Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Space missions

413:"Soyuz project" and the "Soyuz T project". Instead it had e.g. the Apollo-Soyuz preparation missions, it had the lunar Soyuz testing missions, it had the Salyut-1 missions. And for Salyut 7 it even had two "projects", with the station being empty between the two. In these case we can either do a "next Soyuz flight" link, or a "next Soyuz flight in same project", which might not be the same. We can of course use the simple way of linking the next Soyuz flights in bottom and mentioon the actual project with its precursor and follow-up missions in the text. 1771:

of 59 by 15nm for 18 hours, then an orbit of 70.3 by 54.3 nm. Then a separate LM orbit of perilune altitude 6.2 nm for 47 minutes. After leaving the moon, the LM reached 48.5nm by 9.4nm orbit for 45 minutes then went to an orbit of 64.7 by 48.5 nm then 62 by 62 nm for docking but I don't know when the CSM went to this lower orbit. It could have been there for most of the over 3 days it waited in orbit. Then 2 days 20 hours back to Earth and esentially one orbit before splashdown. Far to complicated. That doesn't touch inclinations or periods.

3239:, please take a look. You folks are the subject experts, so please edit these if I've got any wrong, or if you find/improve articles. From my perspective I think the Venera, Sputnik and Mars Express need a bit more to make B-Class, though Venera is probably very close. All these seem like important topics that we would want to include in WP1.0, so I hope they can reach A-Class soon! There are three (Apollo 11, Project Apollo and Space Shuttle program) I judged to be A-Class, you might want to consider submitting these as 5884:, and the Timeline page should be deleted. I'll tag it and it can be discussed, but it has been orphaned since March 2007, and as we're trying to standardize all the mission articles into the same format, it seemed odd for this page to have a separate timeline page hanging out there. I've also updated the project page to reflect past flights, and future, as it seems to have not been updated for almost a year (It lists STS-115 as a future flight). I don't see much discussion here, so I'm hoping someone sees this :) 5978:

6/8 people listed on a mission article have US flags next to them. Note that this has nothing to do with national pride, or with national identity, but simply used sparingly to help a reader, and not to decorate. To this end, USA astronauts need not have the flag icon next to them, as it is obvious they represent America by being with NASA. This is a relatively new guideline, so many people may not be familiar with it, so this is why I'm bringing the issue here for discussion. I've also placed this discussion on

5085: 5028: 4999: 4938: 4895: 4846: 21: 5614:

who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at

3378:

installation of the P3/P4 Truss to the ISS in just under 2 hours, Tanner and Stefanyshyn-Piper began their spacewalk to activate the truss" instead of "Following the official completion of the installation of the P3/P4 Truss to the ISS at 4:06 AM CDT (09:35 UTC) (with installation beginning at 2:48 AM CDT (07:48 UTC)), Tanner and Stefanyshyn-Piper began their spacewalk to activate the truss at 4:17 AM CDT (09:17 UTC)"?

187:) is standardizing the appearance of the table based on what already exists anyway, so I'm going to standardize more on that. Orbit data should be limited to Number of Orbits, in retrospect. Perigee, Apogee, Inclination, and Orbital period are nice, but too detailed for Knowledge (XXG), IMO. Crew I guess can be listed in the article itself under the crew entry (Number of crew members could stick around though). -- 3680:

month even), do we care what minute Tanner and Stefanyshyn-Piper stepped out of the airlock for their first EVA of STS-115? Or when they came back inside? Might it better be described instead as a "six hour and twenty-six minute EVA"? Or even a "six and a half hour EVA"? If we want to record exact timing of every event detail for a mission, maybe a "Mission Timeline" section or subpage is the right place for that?

1916: 6068:

allowing the communication to be centralized, and hopefully more active. The differences in type of the content are often what lead to the splitting of projects. It is understandable, but in the process a lot of the communication is often also lost. If people really want to keep separate "groups" of editors as well, than Taksforces can be considered, but personally, I would prefer a bigger Project. --

5419:

consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.

5017: 4884: 5101: 5069: 4981: 4956: 4920: 4865: 4830: 818:), but never came to more then just a few when the next project absorbed me. As that was when I was new to Knowledge (XXG) I didn't know about the Wikiprojects yet, and then didn't find the time to return to the space mission except to add minor details sometimes. So it's a good idea to revive this project, and at first unify those space missions already existing. 1247:

kilometres by the Shuttle. They just aren't hard and fast numbers. I agree however that we need to include a general idea of orbital height as Hubble-Shuttle flights are much higher than ISS flights, which in turn are higher than the later Apollo flights which in some cases were in orbits that barely would have survived a couple a orbits before decaying. --

686:) that there perhaps should be a WikiProject standardizing the appearance of space mission entries. I'm not sure whether it would apply to both crewed and uncrewed missions, or just crewed missions, but I figured it might be a good idea to at least standardize on a footer to help navigate through the various missions, much like rulers of countries (e.g. 2661:. I am reasonably certain that the compounds table has been implemented in more articles than this project's table, so I think this project should switch to something not already taken. I'd be willing to do the labor of changing the table where it already exists, if the list above (or another one somewhere else) is complete so I can find them all. 5451: 4077:

national standard in an international project, like wikipedia, considered that using the "double units" like 1 m (3 ft) affects readability, in my opinion. Still I think that space projects where the internal documentation uses UScu are a perfect exception to this rule, because having imperial units too makes checking sources easyer. //

2562:

non-space shuttle flights, and spacecraft name for Space Shuttle flights (unless there's proof that there are different callsigns for space shuttle flights, in which case you would just use both. You could always use spacecraft name for those little detailed data pieces (like Soyuz-TM OK #37 or whatever it says on Astronautix) --

5402:. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at 3684:(Yes, times of launch and landing, first human footstep on the surface of Mars, etc are notable. I support recording them in the encyclopedia and using "local" time to do so. The Manual of Style also then encourages us to have sympathy for those millions of readers not in the same timezone as the event and include UTC.) 3375:. It can pretty easily be seen that a typical shuttle mission could reasonably have times cited in EDT (launch facility), CDT (control), PDT (landing facility), and UTC (spacewalks etc). (Throw in the possibility of the mission spanning one of the switches to/from DST and the whole thing gets even more ugly.) 830:

interesting thing that it describes are mission achievements; most early missions have certain unique achievement (First satellite in orbit, first around Venus, first man on the Moon etc.) and perhaps this should be added to the template (I don't think in the table, but a standard paragraph would be nice).

5284:

A subpage or a different position might well be necessary if a larger definition of crew is used. I realised how long the list could get when thinking about the later Apollo missions, where you might have six or seven Capcoms plus six or seven flight directors. However, I can't yet think of a logical

5220:

4) Country designators for the support crew somehow doesn't seem appropriate.. i can't pin-point why, though. i suppose, by analogy, astronauts are like olympians - but it's the nationality of the athlete, not the coach, that counts. and flags looks pretty, but i don't know how one could standardize,

5214:

3) The (#) notation doesn't seem as appropriate for a backup crew, since it would mean "The number of spaceflights they would have had at the time of launch".. while somewhat relavant (i.e. "backup crew experience"), it looks nicer with numbers only next to people who actually went on the spaceflight

4086:

Then you should have no complaints with everything only in American units because having read once pounds, you should be freely and easily converting it in your head to kilograms. For the rest of the world, double units are indicated. Anyway this has been extensively debated at the appropriate place:

3845:

I should have added above that there's still something that makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck about this, though. I know that a lot of the diagrams and blurbs we see come out of NASA use imperial units, but I wonder if that's not already translated from SI because they know the audience

3640:

For events on Earth, such as launches, the local date and time should be used. For extraterrestrial events, if the date itself has historical significance or relates to simultaneous events on Earth (such as July 20, 1969) or there is an large body of existing references to a local time zone (such as

2529:

Shrink width of space mission table... I'd like to suggest changing some of the wording on the mission table to make it a bit narrower. Specifically, I would change "Number of Crew Members" to "Crew" and "Number of Orbits" to "Orbits". This results in a table like that at right. A good example is

1655:

and 17 but I didn't add Mission Parameters headers since none of them are applicable to lunar missions. And I should add that I think satellite weight is misleading. The common conpt of satellite does not include spacecraft. Coudln't it just be spacecraft weight? And for lunar missions which weight -

1398:

Indeed the roman numerals were used once upon a time, but that was a long time ago, and arabics are now the most common (Google shows a 10 to 1 ratio), not to mention the part where roman numerals are harder to read. So your redirs are backwards. So as to preserve history, a sysop will have to delete

165:

I would suggest to do it similar like it is already in the few Space Shuttle missions already existing. We also should not make the fact sheet too long, especially when the article itself gets so much short then it looks just ugly. For example the crew listing can better fit into the text, especially

6067:

I think I can support this. I have a suggestion though: I think we should organize it somewhat like WP:Television. Lets have "guides" for the different type of contents the project covers. That makes sure that every different type of content is still properly addressed within the project, while also

5336:

according to the proposed crew listing format above and added some text to the section. It was writing this text that made me notice that the Soyuz ISS crew transport missions really don't have much to say about them other than they took a few people to ISS and they brought (mostly) the same people

5238:

Is there are policy as to what support crew should be included? I have been adding flight directors to the lists for the Apollo missions, because I believe that their contribution is notable and because it is something that people are likely to look up. But where is the line drawn? If we are to list

4441:

I definitely think that we should keep the numbers, since they are mildly interesting, and already there; perhaps so consistancy would be nice.. i'm pretty sure the numbers on the STS missions is that number of spaceflights they've had up to and including the mission in the article is about. For the

3948:

This may indeed be a scientific project, but it exists in the larger context of wikipedia. The MoS is designed to create standardization, but also to allow the subject matter to be comprehensible to anyone speaking the language in which the wikipedia is written. That is, I'm of the opinion that we

3745:

The decision to only use metric units in the articles has me perplexed. While I understand the desire for uniformity, the entire United States space program was/is designed, executed, and reported using United States customary units. It seems strange to omit these units from the articles when NASA

3538:

control center is in Germany, right? So ESA press releases may well use that timezone. JAXA will be in the mix soon too. Either Knowledge (XXG) readers are all going to need to learn to convert from multiple timezones, or Knowledge (XXG) editors are. I favor putting the burden on editors rather than

2825:

I agree with you that the space missions is basically manned space missions. I second the need for a seperate wikiproject to standardize unmanned space missions. My only disagreement is that term "exploration" he used. I'd like a more generalized template that can include all unmanned spacecraft,

2589:

If we went with the latter we would end up with alot of repeating eg [[Soyuz 26 article would mention that it launched the first permanent crew to Salyut 6 who returned to Earth in Soyuz 27 and that the crew of Soyuz 27 returned to Earth Soyuz 26. It also doesn't make sense as the spacecraft doesn't

1886:

Maybe we should set up a Wikiproject for rockets and missiles. Although I agree that a complete standardisation is impossible, it would be nice to see the major rocket types with standardised table. I think that the Saturn V table would be a good template - a picture of the rocket just after launch,

1745:

I think we should think about splitting that into four separate articles (although perhaps not immediately, because there's not yet enough in there to differentiate. However, I can't help but think that surely all four of these didn't have the exact same mission, regardless of how many similarities

1293:

Anyway, I've been writing Soyuz articles for E2 and will add them as soon as I can get them from there. Just one thought though on early missions. I think that it should be mentioned in the articles that most of the patches on all the Mercury missions, Gemini 3 and most Soviet flights are not really

978:

Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Perigee, Apogee, Inclination, and Period can be obtained for any of the manned flights I believe... But still, my inclination is to exclude these bits of info in the interest of keeping the table short (unless it shouldn't be an issue)... We need to settle on

960:

I'd rather like to keep the tables as clean as possible, and while I think knowing the perigee, apogee, inclination, and period are important, I don't think they're important enough for MANNED flights (which already have enough space taken up with the patch and so forth). I think those should go on

5977:

represents the US, and it is a given that NASA astronauts represent America. However, when the astronauts on missions are representing countries other than NASA, it is appropriate to specify this, although the MOS would still discourage the use of the flag icon. The icons are quite distracting when

5810:

I agree with the observation: Wikiproject: Space Missions doesn't seem to have been particularly active. Perhaps the first step would be to begin some discussion here, on the project discussion page, about the proper course to take to correct this deficiency. One approach would be to create another

5798:

1. The project has a total overhaul with wikipedians who are actually going to keep the project running properly restarting it and operating it as it should be. 2. Forking a daughter project dedicated to Space Shuttle Missions (goodness knows we have enough pages to keep up-to-date) off the project

5708:

Seems to me to be a deeply, deeply problematic article, in that the whole premise (that is, evidence of moon landings provided by NASA or its subonctractors is untrustworthy) is flawed. If it doesn't improve very soon, I would support deletion. There are other good ways to create subarticles of the

5637:

Please be aware that neither NASA nor ESA prefers this terminology. NASA uses "crewed" to refer to current and planned missions, and "human spaceflight" more generally. There's a reason why the older terminology has become antiquated, and wikipedia should follow the lead of these government space

5613:

proposal for an appreciation week to end on Knowledge (XXG) Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals

5559:

I think human spaceflight is about accomplishing things that can't be done without human minds/hands/etc. But the _mission_ is the key. And I think often the description of the mission coming before the listing of the crew can help explain peculiarities in the crew listing, like crew members that

4428:

I think this information is already better presented on each individual's article and should be removed from the mission pages. If the individual's flight is notable for some reason, it could be spelled out in the article itself. ("This mission was John Doe's twentieth trip into space, surpassing

2953:

If not this, then we could create our own template based closely on this to maintain a common look-and-feel as well as common coding practice across Knowledge (XXG). (if you're wondering why the "start box" and "end box" templates at the ends, it's to allow multiple succession boxes to be combined.

