be some sort of page number for verification.
- For Erickson, you include the state where the AFB is located, but not for Eppley, probably best to be consistent here
- The second EL is dead for me. I can't tell if it's a temporary outage though, since it's not giving me a numbered code.
- " Brady 1965, p. 08." - This seems a little odd for a page number, especially since you use single digit page numbers earlier without the leading zero
- "Review of MOL Residues" is 180 pages long, lacks a page number for the citation, and has traditional page numbering methodology. I see no reason not to include a page number for verification.
- The ref "Gemini Capsule" from the AFSMM is not working for me.
- "Advanced MOL Planning" is 60 pages, could use a page number/range. Also, this title is in italics, and none of the other refs titles are italicized
- Some of the ref titles are in sentence case, others are in title case. Pick one and be consistent
- ""MOL Program Plan, Volume 1 of 2" - Over 300 pages, needs a page number/range
- SSLV-5 NO. 9 Post Firing Flight Test Report (Final Evaluation Report) and Mol EFT Final Flight Test Report" needs a publisher
- Sven's Space Place is self-published, does Grahn have credentials that would pass WP:SPS?
Experienced nominator, so no source checks done. Hog Farm Bacon 19:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]
I'll give this one a look, although it may take me a bit because of the article's length. Hog Farm Bacon 02:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Hog Farm! It only needs one more review and can then be closed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not comparing these to JennyOz's, so there may be some duplicate comments.
- Lead
- " was part of the United States Air Force's human spaceflight program. The project was developed from early USAF" - Gloss the USAF acronym after United States Air Force
- Background
- "(equivalent to $367 million in 2018)" - Are the proper inflation tables for 2019 out there to give the updated number? This applies throughout the article.
- "followed by its first piloted orbital flight in April 1966,[15][16] In a 22 February memorandum to the Secretary of the Air Force," - Looks like the comma after 1966 should be a period
- " and the initiation the MOL program." - Something is off here
- Planning
- "A $10.55 million (equivalent to $63.6 million in 2018) Fixed-price contract was signed with Douglas" - Drop the capital on Fixed
- " All-Navy crew composed of Truly and Crippen or Overmyer" - First mentions of these people. Need a short explanation of who they are.
- Astronauts
- " Four classes were conducted between June 1961, and May 1963" - Is this comma really necessary?
- "In October 1965, the MOL Policy Committee decided that MOL crew members would be designated a "MOL Aerospace Research Pilots" rather than astronauts" - as, not a, I believe
- "such as Dorian, Gambit, Hexagon, and Talent Keyhole" - I believe this is the first mentions of Hexagon and Talent Keyhole. Is there a way to link or gloss what these programs were?
Through the astronauts section. More to come later. Hog Farm Bacon 14:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Launch complex
- Polar orbit is a duplink, it was linked earlier.
- I don't believe that link to John L. Martin is the correct one.
- Ooops. Want John L. Martin Jr. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Easter Island
- "Like the NASA Gemini, the Gemini B spacecraft would splashdown in the Atlantic or Pacific oceans. In the event of an abort, it could have come down in the eastern Pacific Ocean" - The use of have in the second sentence changes the tense a bit. Unless it changes your meaning, I'd say remove the word.
- Delay and cost increases
- " Douglas wanted $815.8 million for the laboratory vehicles" - Can we get a comparison to current dollars amount?
- Cancellation
- "The value of VLR, Mayo argued, was not worth the additional cost" - Only time VLR is used. Error?
- "They thought the meeting went well, but Nixon accepted the Bureau of the Budget's recommendation to cancel the MOL and proceed with Hexagon instead" - But I thought Hexagon had been cancelled the month before?
- Legacy
- "became the point of contact for MOL Contracts were terminated" - the only way I can make this make sense is if there should be a period after MOL.
- "McDonnel-Douglas" - Watch the spelling
I do think that's it. Good work on a complex subject. Hog Farm Bacon 20:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Comments Support from Mztourist[edit]
Perhaps I'm missing it but its unclear to me what happened to the Laboratory Module after the Gemini B left it? Did it reenter the atmosphere or did it remain in orbit? The lede describes the MOL as "a single-use laboratory" but doesn't seem to given any further explanation. Mztourist (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- The MOL mockup went into a 305 x 209 km orbit. It released three OV4 satellites into low Earth orbit, and conducted some experiments. It reentered the atmosphere on 9 January 1967. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]
Hi Hawkeye, was going to make a couple of tweaks yesterday but saw was under review so .... two birds, one stone.
- protested Sputnik's overflying - is that possessive or plural - ie is overflying a noun as well as a verb?
- proceed as quickly as possible with Discover - Discoverer
- first piloted orbital flight in April 1966,[15][16] In - swap comma to full stop
- McNamara and NASA Administrator - the NASA?
- He had been the Discover/Corona program - Discoverer
- Fixed-price contract was signed - decap Fixed?
- and Pratt & Whitney for - remove and before Pratt?
- As of 1 September 1966, the MOL flight schedule was: - remove spaces before refs in this list (x 6)
- was removed since Gemini B capsule itself - the Gemini B capsule itself
- cabin was presurized with - typo ss
- had custom-made set of flight, - sets plural or a custom-made set
- between June 1961, and May 1963. - remove comma after 1961
- groups in 1959, 1962, and - remove comma before and? (or Oxfords intended?)
- MOL program office v MOL program Office v MOL Program Office
- providing crew input them. - to them
- space suit v spacesuit
- General John L. Martin suggested - wrong wlink, should be John L. Martin Jr.?
- assumption that objective of - the objective
- The cost of construction ... estimated to cost $31 million - 2 x cost, second should be "to be"
- parking areas and with asphalt, - remove and?
- built at a cost $32,500,000 - insert of
- USAF budgeted $147.9 million - at
- and $381 below what - insert million
- contracts had to be renegotiated,[45] - swap comma to full stop
- remain on orbit - in?
- Although Crippen did not think automation could not completely replace astronauts - remove second "not"?
- The value of VLR, Mayo argued - typo VHR?
- On 9 April, Nixon reduce the MOL's - reduced
- point of contact for MOL Contracts - new sentence? ie fullstop after MOL?
- on the McDonnel-Douglas contract - double L McDonnell
- McDonnell Douglas v McDonnel-Douglas
- At the time of the MOL - remove of
- on 5 November 1967, - typo, should be 15 November
- were based on materials, processes - was based (or make plural Boosters)
- Base in Dayton, Ohio (on loan - comma after Ohio
- ref 34 Homer 2019, p. 45-46. - pp
- ref 58 Homer 2019, p. 49-52. - pp
- ref 74 Homer 2019, p. 31,34. - pp
- ref 108 Homer 2019, p. 69-70. - pp
- ref 111 Homer 2019, pp. 89. - p
- ref 115 Homer 2019, pp. 72. - p
That's it. Pls let me know if you need any clarifications of my short notes. JennyOz (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- for the MOL Contracts that were terminated - now decap Contracts?
Nothing more, I am happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 04:09, 22 September 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.