2561:

Because the place I see it most used would be STS missions. I mean, theoretically (and I believe this is true), Columbia, Challenger, and so forth would be call signs as well, but it would be more appropriate to put it in under spacecraft name. In essence, I believe it should be call sign for all

1770:

Still not sure what Mission Parameters will work for lunar missions. All of the standard ones are to simple. For example for Apollo 17 you have 2 initial earth orbits at 93nm, then the trans-earth coast for 3 days, 7 hours. Then a CSM/LM lunar orbit of 170nm by 52.6 nm for four hours, then an orbit

469:

I disagree with one of the naming points, that is concerning astronauts. I would suggest using cosmonaut for Soviet/Russian ones and astronaut for all others. We certainly don't want to start uses 32 different names representing each country that has flown someone in space. I also doubt that either

146:

For the fact sheet - I don't like the colored background for the mission insignia. For one transparent images are not that easy to create (AFAIK IE has problems with transparent PNG, and JPEG cannot be transparent at all), it also looks better with a standard white background. I prefer the color in

100:

One thing to consider: there is not always a 1:1 correspondence between a "launch" and a "mission" - especially the space station missions have one long term station crew, as well as visiting crews to exchange the Soyuz, or even a partial exchange of the long term crew. This can be seen e.g. by the

5794:

I would like, please, to gauge everyone's thoughts regarding the Wikiproject that is supposed to be governing pages such as this, Wikiproject: Space Missions. As far as I can see, the project seems to be in total meltdown, with no real updates to the project page since August 2006, inactivity with

5547:

I think that human spaceflight is fundamentally about launching a crew. Therefore I don't want to have to scroll down halfway through the article to find out who the crew was. Therefore, I wanted to express here my preference for the "traditional" organization of the articles where the crew is the

5256:

I had a related thought yesterday when I realized that a lot of the Soyuz TMA-# articles are really just crew lists and a few factoids. For missions that are more than just crew transports, maybe we should move and/or break up the crew listing. Is the crew really so importatnt as to be the first

4357:

It's occurred to me that there's an extrenmely major fault with the Space Shuttle SRB page - the entire article is written as if the SRBs carry the Orbiter, when in fact the Orbiter is capable of lifting itself off the ground - the SRBs are only there to heft the fuel tank off the launchpad. Oops!

3863:

If that's the case, then WikiPedists shouldn't feel compelled to susbscribe to the same policy. However, since most of the sources we can cite for space mission information are press releases and not actual NASA-internal sources, I don't know that we have a choice. Now would be a good time for a

3749:

I know that the project desires to use "scientific" units, but I feel it is almost misleading to force the use of only metric in the article, when that misrepresents almost all of the original scientific work that went into the vehicle. For instance, the Apollo System Specification from 1963 says

3509:

I think it would be better if a single time format was used throughout, so I would suggest using GMT/UTC/UT/Zulu (whatever you want to call it) as the primary format for all instances, with local time in parenthesis, even if they are specific. This will prevent the articles looking scrappy as they

2979:

BA-n for the Beach Abort Test(s) which didn't really use a launch vehicle per-se but rather just the escape tower rockets. It's unclear whether there was more than one Beach Abort test, one source claims that there were three, but I've only found one mentioned in the official NASA project summary

2918:

Over in the biography-oriented Wikiprojects there have been a number of "succession box" templates developed for putting little tables at the bottoms of pages to keep track of who held what titles and offices over time. I'm thinking that we could easily use those templates for space missions, too.

2286:

Units. In some cases I think it is important to retain the original units to which an item was built. Case in point: the F-1 engine. It was built to be a 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 (later) lbs thrust engine. Listing it only as 4,500,000 or 6,670,000 newtons leaves one thinking "why did they choose

2143:

suggested possibly placing the image along side the text, as rockets tend to be long and skinny. I think that would be expecially nice with a broken up image featuring each stage seperately, so the stage images would line up with the stage text. Obviously that doesn't work for all rockets, but i

1281:

Yes. Orbits should be removed and replaced as needed. Especially with the lunar flights. Orbits are practically unnecessary for satellites, since they tend to have a large number of orbits before coming down. I would, however, recommend that "Time on Lunar Surface" be moved above EVA (where it

109:

This is true. I think ideally, we should mention crew changes on the space station, but we should keep them as separate missions from the actual spaceflights. It remains to be seen how it would be best to manage this in cases where there is no mission name for a long-term crew on Mir/ISS/etc. --

5178:

Where do citations go? I think a cite for the whole section could be sufficient, but putting it on the "Crew" label makes it appear in the ToC, which is ugly. Putting the cite on either the first or last group doesn't make it clear that the cite is for the entire section. Putting a cite on each

4368:

It says "The Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) is the rocket that provides 83% of liftoff thrust for the Space Shuttle." This statement is correct. While the SSMEs are powerful enough to lift the orbiter off the ground in theory, the vehicle is going to space. The article very acurately

3679:

I think what all this leads to is the realization that most specific times probably aren't that "encyclopedic" anyway. I might have opened a pointless can of worms worrying about an article detailing a current event, where times mean more than they will in the long-term. Really, in a year (or a

412:

But it only have this clear projects for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo - for STS most missions actually stand for themself (but for example the Hubble Servicing missions are somewhat linked), and the Russian flights are numbered, but there is no "Soyuz project", especially no distinction between the

5418:

are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please

4076:

In my opinion, it is not a question of "understanding": just like I can understand what a pound is by reading once the appropriate article, I guess the average american has enough IQ to understand what a kilogram is, that's not a hard concept. The question is using an international standard or a

1258:

I do agree that data is nice, but too much data becomes useless for most people. That's why I haven't put Apogee and so forth in the table. Crew names would be helpful in the table, BUT they make the table far too wide in many cases. I'm pretty much for whatever the consensus is regarding the

601:

On a personal note, I agree with manned over crewed (especially due to historical reasons), but in the interest of lack of sexism and so that we won't have strife, I decided that we should have crewed (as it's less likely to spart an argument than manned is). If we can come to an agreement that

4687:

anyway, to do this, for example, add {{WP Space exploration|class=B|importance=Mid}} to the Talk page. the banner also has a link to a pretty bot generated list (update once a day, around 10am UTC) of all articles with the Space exploration tag. so feel free to help out, and tag and assess some

4486:

I recently removed it from the earlier STS mission to make them consistent. I didn't realize it was used elsewhere. I think the numbers are more useful as it relates to the mission itself. (shows who is a rookie). All career flights should be listed already in each astronaut's personal article.

2634:

that this is a unique situation. We also insert the footer for various world leaders, but it makes absolute sense to leave it out in one-man regimes. Not every situation warrants the inclusion of every element of the template. The template is designed to include information that is found in all

1152:

I think the addition of these parameters to the ends of the articles is incredibly ugly - we already have a (large) data table, which I think would be a far more logical place to put this data. Personally, I think that details such as perigee/apogee/inclination are probably too esoteric for the

829:

I have a book that covers early space missions and could add at least stubs on a lot of those that don't have them already. The book includes orbital parameters of the missions and I think that these should be added to articles whenever possible so I wanted to discuss their format here. Another

4763:

But, there has been no recorded discussion/consensus that I can find on presentation of the crew section of mission articles. So, we decided to bring the discussion here to get a wider audience, to get some consistency across space mission articles, and because WP:Space missions has discussed

3827:

Beyond the argument that these are US ships/missions that should probably be in US units is the argumement of accuracy. For better or for worse, the ships were built to precise specifications outlined in US units. Stating specifications only in metric (as is done on many pages) leads to less

3636:

The Manual of Style is pretty clear on what time zone to use as well: "When writing a date, first consider where the event happened and use the time zone there. For example, the date of the Attack on Pearl Harbor should be December 7, 1941 (Hawaii time/date). If it is difficult to judge where,

2349:

page. The great thing about the metric system is that zeros can be readily dropped to remove clutter... :) I guess the same thing can be done in imperial by using words. I think that 7.5 million pounds is somehow more meaningful than 7,500,000 pounds. And of course 33.4 MN is a lot tidier than

2295:

I'll admit I was the one that changed all the lbs to Newtons. I've modified it as I realise now that it is important to include these numbers as in the early 1960s when the rockets were first envisaged they were described as 1.5 million lbs of thrust per engine. I've only added it back for the

1246:

I like the idea of adding the crew names to the table, maybe also with their positions (CDR, LMP etc). Personally I don't like the idea of the mission parameters. Most missions have some orbit changes and on ISS-Shuttle missions there is usually a gradual raising of the orbit by maybe a dozen

998:

I don't see why it would be important on unmanned flights and not on manned. Of course, sometimes the orbit was changing, so if it is impossible to follow the changes it should be dropped. Perhaps it could be the best to add data in a standard heading, not in the primary table. Something like

1866:

table. Each of the Titans has a story that should be turned into a seperate page, so some day it'll get split up. I've also left some fields of the table blank when I couldn't find (trustworthy) values for them to provide some incentive for others to fill them in. I used the same table at

2993:

There was also an MR-BD (for Booster Development) flight which was inserted between MR-2 (which carried Ham) and MR-3 which was the first manned Mercury flight, because the Redstone on the Ham flight overperformed. Since this was a booster test, the payload was a boilerplate capsule, not a

3377:

Is it the case that only missions that are ongoing or very recent have this problem? As things get further in the past, do exact times matter (in an encyclopedia)? Or could we just drop the time that most events take place and leave (for example) "Following the official completion of the

3306:

I've just cleaned out a load of linkspam from space-related articles. The major offender was space.gs, who spam us extensively and often, but I also found "sister sites" of theirs (ie, a new domain and same republished dross) - these others were astronautics.org.uk, exploration-space.com,

3003:

MA-1 (which was overall flight number 8 ignoring the two questionable Beach Abort "flights") actually preceded the first MR flight, which was overall flight no 10. I'll put these overall flight numbers in parentheses below, but keep in mind that NASA never used sequential overall numbers.

5943:

An article is up for deletion where a key claim for notability is that this person might have been the first to "successfully calculate the way to inject a satellite into a geosynchronous orbit" Some expert opinions and reliable sources on the validity of this claim would be appreciated.

166:

when it has a backup crew, or a alternate Payload Specialist, or the ISS crew has the Mission Specialist # position during the ascent, and the ones returning from ISS will have that number on descent. If you want to fit this all into the fact sheet it will explode. As another example see

3606:

Argh. Of course now that I try to separate date format from time format, I think of a problem... We need to be sure that the date listed actually matches the time listed. For example, a launch from Kennedy Space Center at 20:25 EDT on 12 September would really occur at 00:25 UTC on 13

1203:

I'm just wondering whether the level of detail in these parameters is really encyclopaedic? But I'm not raising any really strong objection to it... I *am* suggesting, though, that if we're going to include them, we make them part of the table, which is not the case at the moment (see

532:(as it currently is), and I doubt anyone will disagree with me. I do like the "naut" ending, but it's not really official in any respect, so I do not really support its use for Chinese astronauts. Others may choose to disagree however, but I personally think it's a choice between 373:

Since the program link should explain any abnormalities in numbering I think we can skip the unmanned ones. (Of course the Mercury page doesn't explain why there is no Mercury 5 yet!) Also I found that the Apollo mision had a slightly different box already. Should we standardize?

3204:

quality. They have the most important facts, and not much else (including copyright or POV). How much do we need for "B-class", really? If they don't muster, it wouldn't take much work to push them over the edge, but it's just not too clear from the criteria page supplied.

602:

manned is perfectly acceptable, then I have no problems with changing the spec, but since I'm interested in keeping fights over this to a low roar, the official stance right NOW is to keep it "crewed". Feel free to debate until we agree (if we do) that manned is better. --

5376:

Some more work on the matter has led me to believe that this can be cleaned up even more. With good introductory text, the "Launched" and "Landed" breakouts can be eliminated and just list the crew in the list and explain if there is a crew change mid-mission in the text.

2333:

I'll admit to being the one who originally cropped and scaled down the nasa image. I felt 10k was about all i wanted to force a modem user to endure. I did link to the full-scale nasa image on the image page itself, however. The new image is ~80k, the old one was ~11k.

1676:. I mean, obviously some things have to be changed to work. Apogee and Perigee could still work, as Apoluna and Periluna (closest and furthest points from the moon, obviously) and orbital time around the moon, etc. I couldn't tell you if these data are known though. -- 694:) have a navigation system. It wouldn't hurt to standardize on a method of describing the location/time of launch, location/time of landing, crew names, and mission badges (if applicable). Anyone else agree? I'll lay out the template if people say it's a good idea. -- 3067:

User:Knowledge Seeker has started to italicize all spacecraft names, manned and unmanned. This is in line with major style guides. This will be a large effort if anyone wants to help. If there is no objection I will soon add a line in the project guidelines about this.

220:--previous Mercury 8, next Gemini 3. I think the way it is written you would rather have it go Mercury 9 --previous Mercury 8, next Gemini program. I don't think that is helpful. Besides there will be a link to Gemini program in the Gemini 3 article. Also will we skip 2163:. It needs alot of fleshing out and discussion but it is a start. I envisage it looking at IRBM, ICBM and space launchers (and of course there were crossover for all three catergories among some rockets). Anyone is welcome to add to the page or start a discussion. - 3347:(Note: I separated out the date discussion because the time issue became more immediately of interest and the date issue is more complex than I originally thought.) In the list on the main page under Structure/Space Missions, there is an item I have questions about: 4534:

OK, I think I like the idea of indicating "crew experience" for each particular mission. I wonder if it might be better in sentence form: "The crew of STS-xxx had a combined total of 10 previous spaceflights; 3 for John Doe, 4 for Jane Doe, and 3 for Little Billy

5308:

On the larger question... I am new to the Soyuz crew issue, so perhaps my comments will be useful. Never having seen the Soyuz crew lists, I found the newer presentation almost impossible to figure out. The proposed version above is much clearer and more logical.

3877:

The Shuttle internal technical documents are in US standard units. In fact, some documents note that most international partners have switched to SI, so the document provides a conversion table. However, you'll probably see a shift to at least some SI with CEV.

3667:

For the ISS, that seems to be GMT. Since GMT and UTC are mostly used interchangeably by the public and the GMT and UTC times would be the same to within a second in most cases, I'd argue that writing "12:04 GMT (12:04 UTC)" could reasonably be shortend to "12:04

3357:

Seems like a good idea for things like launch or landing that have a "local" time. But what about spacewalk times or ISS-Shuttle mating times? What is "local"? Local to the editor? Local to ground control? Local to launch site? I think I favor UTC in those

799:

Just commenting that the "buff" coloured background on the tables was already kinda standard from many of the Shuttle missions - might be worth reviewing those pages as well before settling on the final version of the template... not really an issue, of course!

5811:

sub-project as outlined above, hoping this will generate more activity. Another would be to elminiate this sub-project, and conduct all its (minimal) activity in Wikiproject: Space Exploration. I'm not sure which approach would be more likely to have success.

2147:

Do people like the star background? If so I will talk to the developers about getting a bit added to the CSS so we can impliment it cleanly. It's a reasonably large background image (though still only 4k) so it could be used elsewhere without many problems.

1891:

page that then linked to each of the seperate rockets. Even if these articles only had the table and a paragraph or two about each rocket it would be a start. And we have to remember that we have an 'unlimited' (well sort of) amount of space to work with. -

4155:

I support your proposal. (And It all boils down to references, in a way... If we are diligent about citing sources for the numbers we throw around, it'll be easier to check "source units" and thereby fend off those who would change everything to SI "just

1469:

If we started naming all the Gemini missions with roman numerals, we would then have to refer to STS-26 as STS-26R and all the Mercury flights as MA-6 or whatever. And Vostok 1 should be referred to as simply Vostok as that it what the Soviets announced it

1779:

Shouldn't we add Launch Vehicle to the mission parameters. Especially as such vehicle often changed within a program for the early launches. Mercury and Apollo, for instance. By the shuttle launches it would not be useful though. I don't know about Soyuz.

5208:

2) I agree that each group doesn't need a separate subsection, especially if there isn't very much text there to support the list. Speaking of which, it seems desirable to have a sentence or two about the crew under ==Crew==, before launching into the

3928:

Actually, I'd say that we should feel compelled to subscribe to a very similar policy. Whatever units NASA may have used internally may influence which set of units is presented first, but the other should be offered parenthetically after regardless.

3850:

It would make sense that NASA would use SI these days, especially when developing things in conjunction with ESA and the Russians. It would also make sense that the PR department knows the American public feels more comfortable hearing about how many

202:

I'm not sure I agree that it's a good idea to artifically limit the depth of a wikipedia artical. I feel more is always better. However it doesn't all have to be in one table. There could easily be a 'Crew' table in the article body somewhere.

3966:

I strongly oppose your point of view. The english wikipedia has (and is supposed to have) a wide, worldwide spread body of users - anyone who reads english, including non-native english speakers. I, for instance, come from a SI country, Italy. //

5795:

the project's assessing of pages, and a general complete lack of input from the project. To be honest, I don't think its serving the space shuttle mission community as well as it could, and as such i'd like to propose one of two things happen:

1112:

After consideration of the fact that Crew is listed in such a fashion after the main text of the article, I believe that mission parameters like that are fine, after the crew listing. Anyone else want to weigh in? I'm applying the change to

3768:

It appears, the only rule using both sets of units violates is "Even though this can be construed as a historical project, it is also very much a scientific project, so please use only metric units in the articles" from this project's page.

3571:(And how does this interact with wikilinks the preferences settings of individual users?) For example, today is ] ] or ], ]. Both of those display "15 September 2006" to me because of my preference settings. ] works surprisingly well ( 4420:) that the numbers in parentheses after crewmembers' names on some space mission pages is supposed to represent number of spaceflights by the individual. But is this a number we intend to update each time the individual revisits space? 1301:

I'm looking into my Space Almanac again, and I was thinking... Should we add the launch vehicle used as part of the table (e.g. Vostoks with A-1, Voskhods and Soyuz with A-2)? Or should that to be left for the spacecraft articles? --

5185:

We've already discussed the (#) notation for crew experience. But we left unsettled the application of the notation to backup crew. I propose it not be applied to anyone who doesn't actually enter space as a result of the mission in

4208:

the mission, so is in the future tense.. that's not so bad, because you know what you're reading was the plan, and not neccessarily what happened.. the problem is that some editors will change all the future tense to past tense (e.g.

3490:

Specific times should be used in the body of an article only when notable. When they do appear, specific times in the body of an article should be in 24-hour local time with 24-hour UTC time added parenthetically as indicated by the

4227:

I have two questions.. firstly, on the project page, does anyone else get the link at the side of each section? because they aren't showing up for me.. and i'd like them to.. secondly, shouldn't we change the name of the project to

122:

of spacecraft that have carried a crew on the way up and/or on the way down... This fits neatly with the numbering schemes adopted by the various players. Hmm - maybe the missions we're actually talking about are the missions of the

1572:

definition). Although an abritary limit is not desirable, personally I think we should go with the 100 km. The only other one close is Flight 62, which is still 5000 metres off, so we are not keeping anyone out who got to 99999 m.

649:

correctly for each mission. I don't think it makes much difference, though I did change some of the 'crewed's back to 'manned's a while back in the Apollo (I think) article while making other changes. I do like the renaming of

5618:

where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.

3846:

is mostly the mainstream US press. I believe that when Apollo was designed, NASA measured in feet and inches. But I wonder if they don't use SI internally now. (I have no references either way, that's why it makes me uneasy.)

1861:

I'll second this recomendation. :) I feel that complete standardiztion of the table is difficult given the great variety of launch vehicles around (for instance, think of a table for Delta...), and I went a bit nuts with the

3757:

used the more inclusive two system reporting -- 122 NM (226 km). Please forgive me if consensus has already been reached on this issue. I would appreciate a link to the original discussion of this issue if this is the case.

756:

Please also, set up a standard for what we call the crewmembers. Someone removed astronaut and changed it to taikonaut. Someone else removed the Chinese (Yuhangyuan) because they said "it looks ugly". We need a standard.

433:

Well, In terms of projects, I was thinking more by spacecraft design (Mercury was not the same as Gemini, which was not the same as Apollo)? But when I say spacecraft on the main page, I don't mean that it should link to

3777:

appears to still be actively contributing to WikiPedia, if not to this project. It might be worth our effort to try to get some of the project forefathers back involved. I have some issues with a number of those rules,

2983:

LJ-n for the Little Joe test flights which primarily tested the Mercury escape system. Some of the Little Joe test flights had letters added to the number when a test had to be re-flown after a failure e.g. LJ-1A, LJ-1B

3641:

NASA reporting most events after launch in U. S. Central Time), I'd recommend using the time zone that the reporting agency recorded. I can't think of a cogent argument for recalculating dates and times to UTC. --

2138:

This is what I'm currently playing with as a rocket table... I think the star background on the header looks reasonably sweet...but it's currently implimented in a non-clean way. I'd vote for black as a backup.

4539:

If we stick with the parentheses format, we need to explicitly state on each article what the numbers represent: "Numbers in parentheses indicate crew member's total spaceflights up to and including this one" or

2144:

don't see any reason to stick exclusively to one type of table. It's good that the general features be similar (sameish information, similar order), but the layout can differ based on what imagry is available.

4369:

states that the SRBs get the vehicle into a position such that the SSMEs can take it the rest of the way into space. I guess I don't see a "major fault" in the article. It describes exactly what the SRBs do.

3792:

seems to indicate that "122 NM (226 km)" is pretty close to "right". I guess "122 nautical miles (226 km)" is a bit more "correct". (And it says "Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.")

4391: 3595:

I don't think there is any reason to change Knowledge (XXG)'s basic rules on this subject. Use whatever the local use is, use it consistently throughout the article, and link both the month day and the year.

2361:

Keep in mind though that non-American readers WILL be using the Knowledge (XXG) (and it is not to be targetted to Americans). I would at the least recommend linking to the definition of pound as a force? --

3796:

That said, there probably are a few places where compactness of information outweighs completeness (infoboxes, some tables, ...) and maybe conversions shouldn't appear. For those, I'd prefer to see "source

407:

I prefer to add only the manned ones, whereas the project article can list both manned and unmanned in one table in their correct order. But if the majority thinks otherwise I have no problem with it either.

5563:

I agree that space tourism is about launching someone into space for the sake of launching someone into space, and would agree that mention of such should be in the mission description near the top of the

2764:

As now quite a lot of biographies of cosmonauts are created I uploaded a list of the names in cyrillic spelling, which then can be added to the articles - I already did for those articles I noticed. See

2254:. But Saturn stage nomenclature is just plan nasty, with the Saturn V featuring the S-IC, S-II and the S-IVB. And the S-IVB was the second stage of the Saturn IB, which used a S-IB as the first stage. -- 1410:

No, as long as the redirect page has no history by itself it can be moved back by everyone, no need for admin power. If any of the redirects however has a history then I can offer my admin powers :-)

5489:

Update: Following the unexpected deletion of the Vostok 1 launch image, I've replaced the image with that of the Atlantis-Mir combined spacecraft. Hope the new arrangement is acceptable to everyone.

1788:

For Soyuz, they all used the Soyuz rocket (just an R-7 basically) but there were slight variations through the program. According to astronautix.com from Soyuz 19 onwards they used the Soyuz 11A511U

3010:

MA-1(8) ,2(13), 3(16), and 4(20) were unmanned, MA-5(21) (Enos) was a primate flight. MA-6(22) (Glenn), MA-7(23) (Carpenter) MA-8(24) (Schirra), and MA-9(25) (Cooper) were the manned Atlas flights.

2976:

NASA never numbered the Mercury missions this way. Instead there were separate number sequences based (primarily) on the launch vehicle. So launches involving Mercury spacecraft were numbered as:

2303:

Seems like a good compromise. The uprated thrust numbers aren't as round anyhow. Now it's clear that there wasn't any real deep reasoning behind the numbers, they were just ballpark big numbers.

4196:

I feel uneasy when i read many of the Space Shuttle mission pages.. most of them, the main body of text is copied directly from a NASA webpage. i don't have a problem with that, except sometimes, (

2582:

Has a decision been made as to the way that we are dealing with visting crews and permanent crews to space station? Do we deal with them as Salyut 6 EP-1 (First Visting Crew to Salyut 6) or as the

389:

That's what the talk page is for. Anyone else want to weigh in on the manned or unmanned issue? I'm personally comfortable with either, but there are some articles for the unmanned missions (e.g.

3714: 4506:

hmm.. i see. it's hard to get a good idea of what's on all of the STS pages - there are too many! regardless, i agree with Rmhermen; in fact even for the Apollo missions (including the featured

3809:

I appreciate the very thorough reply. The MOS does say, “For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.”

2736:

We seem to have fairly good coverage of manned missions and scientific satellites and probes but there is very little and that widely scattered on commercial satellites or spy satellites. Even

5189:

Country designators? Flags or text only? Who gets them? Right now, I'm indifferent to the flags, and propose that country designators only be applied to flight crew and backup flight crew.

4629:

Yes, but does the "current mission" count in their total? If so, it seems a little misleading. If not, then the "up to and including this one" text (or similar) is not quite accurate maybe?

2203:

but are not hard and fast, and consistency comes from projects like this one. I think a good rule of thumb is that if the article name makes sense without brackets, then don't use them, e.g.

590:

I am a native English speaker and I cannot ever remember hearing "crewed mission" anywhere but here. It is always "manned mission". Unless someone can provide some other evidence, of course.

5203:

1) Generally these facts should be readily available in the references of the article anyway, but if one really desires inline citations, then next to '''Launched''', etc, seems appropriate.

4118:) followed by the SI conversions in parenthesis. This would seem to mesh well with the WP:MOS as well as stay true to the original units in which the hardware and missions were designed. 3637:

consider what is significant. For example, if a vandal based in Japan attacked a Pentagon computer in the United States, use the time zone for the Pentagon, where attack had its effect."

486:) and using a different name for each nation that has ORIGINATED crewed spaceflights (Only USSR/Russia, US, China). Let's use this section to debate the name however... Western media uses 2958:

for a huge aggregate of succession boxes, including one in which two titles wind up held by the same successor. Not sure if there'd be anything nearly that complicated in space missions).

3460:

Times in the body of an article should be in 24-hour UTC with ground local time added parenthetically if and only if the ground time of the event has significance. (takeoff, landing, etc)

3430:

I am unaware of that format being followed. I think all the pages use UTC with occasional local time in parentheses. I think that was probably an old instruction that was never adopted.

4734:

I know that makes repeats, but I think that the "trick" used to avoid to repeat names makes the lists difficult to read and understand. I am for clarity even if it means repeating names.

4680:. this banner has a built in assessment feature.. you can rate the articles quality (out of Stub/Start/B/GA/A/FA), and the importance (Low/Mid/High/Top). The quality has a pretty clear 928:

For deep space missions there should also be infomation on the orbit around the Sun, for missions to other planets on orbits around them, for mission that landed landing coordinates.

2179:). This seems useful in many cases, but is also inconsistant. I intend to go through at some point and add a bunch of articles on rocket engines, should I name them all similar to 316:

Did I get that right? I suppose it's not a big deal either way, and yours might be cleaner. As for uncrewed test flights in the same program, perhaps it should be something like...

4043:

Frankly, the English-speaking wikipedia does serve the needs of the English-speaking world. That's why it's in English. I'm really not sure what the alternative would be, exactly.

1309:

I guess that there could be cases where same spacecraft was launched with different launch vehicles. Perhaps it could be a part of Launch field, then it wouldn't clutter the table:

4806:

joined the XXX crew for the ascent and docking with ISS, spent approximately eight days aboard the ISS conducting experiments, then returned to Earth with the outgoing members of

4390:

WikiProject, but there's nothing there right now. My hope is that we will be able impliment the article assessment that's going on at the 1.0 editoral team, as they are trying to

1448:

According to "On The Shoulders Of Titans", after Gemini 3 and the Molly Brown incident, NASA managers made a decision that all missions were to be referred to as roman numerals:

5912: 2183:? It seems a little silly. But who knows how long the categorization code will take to materialize. It's also a little weird in the case of the Centaur...it should really be 5799:

with those contributors who are active in Shuttle pages setting up and running the project properly, enabling pages such as this to have an active wikiproject supporting them.

4121:

Some Space Shuttle mission articles are starting to become either SI first or SI only articles. I'd like us to reach an agreement on this issue so we can finally standardize.

3671:

For the shuttle, "local time" is either Mission Elapsed Time or UTC, but gets reported in press releases (aimed at mostly US news outlets) as Central or Eastern Time (+/- DST).

4034:

So you want a English Knowledge (XXG) which only SI-using English-speaking people can understand! I think you will find yourself fighting a losing battle trying to get that.

566:? There seem to activist of both sides changing some of the articles back and forth, and such edit wars are not really productive. For myself I am much more used to the word 4688:

articles. :) also, when rating an article, you may feel a desire to justify your rating; if so, a comment on the Talk page with the heading "Assessment" seems appropriate.

2318:

articles. I felt the previous two were not the best quality. I managed to find the exactly the same image as the one in the table but was unable to find the picture of the

720:

There's a "de facto" scheme I've been trying to implement - look at the early Soviet pages - Vostok, Voshkod, Soyuz 1-12. But yes, I agree standardisation would be nice :)

4114:

Can we at least try to get a consensus here on the Space Shuttle? I propose that for all Space Shuttle articles (hardware, missions, etc.) we use the source units first (

2737: 1519:

I like consistency, but I also like historical accuracy. Thus, even though Vostok 1 might not have had a number, I like it having a number. Perhaps we should go back to

5182:

I don't think each group needs to be a subsection in the ToC. These are mostly going to all fit on one screen, so being able to navigate to "Crew" is probably sufficient.

3096: 3236: 3171: 2990:

MR-n for the Mercury Redstone flights. In the case of MR-1, which failed in the famous 'pop gun' abort depicted in the movie "The Right Stuff" the reflight was MR-1A.

1753:

I second splitting them up, but I do not think there is that much that can be said for differences in the missions, other than basic mission data (launch date/time) --

5972:"Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." 1550:

OK. All the Gemini missions are back to arabic numbers. However in the table it is referred to as Gemini V, and there is a commment that officially it was Gemini V. -

570:, however as a non-native speaker I don't know what is the politically correct word now, or how much politically incorrect the other one is. We have an article called 4149: 4142: 4088: 3789: 3656: 3492: 3330: 2834: 4394:. Over 100 other wikiprojects are already following suit; the articles within the scope of this project could greatly benefit from being apart of this.. thoughts? ( 2621:

Yes it does make sense -every article has it -it is a standard format -something we are striving for to improve consistency and professionalism on Knowledge (XXG).

6038: 5983: 5979: 4395: 3818:

I find it laughable that there are articles on US built space ships that have a list of specifications in metric next to a diagram with specifications in US units.

3257:

I've noticed a lot of the spacecraft that I have worked on are pretty sparse, and I'd like to flesh them out a bit. I was looking for a standard format to follow.

1089: 5406:, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding 4287:

Seems useful. Any category with over 200 entries is overpopulated in my opinion. (requiring paging through the category list which may not alphabetize correctly)

2171:

Is there a general wiki rule on throwing a categorization into an article name? Many of the rocket entries have '(rocket)' or just 'rocket' in their titles (ie:

1557:

Question about the table at the bottom of the pages. Should it have the previous/next manned flight in the program or the previous/next flight around the world?

5567:

And (for STS and Apollo missions, we need to fix Soyuz, Salyut,...) the crew is listed in the info box near the top if you just want to see a list near the top.

3534:

I support this suggestion. As the human space exploration enterprise begins to include more international partners, this will only become more of an issue. The

1610: 1487:

So if there is a concensus that they should all be referred to as Gemini 5 instead of Gemini V, then I think we should revert them to their original states. -

5653: 1700:

I realized that when I tried looking it up on Google. And LCM (Lunar Command Module) is actually more properly known as the CSM (Command/Service Module) --

5510: 5457: 4424:

If not, then I think it would be better to clearly indicate that the number indicates number of spaceflights up to (and including?) the mission in question.

3785:

gives room to argue that science projects conducted in imperial units should be recorded in imperial units with metric conversions provided parenthetically.

3406:. Maybe a conversion guide can be placed on the talk page of a current shuttle mission so that editors can easily convert, eg. UTC = EDT+4, UTC=EST+5, etc. 3267:

It is in a most of the rules are set, most of the heavy lifting done sort of state. So not really inactive. If you are talking about rockets, there is also

2597:

article from the point of view of making it about the Salyut EP-1 crew (It makes more sense if you read the article). Just my 0.02. What do other think? -

1375:

I've been writing up articles for all the manned Gemini missions. As part of this I've suddenly realised that all the Gemini missions except Gemini 3 used

3007:

MR-1 (10),and 1A(11) were unmanned. MR-2(12) (Ham) was a primate flight. MR-3(18) (Shepard), and MR-4(19) (Grissom) were the two manned Redstone flights.

2955: 2817:

only, or will there be a name change or what? I'm actually interested in both, but I can't see the template for manned really fitting well for unmanned.

2571: 6033: 5399: 4387: 4380: 2687:

I think it would rock better if the text wouldn't display in black as well - at least in Mozilla 1.5 it shows just a black bar with a a few white dots.

3949:

should absolutely include both units in every article, as these two sets of units are the principle (only?) ones in use in the English-speaking world.

540:. I prefer the latter, as it's hearkening to the Chinese term, rather than an English term (I do like the distinction), but on the other hand, we say 510:

in use by space geeks (I include myself!!), not in the mainstream media. I don't think it will last, and I don't think it's a good idea for Wiki... --

5615: 3988:

You say that you oppose my POV, but you don't say anything in opposition to it. I'm suggesting using both sets of units. Where is the disagreement?

3487:

Detailed timeline section should be in 24-hour UTC with 24-hour local time added parenthetically for ground-referenced events (takeoff, landing, etc).

2553:

Why do we list a Spacecraft Name in the template right after call sign? I haven't seen anyone use it. Should it just be eliminated from the template?

6029: 4468:

They originally just listed the number; I started rolling out "all flights during career" to make it more comprehensible, as a result of cleaning up

2813:

which includes two "To be created" projects, one for manned and one for unmanned. Is the idea that Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Space Missions is for

2574:

and found that we have articles for only 80 of 256 missions listed (30%). And some of those don't follow the template yet (Mercury). Just an update.

65: 5915:

for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited.

5480: 3268: 2608:

It makes no sense to insert a navigation bar for sole missions in a program (e.g. Shenzhou V). The navigation bar is intended to be of some use. --

1664:

I could change it. I think it would be better if it were just plain "spacecraft weight", with the Apollo missions having italicised subcategories

5925:

I have already left we opinions. They are very few scientific contexts where it is appropriate. None I can think of which involve space missions.

4573:

i think explicitly stating what the numbers mean is the way forward, rather than sentence form.. the crew names are going to be in a list anyway.

1134:

I've decided it's better to change "Satellite Weight" to "Mass" to be more accurate scientifically, and ignore the satellite/spacecraft issue. --

3092: 3052:

I am working on WikiProject Space to be a collection of information on the various space-related WikiProjects and Portals for ease of finding. --

2802: 735: 1569: 1273:

but changed number of orbits to time on lunar surface. There are several other facts that could go in the box. Anyone want to give an opinion.

3701:

rather than clutter the discussion here with it. The most important thing is to use the date stamp that a user will find in other references.

94:

I will probably split the mission and program definitions apart as these now-likely-to-be-multiple Space WikiProjects materialize further. --

3390:, I offer that I think all times should be listed as UTC. (and I reserve the right to change my mind in the face of compelling arguments...) 2882: 3095:, which is looking to identify quality articles in Knowledge (XXG) for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using 5688: 5671: 2586:

spacecraft and what happened to that. To me the logical is the former as it ties up lose ends as to what happened to that particular crew.

1613:. I would also list all X-15 flights over 50 miles with a notation of the different definitions and special notice of the two over 100 km. 5465: 5415: 41: 2215:

to distinguish at least from Formula 1 motor racing and the Mitsubishi jet trainer! And very shortly we will need to distinguish between

5996:

flag icons from the most recent missions, to conform with the Manual of Style, and the articles are much less distracting without them.

4429:

the record previously held by Jane Doe" or "This mission was the first mission since xxx with an entire crew of first-time astronauts".)

3726:

to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of the article. //

4229: 1622:

I second Rmhermen. List it in lists of manned space missions, but not in the tables, especially as they aren't actual articles... --

3754: 2714:

The list in the middle of the page is not up-to-date. All of the Gemini missions also have the box. I didn't check the Russian ones.

5761: 5411: 4233: 3697:

Yup, recording UTC in a parenthetical comment is mostly harmless. I went on with another amusing anecdote that I decided to put on

1452:(end of fifth paragraph). Now of course I can see where people are coming from in the fact that it more commonly known as Gemini 5. 5239:

flight surgeons, then what about other flight controllers? (Note that I'm not against the idea, just raising it as a possibility.)

4175: 3420:

time, and its the time zone used by Knowledge (XXG) itself... (On a totally separate note, how do I sign up for this Wikiproject?)

3014: 5595:

because I think that that article deserves to be class A. I thought this nomination might be of some interest to you all. Thanks!

5433:

Hey, I am really into space, and think this project is cool. I was just wondering if there were userboxes for user pages? Thanks.

2701:

Yes, better. I did check the previous version with IE earlier, there it showed of course. I hate these browser incompatibilities.

5407: 4017:

in space projects where the internal documentation uses UScu (most NASA projects with few exceptions), but I oppose your idea of

4814:

who launched aboard Mission VVV and spent approximately seven days aboard ISS conducting experiments for the Fake Space Agency.

2160: 1294:

patches that were created for the mission. They weren't worn by the crew and at the very most were just made into medallions. -

6005: 5829: 4442:

Gemini and Apollo missions they seem to list all flights during their career (some of which may need to be updated, therefore).

4336: 4266: 3613:, Rmhermen is right. There's already a guideline. After the experiment with formats above, I propose we change the "rule" to: 2200: 5986:, since none of these project talk pages are particularly active. I appreciate anyone's imput or ideas, but I've removed the 2855: 478:

Well, in my opinion, there's a subtle difference between merely flying someone into space and using that name (e.g. France's

3201: 3027: 2810: 2694:

Does that change help? (I put in a redundant font tag; it may be that Mozilla isn't recognizing the css that was there.) -

2658: 1425:

Triggerhappy admins, wait a moment: if original name of a mission was Gemini V, the article should be at Gemini V, even if

4135: 4115: 4014: 2766: 1609:

I like the next flight in program as it is now. We could add a second box for next/previous manned flight. We also have a

682:) for reference when helping to write/update/edit the article, it got me thinking (particularly considering the bottom of 4472:

during FAC, but stalled halfway through STS-xx. I think it's been removed everywhere but the early missions now, though.

3103:, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, 2769:

for the list. The names in latin are in the german transcription, but it is not too much different from the english one.

5756: 3753:

I guess I'm wondering why the mandate is to ONLY use metric, while most if not all other projects I looked at under the

1290:

Hi all new round here (I'm usually use E2 but its been down for the last couple of days so had to find somewhere else).

574:

which however does not explain which of the two terms is better, more NPOV and more common. I only know in German it is

4310:- i'd appreciate it if people had a quick look and check I haven't missed anything out, and check for errors. Thanks - 3184:

I've been looking over other articles to find more suggestions, and there are quite a few "decent" articles (e.g., the

2635:

articles of the set under the same formatting. When an article lacks this information, it's logical to leave it out. --

137:

Pretty much. ISS missions at least have names (e.g. Expedition 1, etc. though none of these have pages as of yet.) --

6077: 5844: 4783: 4262: 3719: 3310:

I've mentioned this here for future reference - please note any other heads you encounter from this particular hydra.

3013:

I have a mediawiki site which is focused on the Mercury program for modelers. For a full list of Mercury flights see:

1630:

Really ambitious would be a multi-line table...Next flight in program...Next flight in country...Next flight period.

4339:

regarding the infobox fields and the designation of space tourists, as well as guests on another nation's vehicle. --

2345:

Agreed that where hardware was designed in imperial units, those units should be retained. I tried to do that on the

2196: 1234:

replacing the "number of crew" row in the data table with a "crew names" row (as per the current mission parameters?)

1887:

info about each stage and then payload to certain types of orbits. As for rockets like the Delta, we could have the

4674: 4451:), with the number meaning "number of space flights up to and including this mission", because it gives an idea of 3403: 2745: 1641:

I agree. It would be ambitious, but I don't want the pages to be too messy with data and too lacking in text. --

4320:

The table on Expedition 14 has several parameters which need to be filled in with "In orbit" or "Still in orbit".

3197: 2322:

launch across the water. So I replaced it with the Skylab launch to show the two stage version of the Saturn V. --

2296:

unupgraded specs as it would clutter up the table with too many numbers to include them for the upgraded versions.

1761:

Should the various groups of Pioneer spacecraft (and other such generically-named programs) get their own pages?

170:- it has a lot of data, but some of the data in the fact sheet there is IMHO a bit obscure for the normal reader. 101:

fact that the ISS long term crew has their own mission insignia, additional to the Shuttle/Soyuz launch insignia.

51: 4810:

aboard Mission ZZZ. Vinogradov and Williams were joined on their return trip to Earth by Spaceflight Participant

3698: 842:

would it? Because I happen to have that book, which I plan to use to fill out some stub data for articles... --

3307:

newsweather.co.uk, astronautics.tv, space-nasa.com and astronautics-nasa.com. Lots and lots of spammy goodness.

2590:

mean that much. Sometimes a permanent crew could have over three different escape craft docked to the station.

2211:. Disambiguation is a Good Thing, especially with very undescriptive names like F-1, which should definitely be 668: 6054: 5094: 5039:*Number in parentheses indicates number of spaceflights by each individual prior to and including this mission. 3731: 3522: 613: 4270: 3723: 738:

then while I'm working on solidifying a possible standard. I'll probably adopt most of your existing one. --

5260:

I don't have any answers to these questions yet...just recording the questions and fishing for your thoughts.

4274: 420:

I would just link in strings of a single country in the order they were launched, not sequential in program.

4681: 4179: 3215: 2987:

BJ-1 for the single Big Joe flight which was used to test the heat shield. The Big Joe was really an Atlas.

2749: 2657:, and it has been revealed that, horror of horrors, this project uses the exact same color in its table as 435: 4261:

I think the categories of these missions need some cleaning up.. for example, pretty much everything is in

2243: 2220: 1686:

IIRC the correct terms are perilune and apolune. And now for a stupid question - what was LCM stand for? -

5522: 5835:

template to use navbox generic. If people like it, i'll do the same for the other "Mission" templates. --

5610: 5442:

There is now! Don't know how long it'll last, but i've put together a userbox for the project like this:

5420: 4246:

I noticed that they disappeared a few months ago. I have no idea why though? Maybe ask at the Help Desk.

3675:

For the Soyuz missions...I have to admit, I don't know and don't want to look it up right now, because...

3334: 3222: 2677: 2654: 1888: 5257:

section of the article? Does the answer change depending on what extent of "crew" we include? Subpage?

5222: 3859:

high it orbits, even if that means they have to do a little translating before printing a press release.

3659:: "If you know it, include the UTC date and time of the event in the article, indicating that it's UTC." 2814: 1734: 1430: 1338: 1070: 929: 831: 439: 20: 3218:, but you're more than welcome to adopt your own requirements for articles to fit in those categories. 1915: 1391:. This will not affect anyone greatly as the pages will automatically redirect if you type Gemini 5. - 31: 5802:

Just my twopenneth - personally, i'd prefer the fork option, but I'd appreciate other people's views.

5403: 5434: 3642: 3295: 3000:

The flight order of these "sub-programs" was interleaved, at least until the manned flights started.

2806: 2224: 2184: 625: 621: 571: 6081: 6061: 6018: 5948: 5929: 5919: 5900: 5885: 5852: 5815: 5771: 5734: 5713: 5699: 5678: 5664: 5642: 5623: 5599: 5596: 5574: 5552: 5530: 5493: 5437: 5423: 5395: 5384: 5368: 5347: 5313: 5289: 5267: 5243: 5229: 5197: 4738: 4712: 4692: 4636: 4624: 4612: 4590: 4577: 4552: 4514: 4491: 4481: 4459: 4435: 4402: 4373: 4362: 4347: 4324: 4314: 4291: 4281: 4250: 4240: 4217: 4186: 4163: 4125: 4094: 4081: 4047: 4038: 4029: 3992: 3971: 3953: 3933: 3907: 3882: 3872: 3832: 3804: 3762: 3735: 3692: 3645: 3631: 3600: 3589: 3550: 3529: 3503: 3467: 3447: 3434: 3424: 3410: 3396: 3366: 3337: 3319: 3275: 3261: 3247: 3227: 3209: 3178: 3164: 3137: 3107: 3081: 3072: 3056: 3047: 3037: 35: 6048: 6010: 5937: 5892: 5877: 3516: 2273:

would be the more normal nomenclature, but we really ought to have at least some disambiguation. --

628:. But we should concentrate on creating good contents, not about changing one word back-and-forth. 155:

So switch the colors to buff for the rows and white for the insignia? (as it currently appears) --

1839:

How about agreeing on a standard for launch vehicle descriptions? There's a suggested template by

5620: 4477: 4344: 3576: 3315: 2959: 2770: 2702: 2688: 1411: 944: 819: 629: 583: 414: 171: 148: 102: 5723: 4021:

and strongly oppose the idea of making the english wikipedia fit the needs of what you call the

3619: 3572: 3015:

http://www.denhaven2.homeip.net/index.php?title=Mercury_Spacecraft_Modeling#Mercury_Flight_Order

2790: 2669:

Tuf-Kat - see the proposal above with the starfield background. I think it fairly rocks. :) -

2287:

6.67 million newtons?". I'd like to see the Saturn V page list "33,400,000 N (7,500,000 lbs)".

5674:. That article is in awful shape and really isn't needed except in respect to the accusations. 2247: 1449: 814:

Quite some time ago I started with adding a factsheet to some of the space mission (I did e.g.

5767: 5730: 5722:

Along those lines, one of the editors accused the person who started the article of violating

5695: 5660: 5514: 5152: 5146: 5137: 5121: 5062: 4698: 4667: 3618:

Dates in the info box and in the body of the article should be wikilinked as described in the

3020: 2212: 1819: 1818:

flight refers one to a disambiguation page. Not good. Should we change our link-in-the-box to

687: 79: 5967: 5963: 5592: 4620:

They are listed when known. Look at the Apollo missions which I think all list backup crews.

4426:

Either way, most mission articles presently don't explain the numbers, making them confusing.

3387: 943:

For satellites don't forget the official satellite number (e.g. 1987-16A) in the template...

5142: 4992: 4974: 4931: 4913: 4839: 4823: 4795: 4791: 3663:

So, we're encouraged to use UTC in addition to whatever timezone "where the event happened".

3569:

Did I miss this discussion? Or is it open? Can I offer up the ISO8601 "way" of YYYY-MM-DD?

2270: 1964: 5959: 4666:

as some of you will have noticed, i've been tagging many article, under the broad topic of

3782: 3240: 393:) so I tend to favor pointing to them as next in the series in some fashion or another. -- 6073: 5945: 5840: 5803: 5787: 5490: 5484: 5361:(But it doesn't...now we're mixing nationality with "employer" or "affiliated agency"...). 5010: 4874: 4811: 4510:), i think we should only include the number of flights up to and including that mission. 4359: 4311: 3746:

reports them this way, and even the scientists design and program the vehicle using them.

3545: 3444: 3421: 3189: 3118: 2934: 2695: 2670: 2639: 2631: 2612: 2251: 2216: 2172: 1868: 1811: 1747: 1400: 1176:

I don't see any reason to limit the size of the table. The more information the better.

336: 292: 250: 118:

Yes, this is going to become increasingly complex. What's really being described here are

5848: 3352:"Times in the text of a document should be in 12-hour local time (with UTC offset given)" 3291: 3100: 3077:

If I understand correctly, this means every instance of the name needs to be italicized?

2376:

I've linked the first instance of Newton and Pound-Force to their respective articles. -

57: 5998: 5966:, flags should be used sparingly, and not used in the article prose. Flags should also 5710: 5310: 5286: 5240: 5078: 4148:

3) A lot of the recent "switch to SI" edits don't follow some of the other suggestions

3258: 3153: 3078: 2740:

doesn't include very many and none recent. What we have are stub articles based around

2598: 2377: 2351: 2323: 2274: 2255: 2232: 2228: 2176: 2164: 2140: 1893: 1852: 1831: 1807: 1798: 1687: 1603: 1551: 1488: 1392: 1376: 1295: 1248: 1239: 1209: 1154: 1049: 801: 721: 511: 265: 184: 128: 46: 27: 5926: 5675: 5133: 5089: 5032: 5003: 4949: 4942: 4899: 4855: 4850: 4803: 4709: 4621: 4587: 4488: 4473: 4340: 4321: 4307: 4288: 4247: 4091: 4044: 4035: 3989: 3950: 3930: 3597: 3431: 3311: 3272: 3244: 3206: 3175: 3161: 3158: 3134: 3104: 3069: 3044: 3034: 2973:

I think that the numbering of Mercury flights with a single number is problematical.

2904: 2753: 2722: 2715: 2622: 2575: 2554: 2346: 2208: 1823: 1781: 1772: 1738: 1657: 1614: 1495: 1380: 1274: 1259:

extended data (Though I've been gathering what I can for all the Vostok flights). --

758: 705: 591: 471: 421: 375: 225: 4134:

1) We've discussed that the applicable internal documents and press releases are in

3380:

I guess that still leaves the problem open for current events and times that really

2785:

Hey, Ive been filling in Space shuttle missions that are blank with templates. See

1564:

flights should be counted as spaceflights. All the flights below are over 50 miles (

5990: 5783: 5764: 5727: 5692: 5657: 5588: 5581: 5359: 5166: 4756:

makes more sections in the Table of Contents (ToC) that don't need to be there, and

4370: 4122: 3879: 3829: 3759: 3473: 3193: 3113: 2818: 2681: 2662: 2531: 2204: 1863: 1848: 691: 578:, and everyone except maybe a feminist activist will laugh if anyone would call it 558:

Another naming point not directly related to the template discussion. Is it called

2541:

I went ahead and made this change experimentally while playing with the layout of

3283: 5571: 5549: 5381: 5365: 5344: 5333: 5329: 5264: 5194: 5127: 5117: 5049: 5045: 4735: 4702: 4655: 4633: 4609: 4549: 4432: 4413: 4303: 4160: 4078: 4026: 3968: 3904: 3869: 3801: 3774: 3770: 3727: 3689: 3628: 3586: 3500: 3464: 3407: 3393: 3363: 3219: 3053: 2563: 2363: 1986: 1754: 1701: 1677: 1642: 1623: 1536: 1364: 1303: 1283: 1260: 1135: 1118: 1097: 1041: 980: 962: 903: 843: 782: 739: 695: 603: 549: 499: 443: 394: 367: 216:

About the previous mission/next mission box. I think it should go, for example,

188: 167: 156: 138: 111: 95: 127:

rather than the missions of the crew on board... synonymous in the early days!

6069: 5916: 5836: 5812: 5639: 5226: 5160: 4689: 4574: 4511: 4456: 4399: 4278: 4237: 4214: 4183: 3540: 3148: 2837: 2827: 2636: 2609: 2546: 2535: 2335: 2304: 2288: 2188: 2149: 1872: 1840: 1792: 1789: 1762: 1719: 1631: 1349: 1177: 675: 659: 457: 204: 4265:.. but really, that should be mostly empty with some big subcategories, like 1795: 1069:

A lot more could be added without any clutter. Including the launch vehicle.

456:

I'd like to see the unmanned flights listed. They are too often overlooked.

3143: 3128: 3123: 2944: 2789:

for an example. Does this look good for a standard shuttle mission template?

2741: 2542: 1652: 1270: 683: 679: 529: 525: 483: 330: 286: 244: 217: 4544:

Either way, I think we should revisit Gemini/Apollo/etc and clean up those.

3651:(This is really time discussion and should be in the section above, but...) 5635:

Please be aware that the preferred terminology is "manned" and "unmanned".

3174:

in the next few days. Feel free to edit/add things on that list. Thanks,

2889:. But the dates don't agree with each other. For example, for Soyuz TM-9 2269:

Both names seem to have been used, with the "S" being short for "Saturn".

5609:

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of

4648: 4507: 4469: 3564:"Date format (DMY or MDY) should be discussed on the talk page for now." 3271:

It may be that spacecraft fall into the cracks between the two projects.

2927: 2594: 2583: 2388: 2319: 2315: 1844: 1524: 1520: 1388: 1384: 1205: 1114: 1093: 390: 354: 346: 306: 302: 260: 221: 6028:

I have proposed that to reduce overlap and inactivity, this project and

4765: 4213:) - thus apparently fixing the problem! this worries me.. any thoughts? 4089:

Knowledge (XXG):Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement

3773:

added those rules on 15 October 2003, during the birth of the project.

1231:

moving the current mission parameters in with the rest of the data table

862:

I propose the following addition to the table, above "Number of orbits":

781:

Alright. I might just make a whole groups of Space WikiProjects.... --

5896: 5881: 5873: 5869: 5865: 5858: 5450: 4448: 4417: 3372: 2877:

We have dates for the various flights to Mir listed in three locations

2109: 1153:

encyclopedia anyway... Hasn't this already been discussed somewhere? --

1025: 881: 2534:

table. I think the page renders much nicer with the skinnier table.

5105: 5073: 4985: 4960: 4924: 4869: 4834: 4210: 4201: 4197: 4145:

says use source units first with conversions in parens to follow, and

3750:

that the CM should have a nominal diameter of 13 feet, not 3.9624 m.

3185: 2886: 2786: 1952: 1942: 1815: 1033: 1017: 914: 892: 4770:

I propose something like this (fake data for example purposes only):

5221:

since we would want to include the space agency - for example the

4583: 2314:

Now just something unrelated but I've updated the pictures in the

815: 2676:

Oh, that's good too. In that case, this is a reminder to change

5974: 5021: 4888: 4422:

If so, this seems like the beginning of a maintenance nightmare.

1565: 1561: 4586:

explains it. I think that is used on most of the STS missions.

3043:

No, there really isn't a WikiProject Space. It is just a list.

1227:

Would there be any objections to the following modifications?

2878: 2126: 2113: 979:

this before I go ahead and start changing the Soyuz pages. --

15: 5380:

I've made such a change to the proposal above. Thoughts? --

5179:

group could work, even if they all point to the same source.

1450:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4203/ch10-5.htm

183:

Alright. I'm not going to argue. Looks like someone else (

5537:

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

5511:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia

1596:

Flight 191 - 81080 m. (Disintegrated after going into spin)

1337:

Could I also ask you to link cosmodrome to ] instead of ]?

3903:

Thanks! The hair's back down against my neck for now. --

3472:

In light of the discussions here, just below, and over at

3443:

Well, that's the time zone used as the edit timestamps...

2903:

This occurs on several missions. Which dates are correct?

2417: 2398: 1822:? Or write a Vostok program article and redirect to that? 1383:. As such I've moved all the pages to the right pages, ie 2826:

those for scientific purposes and those for exploration.

1903: 1568:

definition of astronaut) while only two are over 100 km (

5687:

Well, one of the pro-hoax editors started the article.

2863: 2859: 637:

One entertaining way to do it would be to use the terms

5285:

place where the list would belong. I'm still thinking.

4744: 4743:

For those joining us late...take a look at this change

3416:

UTC's probably the best - after all, it does stand for

1527:

to it, and then mention in the article something like "

73: 5747:

Here are a couple of other articles along those lines:

2914:

Using the succession box template for our own purposes

470:

name for the Chinese astronauts will last in English.

4723:

I prefer the old system of describing the Soyuz crew:

2350:

33,400,000 N (but then, maybe not so meaningful??) --

2246:

This wouldn't be necessary as IIRC these were called

3170:

Thanks a lot for this list! I'll be adding them to

2090: 2080: 2070: 2060: 2038: 2028: 2018: 2008: 1984: 1974: 1962: 1950: 1560:

And somewhat related to this is whether some of the

1494:

I would like them but back if just for consistency.

5907:

allowing unconverted metrics in scientific articles

5358:

To Mlm42's point #4, ESA has a flag, if that helps.

5215:- which is a distinction that should be emphasised. 4337:

Template talk:Infobox Astronaut#Astronaut/Cosmonaut

3331:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Unmanned Space Missions

2835:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Unmanned Space Missions

2123: 2107: 1926: 5984:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Space exploration 5980:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Human Spaceflight 2899:from mission article: February 11 - August 9, 1990 2738:Timeline of artificial satellites and space probes 1090:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Space Missions/Sandbox 524:mentioned on the astronaut page, with a link from 494:. English articles from Chinese news sources say 5784:Talk:STS-117#Regarding_Wikiproject_Space_Missions 4447:So, I suggest we go with the number format (i.e. 4408:Numer of spaceflight indicators on mission pages? 4230:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Manned Space Missions 2744:. Any good ideas on how to expand it? A separate 838:Out of curiosity, this wouldn't happen to be the 5513:. If you wish to comment, please comment there. 5340:Take a look at those and speak up with thoughts. 5174:Some things I think we need to decide up front: 4019:absolutely including both units in every article 2896:from the List: February 11, 1990 - July 17, 1990 2805:really includes unmanned exploration, and I see 3480:Times in the info box should be in 24-hour UTC. 3458:Times in the info box should be in 24-hour UTC. 3371:OK, this has taken on new life with respect to 3099:, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and 2653:There has been comparison of project tables at 2223:... Agreed that the Centaur should be moved to 1334:Or, as I said above, into the standard heading. 1282:logically follows that it should be placed) -- 1092:as a testing ground. The text will be that of 4684:, but the importance is much more subjective. 4234:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Human Spaceflights 4013:Well, I support the idea of using both SI and 2885:, and in the individual mission articles like 2503:(location, including link to site, if in Wiki) 2474:(location, including link to site, if in Wiki) 1325:(location, including link to site, if in Wiki) 667:The following section has been moved from the 6039:the Human Spaceflight WikiProject's talk page 5652:Would members of this project take a look at 5400:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Council/Directory 5044:Note: Marcos Pontes returned to Earth aboard 4381:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Space exploration 4204:, and many more) the text copied was written 4176:Category:WikiProject Space missions templates 2866:). Possibly you want to use it. -- User:Docu 2854:For testing the template namespace, I create 2732:Commercial and unmanned military use of space 1814:, etc. Right now each box on the bottom of a 1718:Freaky. I have never heard LCM before. :) 1611:List of manned space missions chronologically 8: 5654:Independent evidence for human Moon landings 5633:The 'WikiProject Space missions' page says, 5560:go up, but don't come down with the mission. 4782:Mission XXX was a transport mission for the 4748:I agree with Hektor. The newer presentation: 3235:I finally got around to assessing these for 3087:Articles for the Knowledge (XXG) 1.0 project 3033:Is this also a parent project for this one? 66:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Spaceflight 3269:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Launch vehicles 3243:. Many thanks, and keep up the good work! 1348:I'd also like to see the pad mentioned... 5709:main article, and this isn't one of them. 3655:Greg, you left off the next line from the 3093:Knowledge (XXG):Version_1.0_Editorial_Team 2956:Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston 2921: 2803:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Space Missions 2572:List_of_human_spaceflights_chronologically 1791:. It also appears that the Soyuz 11A511U2 736:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Space Missions 5616:User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week 5328:To Mlm42's point #2 above, I have edited 5157:Gerald Griffin, Gold team Flight Director 4790:crew. The flight delivered ISS Commander 3864:real rocket scientist to weigh in *grin*. 2721:The space shuttle ones have the box too. 2048: 1996: 1936: 867: 5821:updated space shuttle mission templates. 5481:Template:User WikiProject Space Missions 2893:from Mir: - February 11 - August 9, 1990 2801:I'm a bit confused whether the scope of 2405: 2053: 2001: 1941: 1913: 341: 334: 325: 297: 290: 281: 255: 248: 239: 42:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Spaceflight 5726:, using WP to make or argue a point. 5593:Article Creation and Improvement Drive 4708:Please comment on the merge proposal. 3214:The criteria that we use is available 2997:MA-n for the Mercury Atlas flights. 616:there is a rationale for why the term 5864:To standardize shuttle missions, see 5691:already has a "too long" tag on it. 3755:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Transport 2883:List of human spaceflights, 1987-1999 2659:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Compounds 233:I meant for it to say something like: 147:the table only for the caption rows. 7: 5689:Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations 5672:Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations 5548:first or one of the first sections. 5445: 4606:How do we want to treat backup crew? 4182:, but haven't tagged many articles. 3790:The relevant Manual of Style section 45:Because this page is not frequently 6042:for more details and discussion. -- 5337:back to Earth several months later. 5163:, White team (Lead) Flight Director 5048:. Anousheh Ansari launched aboard 4455:, which i believe was the purpose. 4416:, I think I have figured out (from 4302:I've just finished rewriting pages 2864:http://test.wikipedia.org/Mercury_4 2860:http://test.wikipedia.org/Mercury_3 2161:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Rockets 1843:that s/he's already applied to the 78:is maintained in order to preserve 3510:alternate between time formats. -- 2201:Knowledge (XXG):Naming_conventions 1806:Why isn't there an article on the 961:satellites for certain though. -- 224:and Apollo 2-6 in the bottom box? 49:, present and future discussions, 14: 5762:Examination of Apollo moon photos 4729:Crew down (the two of three guys) 3855:long the shuttle is and how many 2811:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Space 2411:(Larger image link if applicable) 1794:was used as well as the Soyuz FG 5449: 5099: 5083: 5067: 5026: 5015: 4997: 4979: 4954: 4936: 4918: 4893: 4882: 4863: 4844: 4828: 2833:Created new project for this at 1914: 678:, and looking at similar pages ( 620:is not sexist - and the article 19: 5225:, then what would the flag be? 5013:(1), Spaceflight Participant - 4726:Crew up (the two or three guys) 4267:Category:Space Shuttle missions 3620:Knowledge (XXG) Manual of Style 2593:At the moment I've written the 2195:The "rules" are to be found at 674:After the successful launch of 520:Well, I certainly want to keep 5949:01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 5806:18:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 5670:Can't we just merge this into 4802:crew members. Flight Engineer 4798:to the station to replace the 4578:15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 4553:15:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 4515:14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 4492:20:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 4482:18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 4460:17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 4436:16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 4403:17:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 4374:22:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 4363:17:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 4348:06:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 4325:15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 4315:17:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 4292:15:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 4282:10:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 4251:15:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 4241:10:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 4218:09:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 4187:08:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 4095:01:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 4082:22:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 4048:18:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 4039:15:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 4030:15:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 3993:23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 3972:15:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 3954:19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 3934:21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 3908:17:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 3883:22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 3873:19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 3833:18:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 3805:17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 3763:13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 3736:22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 3693:14:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 3646:02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 3632:23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 3601:23:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC) 3590:16:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC) 3504:17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 3468:16:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC) 3448:21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 3435:18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 3425:16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 3411:14:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 3397:14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 3367:16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC) 2856:Template:Infobox Spacemissions 2231:might need to be broadened? -- 2197:Knowledge (XXG):Disambiguation 1: 6034:WikiProject Human Spaceflight 5624:16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 5600:06:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 5575:02:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) 5553:22:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 5531:03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 5494:12:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 5385:01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 5138:Assembly and Checkout Officer 3783:this section of the guideline 3338:00:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 3333:be a descendant WikiProject? 2767:User:Ahoerstemeier/Cosmonauts 2746:list of commercial satellites 2680:when the background changes. 2250:to distinguish them from the 1921:Saturn V launching Apollo 15. 853:No, it's a book in Serbian :) 6082:00:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 6062:23:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC) 6030:WikiProject Space travellers 6019:13:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 5772:05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 5757:Apollo program missing tapes 5735:00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 5714:23:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 5700:23:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 5679:23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 5665:22:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 5643:03:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 5587:Hello, I just nominated the 5542:Location of the Crew section 5424:23:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 5369:21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 5348:20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 5314:16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 5290:16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 5268:16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 5244:10:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 5230:21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 5198:20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 5169:, Black team Flight Director 5151:Milton Windler, Maroon team 4880:, Spaceflight Participant - 4739:17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 4277:, etc. how does that sound? 4164:21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 4126:17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 3073:23:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 5930:15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC) 5920:15:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC) 5901:02:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 5886:00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 4784:International Space Station 4759:takes up more screen space. 4713:01:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 4693:09:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 4637:12:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 4625:23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 4613:14:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 4591:23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 4263:Category:Human spaceflights 3720:International Space Station 3581:So, I officially support ]. 3551:19:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 3057:16:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 2530:to make the changes to the 1312: 624:has now been moved back to 322: 278: 236: 6098: 5853:20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 5605:Knowledge (XXG) Day Awards 5483:. Hope everyone likes it! 3781:I think the first line of 3530:18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3320:16:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 3248:03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 3228:06:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 3210:06:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 3196:) that aren't necessarily 3179:06:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 3172:our space missions listing 3082:03:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 3063:Italicize spacecraft names 3038:22:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC) 2907:21:17, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC) 2858:on Test-Knowledge (XXG) ( 2578:14:30, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC) 2557:00:12, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC) 2159:I've created a project at 2155: 1784:16:12, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC) 1775:17:01, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC) 1741:20:09, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC) 1660:19:35, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC) 1208:and my suggestion below -- 490:, but the Chinese term is 474:17:04, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC) 228:16:30, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC) 5968:not emphasize nationality 5911:I'm seeking consensus at 5816:03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 5398:has recently updated the 3282:Six articles linked from 3276:21:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 3262:05:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 3241:Good Articles nominations 3165:21:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 3138:14:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 3108:03:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 3048:13:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC) 2966:Mercury Mission Numbering 2962:00:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) 2941: 2932: 2924: 2830:18:36, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC) 2793:18:08, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC) 2773:21:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) 2756:19:28, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC) 2718:22:25, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC) 2678:Knowledge (XXG):Taxoboxes 2665:02:50, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC) 2655:Knowledge (XXG):Taxoboxes 2625:14:55, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC) 2617:04:17, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC) 2549:23:18, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC) 2538:23:06, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC) 2291:02:46, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC) 2152:22:50, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC) 2100: 1906: 1826:23:50, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC) 1656:total, lander, LCM, etc. 1617:03:17, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC) 1498:00:44, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC) 1491:00:36, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC) 1399:the redir and move back. 1277:23:13, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC) 698:02:58, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC) 594:13:38, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC) 586:12:27, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC) 544:, not the actual Russian 506:Actually, I've only seen 424:16:08, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC) 417:08:33, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC) 378:17:20, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC) 370:17:10, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC) 151:12:16, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC) 105:12:16, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC) 38:and now targets the page: 5438:15:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 4794:and ISS Flight Engineer 4412:After some confusion on 4271:Category:Apollo missions 3091:Hi, I'm a member of the 3023:21:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2840:04:10, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC) 2821:21:19, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC) 2797:Unmanned space missions? 2725:18:59, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC) 2698:16:59, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 2691:09:05, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 2684:05:53, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC) 2673:05:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 2644:15:07, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC) 2460:(number of crew members) 2354:03:44, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC) 2338:04:36, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC) 2307:04:36, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC) 2191:08:38, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1896:22:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1855:07:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1801:21:37 Nov 26, 2003 (UTC) 1750:21:33, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC) 1433:09:36, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) 1414:09:33, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) 1403:04:16, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) 1341:09:55, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) 1242:00:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1121:19:09, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC) 1073:09:55, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) 983:07:20, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) 834:22:09, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC) 822:11:59, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC) 761:03:53, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC) 708:03:01, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC) 632:18:28, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC) 614:Talk:Shenzhou spacecraft 191:16:14, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC) 174:08:33, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC) 74:Merged page edit history 5970:without a good reason, 5467:WikiProject Spaceflight 4995:(2), Flight Engineer - 4952:(1), Flight Engineer - 4934:(2), Flight Engineer - 4842:(2), Flight Engineer - 4275:Category:Soyuz missions 3253:Is this project active? 2705:17:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) 2380:20:36 11 Dec 2003 (UTC) 2326:03:15 10 Dec 2003 (UTC) 2277:23:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 2258:21:56, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 2235:11:20, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1875:08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1834:00:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1765:08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1746:there may have been. - 1722:08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1634:08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1429:Gemini 5 is more used. 1352:08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1251:23:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1212:23:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1180:08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1157:05:44, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1117:for the time being. -- 965:06:07, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC) 947:09:37, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC) 932:09:35, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC) 846:13:06, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC) 662:08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 460:08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 438:but rather the general 436:Space Shuttle Discovery 275:Whereas you would like: 207:08:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) 5849:WikiProject Television 5830:Space Shuttle Columbia 5808: 5172: 4753:is more cluttered, and 4180:Template:Space mission 4023:English-speaking world 3559:Date format discussion 3343:Time format discussion 3325:Descendant WikiProject 2750:list of spy satellites 1363:It is, when known. -- 1327:using (launch vehicle) 5792: 5504:Beginning cross-post. 4773: 4392:Work via Wikiprojects 4353:Solid Rocket Boosters 4192:STS missions updating 3715:request has been made 3402:I support the use of 2815:Manned space missions 2779:{{SampleWikiProject}} 2244:Saturn I rocket stage 2221:Saturn I rocket stage 1737:fit into our format? 1735:Pioneer 6, 7, 8 and 9 1733:How will the article 1598:Flight 197 - 81530 m. 1594:Flight 190 - 85500 m. 1592:Flight 153 - 81230 m. 1590:Flight 150 - 90099 m. 1588:Flight 143 - 82601 m. 1586:Flight 138 - 85527 m. 1584:Flight 91 - 107960 m. 1582:Flight 90 - 106010 m. 440:Space Shuttle program 352:(Next Crewed Mission: 61:should take place at: 5122:Capsule Communicator 4861:, Flight Engineer - 4675:WP Space exploration 2994:production version. 2225:Centaur rocket stage 2185:Centaur rocket stage 1580:Flight 87 - 86870 m. 1578:Flight 77 - 82810 m. 1576:Flight 62 - 95940 m. 626:Manned space mission 622:Crewed space mission 572:Crewed space mission 366:That sound good? -- 5893:Timeline of STS-115 5878:Timeline of STS-115 5629:Missions with crews 5396:WikiProject Council 4662:article assessments 4331:Astronaut/Cosmonaut 3575:). But ] doesn't ( 2408:(image of insignia) 2395: 2181:F-1 (rocket engine) 2102:Three stage version 1889:Delta Rocket Family 1088:I'm going to start 5097:Flight Engineer - 5081:Flight Engineer - 4335:See discussion at 4170:templates category 2850:Template namespace 2523:(number of orbits) 2419:Mission Statistics 2389: 1810:like the ones for 1010:Mission parameters 656:Human spaceflights 60: 54: 6017: 5526: 5519: 5475: 5474: 5390:Project directory 5063:Fyodor Yurchikhin 5040: 4977:(2), Commander - 4916:(2), Commander - 4826:(2), Commander - 4699:space exploration 4668:Space exploration 4388:Space exploration 4386:I've started the 3386:In the spirit of 3028:WikiProject Space 2951: 2950: 2570:I did a count of 2527: 2526: 2450:(spacecraft name) 2213:F-1 rocket engine 2136: 2135: 1820:Vostok spacecraft 1331: 1330: 923: 922: 734:Please check out 688:George Washington 496:Chinese astronaut 363: 362: 327:Previous Mission: 313: 312: 283:Previous Mission: 272: 271: 241:Previous Mission: 87: 86: 56: 50: 6089: 6060: 6057: 6051: 6032:are merged into 6015: 6008: 6003: 5997: 5995: 5989: 5876:) I have merged 5834: 5828: 5825:I converted the 5638:organizations. 5591:article for the 5528: 5524: 5520: 5517: 5468: 5460: 5453: 5446: 5404:User:B2T2/Portal 5104: 5103: 5102: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5072: 5071: 5070: 5038: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5020: 5019: 5018: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4993:Jeffrey Williams 4984: 4983: 4982: 4975:Pavel Vinogradov 4959: 4958: 4957: 4941: 4940: 4939: 4932:Jeffrey Williams 4923: 4922: 4921: 4914:Pavel Vinogradov 4898: 4897: 4896: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4840:Jeffrey Williams 4833: 4832: 4831: 4824:Pavel Vinogradov 4796:Jeffrey Williams 4792:Pavel Vinogradov 4679: 4673: 3741:Units discussion 3609:But as for date 3528: 3525: 3519: 3485:Mission Timeline 3225: 2954:See for example 2922: 2781: 2780: 2481:Linkup with ISS: 2446:Spacecraft Name: 2412: 2400:Mission Insignia 2396: 2394: 2271:S-I rocket stage 1918: 1909: 1904: 1651:I added Crew to 1313: 1057:Number of orbits 872:Satellite weight 868: 359: 323: 279: 237: 76: 23: 16: 6097: 6096: 6092: 6091: 6090: 6088: 6087: 6086: 6059: 6055: 6049: 6043: 6026: 6024:Proposed merger 6011: 6006: 5999: 5993: 5987: 5960:manual of style 5956: 5941: 5909: 5862: 5832: 5826: 5823: 5780: 5778:total meltdown? 5650: 5631: 5607: 5585: 5544: 5523: 5515: 5501: 5476: 5466: 5458: 5456:This user is a 5431: 5392: 5153:Flight Director 5100: 5098: 5084: 5082: 5068: 5066: 5027: 5025: 5016: 5014: 5011:Anousheh Ansari 4998: 4996: 4980: 4978: 4955: 4953: 4937: 4935: 4919: 4917: 4894: 4892: 4883: 4881: 4875:Anousheh Ansari 4864: 4862: 4845: 4843: 4829: 4827: 4812:Anousheh Ansari 4780: 4779: 4720: 4706: 4677: 4671: 4670:, with the tag 4664: 4453:crew experience 4410: 4384: 4355: 4333: 4300: 4298:Review request. 4259: 4225: 4194: 4174:I've started a 4172: 3743: 3710: 3708:ISS peer review 3657:Manual of Style 3561: 3527: 3523: 3517: 3511: 3493:Manual of Style 3345: 3327: 3304: 3288: 3284:2006-07-24 APOD 3255: 3223: 3190:Sputnik program 3119:Voyager program 3089: 3065: 3031: 2968: 2947: 2935:Soyuz programme 2930: 2916: 2875: 2852: 2807:User:Sennheiser 2799: 2778: 2777: 2762: 2734: 2651: 2632:Talk:Shenzhou 5 2606: 2410: 2390: 2252:Saturn I rocket 2217:Saturn I rocket 2173:Redstone rocket 1907: 1869:Redstone rocket 1812:Mercury program 1012: 652:Manned missions 350: 337:Mercury Program 293:Mercury Program 251:Mercury Program 92: 72: 58:requested moves 12: 11: 5: 6095: 6093: 6085: 6084: 6047: 6045:GW_Simulations 6025: 6022: 5955: 5952: 5940: 5934: 5933: 5932: 5908: 5905: 5904: 5903: 5895:redirected to 5861: 5856: 5822: 5819: 5779: 5776: 5775: 5774: 5759: 5753: 5752: 5751: 5750: 5749: 5748: 5740: 5739: 5738: 5737: 5717: 5716: 5705: 5704: 5703: 5702: 5682: 5681: 5649: 5646: 5630: 5627: 5606: 5603: 5584: 5579: 5578: 5577: 5568: 5565: 5561: 5556: 5555: 5543: 5540: 5534: 5533: 5500: 5497: 5478: 5473: 5472: 5463: 5454: 5444: 5430: 5427: 5391: 5388: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5362: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5350: 5341: 5338: 5323: 5322: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5299: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5295: 5294: 5293: 5292: 5275: 5274: 5273: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5261: 5258: 5249: 5248: 5247: 5246: 5233: 5232: 5217: 5216: 5211: 5210: 5205: 5204: 5191: 5190: 5187: 5183: 5180: 5171: 5170: 5164: 5158: 5155: 5149: 5147:Flight_Surgeon 5140: 5131: 5125: 5109: 5108: 5095:Sergei Volkov 5092: 5079:Michael Fincke 5076: 5007: 4989: 4971: 4946: 4928: 4910: 4903: 4902: 4872: 4853: 4837: 4808:Expedition MMM 4800:Expedition MMM 4788:Expedition NNN 4778: 4775: 4774: 4771: 4769: 4766:related things 4761: 4760: 4757: 4754: 4749: 4747: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4727: 4724: 4719: 4716: 4705: 4696: 4682:grading scheme 4663: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4652: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4630: 4607: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4555: 4546: 4545: 4542: 4541: 4537: 4536: 4524: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4463: 4462: 4444: 4443: 4430: 4427: 4425: 4423: 4421: 4409: 4406: 4383: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4354: 4351: 4332: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4299: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4258: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4224: 4221: 4193: 4190: 4171: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4157: 4153: 4146: 4139: 4132: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4041: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3866: 3865: 3861: 3860: 3848: 3847: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3798: 3794: 3793: 3787: 3786: 3779: 3742: 3739: 3709: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3686: 3685: 3682: 3681: 3677: 3676: 3673: 3672: 3669: 3665: 3664: 3661: 3660: 3653: 3652: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3614: 3608: 3604: 3603: 3584: 3582: 3580: 3570: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3560: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3515: 3513:GW_Simulations 3497: 3496: 3488: 3481: 3461: 3459: 3457: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3438: 3437: 3414: 3413: 3391: 3385: 3379: 3376: 3361: 3359: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3348: 3344: 3341: 3335:24.126.199.129 3326: 3323: 3303: 3300: 3290:Well done. -- 3287: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3254: 3251: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3168: 3167: 3156: 3154:Project Apollo 3151: 3146: 3132: 3131: 3126: 3121: 3116: 3097:these criteria 3088: 3085: 3064: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3050: 3030: 3025: 2967: 2964: 2949: 2948: 2943: 2940: 2938: 2931: 2926: 2915: 2912: 2910: 2901: 2900: 2897: 2894: 2874: 2871: 2869: 2851: 2848: 2846: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2798: 2795: 2783: 2775: 2761: 2758: 2733: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2685: 2650: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2627: 2626: 2605: 2604:Navigation bar 2602: 2580: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2551: 2525: 2524: 2521: 2515: 2514: 2511: 2505: 2504: 2502: 2500: 2497: 2491: 2490: 2488: 2486: 2483: 2479: 2476: 2475: 2473: 2471: 2468: 2462: 2461: 2458: 2452: 2451: 2448: 2442: 2441: 2438: 2432: 2431: 2430:(mission name) 2428: 2422: 2421: 2415: 2414: 2409: 2407: 2403: 2402: 2392:(mission name) 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2356: 2355: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2328: 2327: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2298: 2297: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2237: 2236: 2229:Jupiter-C IRBM 2177:Centaur rocket 2169: 2168: 2167: 2141:User:Rlandmann 2134: 2133: 2130: 2121: 2120: 2117: 2105: 2104: 2098: 2097: 2094: 2088: 2087: 2084: 2078: 2077: 2074: 2068: 2067: 2064: 2058: 2057: 2055: 2052: 2046: 2045: 2042: 2036: 2035: 2032: 2026: 2025: 2022: 2016: 2015: 2012: 2006: 2005: 2003: 2000: 1994: 1993: 1990: 1982: 1981: 1978: 1972: 1971: 1968: 1960: 1959: 1956: 1948: 1947: 1945: 1940: 1934: 1933: 1930: 1924: 1923: 1919: 1911: 1910: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1808:Vostok program 1804: 1803: 1802: 1777: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1758: 1757: 1751: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1681: 1680: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1636: 1635: 1627: 1626: 1619: 1618: 1599: 1597: 1595: 1593: 1591: 1589: 1587: 1585: 1583: 1581: 1579: 1577: 1555: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1405: 1404: 1381:arabic numbers 1377:roman numerals 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1343: 1342: 1335: 1329: 1328: 1326: 1324: 1322: 1319: 1311: 1310: 1299: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1253: 1252: 1236: 1235: 1232: 1226: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1060: 1059: 1054: 1046: 1038: 1030: 1022: 1011: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 936: 935: 934: 933: 921: 920: 918: 910: 909: 907: 899: 898: 896: 888: 887: 885: 877: 876: 874: 866: 865: 864: 863: 857: 856: 855: 854: 848: 847: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 771: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 727: 726: 725: 724: 714: 712: 711: 710: 709: 665: 664: 663: 634: 633: 609: 608: 607: 606: 596: 595: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 515: 514: 503: 502: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 449: 448: 447: 446: 428: 427: 426: 425: 410: 409: 408: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 382: 381: 380: 379: 361: 360: 353: 349: 345: 340: 333: 329: 320: 318: 317: 311: 310: 301: 296: 289: 285: 277: 276: 270: 269: 266:Gemini Program 263: 259: 254: 247: 243: 235: 234: 230: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 208: 195: 194: 193: 192: 178: 177: 176: 175: 160: 159: 144: 143: 142: 141: 132: 131: 115: 114: 91: 88: 85: 84: 69: 62: 44: 39: 34:that has been 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6094: 6083: 6079: 6075: 6071: 6066: 6065: 6064: 6063: 6058: 6052: 6046: 6041: 6040: 6036:. Please see 6035: 6031: 6023: 6021: 6020: 6016: 6014: 6009: 6004: 6002: 5992: 5985: 5981: 5976: 5973: 5969: 5965: 5964:flag icon use 5961: 5954:Flag icon use 5953: 5951: 5950: 5947: 5939: 5938:Stanley Dunin 5935: 5931: 5928: 5924: 5923: 5922: 5921: 5918: 5914: 5906: 5902: 5898: 5894: 5890: 5889: 5888: 5887: 5883: 5879: 5875: 5871: 5867: 5860: 5857: 5855: 5854: 5850: 5846: 5842: 5838: 5831: 5820: 5818: 5817: 5814: 5807: 5805: 5800: 5796: 5791: 5789: 5785: 5777: 5773: 5769: 5766: 5763: 5760: 5758: 5755: 5754: 5746: 5745: 5744: 5743: 5742: 5741: 5736: 5732: 5729: 5725: 5721: 5720: 5719: 5718: 5715: 5712: 5707: 5706: 5701: 5697: 5694: 5690: 5686: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5680: 5677: 5673: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5666: 5662: 5659: 5655: 5647: 5645: 5644: 5641: 5636: 5628: 5626: 5625: 5622: 5621:Badbilltucker 5617: 5612: 5604: 5602: 5601: 5598: 5594: 5590: 5583: 5580: 5576: 5573: 5569: 5566: 5562: 5558: 5557: 5554: 5551: 5546: 5545: 5541: 5539: 5538: 5532: 5529: 5521: 5512: 5508: 5507: 5506: 5505: 5498: 5496: 5495: 5492: 5487: 5486: 5482: 5470: 5469: 5461: 5455: 5452: 5448: 5447: 5443: 5440: 5439: 5436: 5428: 5426: 5425: 5422: 5417: 5416:collaboration 5413: 5409: 5405: 5401: 5397: 5389: 5387: 5386: 5383: 5378: 5370: 5367: 5363: 5360: 5357: 5356: 5355: 5354: 5349: 5346: 5342: 5339: 5335: 5331: 5327: 5326: 5325: 5324: 5315: 5312: 5307: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5301: 5300: 5291: 5288: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5269: 5266: 5262: 5259: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5252: 5251: 5250: 5245: 5242: 5237: 5236: 5235: 5234: 5231: 5228: 5224: 5219: 5218: 5213: 5212: 5207: 5206: 5202: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5196: 5188: 5184: 5181: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5168: 5165: 5162: 5159: 5156: 5154: 5150: 5148: 5144: 5141: 5139: 5135: 5132: 5129: 5126: 5123: 5119: 5116: 5115: 5114: 5113: 5107: 5096: 5093: 5091: 5090:United States 5080: 5077: 5075: 5064: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5058: 5054: 5053: 5051: 5047: 5041: 5036: 5035: 5034: 5033:United States 5023: 5012: 5006: 5005: 5004:United States 4994: 4988: 4987: 4976: 4970: 4969: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4951: 4950:Marcos Pontes 4945: 4944: 4943:United States 4933: 4927: 4926: 4915: 4909: 4908: 4901: 4900:United States 4890: 4879: 4876: 4873: 4871: 4860: 4857: 4856:Marcos Pontes 4854: 4852: 4851:United States 4841: 4838: 4836: 4825: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4815: 4813: 4809: 4805: 4804:Marcos Pontes 4801: 4797: 4793: 4789: 4785: 4776: 4772: 4767: 4758: 4755: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4745: 4741: 4740: 4737: 4728: 4725: 4722: 4721: 4718:Crew of Soyuz 4717: 4715: 4714: 4711: 4704: 4700: 4697: 4695: 4694: 4691: 4685: 4683: 4676: 4669: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4650: 4646: 4645: 4638: 4635: 4631: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4623: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4611: 4592: 4589: 4585: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4576: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4554: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4538: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4516: 4513: 4509: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4493: 4490: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4479: 4475: 4471: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4461: 4458: 4454: 4450: 4446: 4445: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4434: 4419: 4415: 4407: 4405: 4404: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4389: 4382: 4379: 4375: 4372: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4361: 4352: 4350: 4349: 4346: 4342: 4338: 4330: 4326: 4323: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4313: 4309: 4308:Expedition 14 4305: 4297: 4293: 4290: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4280: 4276: 4272: 4268: 4264: 4256: 4252: 4249: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4222: 4220: 4219: 4216: 4212: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4191: 4189: 4188: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4169: 4165: 4162: 4158: 4154: 4151: 4147: 4144: 4140: 4137: 4133: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4124: 4119: 4117: 4096: 4093: 4090: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4080: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4049: 4046: 4042: 4040: 4037: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 3994: 3991: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3973: 3970: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3955: 3952: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3935: 3932: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3909: 3906: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3884: 3881: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3871: 3867: 3862: 3858: 3854: 3849: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3834: 3831: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3788: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3761: 3756: 3751: 3747: 3740: 3738: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3724:peer reviewed 3721: 3717: 3716: 3707: 3700: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3644: 3638: 3634: 3633: 3630: 3621: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3612: 3602: 3599: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3588: 3578: 3574: 3563: 3562: 3558: 3552: 3548: 3547: 3542: 3537: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3526: 3520: 3514: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3502: 3494: 3489: 3486: 3483:Times in the 3482: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476:, how about: 3475: 3470: 3469: 3466: 3462: 3449: 3446: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3436: 3433: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3423: 3419: 3412: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3395: 3389: 3383: 3374: 3369: 3368: 3365: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3342: 3340: 3339: 3336: 3332: 3324: 3322: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3308: 3301: 3299: 3297: 3293: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3260: 3252: 3250: 3249: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3229: 3226: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3208: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3177: 3173: 3166: 3163: 3160: 3159:Space shuttle 3157: 3155: 3152: 3150: 3147: 3145: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3136: 3130: 3127: 3125: 3122: 3120: 3117: 3115: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3106: 3102: 3101:Good articles 3098: 3094: 3086: 3084: 3083: 3080: 3075: 3074: 3071: 3062: 3058: 3055: 3051: 3049: 3046: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3036: 3029: 3026: 3024: 3022: 3017: 3016: 3011: 3008: 3005: 3001: 2998: 2995: 2991: 2988: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2974: 2971: 2965: 2963: 2961: 2957: 2946: 2937: 2936: 2929: 2923: 2920: 2919:For example: 2913: 2911: 2908: 2906: 2898: 2895: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2872: 2870: 2867: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2849: 2847: 2839: 2836: 2832: 2831: 2829: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2796: 2794: 2792: 2788: 2782: 2774: 2772: 2768: 2759: 2757: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2731: 2724: 2720: 2719: 2717: 2713: 2704: 2700: 2699: 2697: 2693: 2692: 2690: 2686: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2674: 2672: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2648: 2643: 2642: 2638: 2633: 2629: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2616: 2615: 2611: 2603: 2601: 2600: 2596: 2591: 2587: 2585: 2579: 2577: 2573: 2565: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2556: 2550: 2548: 2544: 2539: 2537: 2533: 2522: 2520: 2517: 2516: 2512: 2510: 2507: 2506: 2498: 2496: 2493: 2492: 2484: 2482: 2478: 2477: 2469: 2467: 2464: 2463: 2459: 2457: 2454: 2453: 2449: 2447: 2444: 2443: 2439: 2437: 2434: 2433: 2429: 2427: 2426:Mission Name: 2424: 2423: 2420: 2416: 2413: 2404: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2379: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2365: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2353: 2348: 2347:Saturn rocket 2344: 2343: 2337: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2312: 2306: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2290: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2209:Mars (planet) 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2153: 2151: 2145: 2142: 2131: 2129: 2128: 2122: 2118: 2116: 2115: 2111: 2106: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2063: 2059: 2056: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2011: 2007: 2004: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1989: 1988: 1983: 1979: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1967: 1966: 1961: 1957: 1955: 1954: 1949: 1946: 1944: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1929: 1925: 1922: 1917: 1912: 1905: 1895: 1890: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1874: 1870: 1865: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1833: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1800: 1796: 1793: 1790: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1783: 1776: 1774: 1764: 1760: 1759: 1756: 1752: 1749: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1740: 1736: 1721: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1703: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1689: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1659: 1654: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1628: 1625: 1621: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1600: 1574: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1558: 1554: 1553: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1497: 1493: 1492: 1490: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1451: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1366: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1351: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1333: 1332: 1320: 1318: 1315: 1314: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1298: 1297: 1291: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1276: 1272: 1262: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1250: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1241: 1233: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1211: 1207: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1179: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1156: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1137: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1120: 1116: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1058: 1055: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1044: 1043: 1039: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1028: 1027: 1023: 1020: 1019: 1014: 1013: 1009: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 982: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 964: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 946: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 931: 927: 926: 925: 924: 919: 917: 916: 912: 911: 908: 906: 905: 901: 900: 897: 895: 894: 890: 889: 886: 884: 883: 879: 878: 875: 873: 870: 869: 861: 860: 859: 858: 852: 851: 850: 849: 845: 841: 840:Space Almanac 837: 836: 835: 833: 821: 817: 813: 812: 811: 810: 803: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 784: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 760: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 741: 737: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 723: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 707: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 697: 693: 689: 685: 681: 677: 672: 670: 661: 657: 653: 648: 644: 640: 636: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 610: 605: 600: 599: 598: 597: 593: 589: 588: 587: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 561: 551: 547: 543: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 518: 517: 516: 513: 509: 505: 504: 501: 497: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 476: 475: 473: 459: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 445: 441: 437: 432: 431: 430: 429: 423: 419: 418: 416: 411: 406: 405: 404: 403: 396: 392: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 377: 372: 371: 369: 365: 364: 358: 356: 348: 344: 343:Next Mission: 339: 338: 332: 328: 324: 321: 315: 314: 308: 304: 300: 299:Next Mission: 295: 294: 288: 284: 280: 274: 273: 267: 262: 258: 257:Next Mission: 253: 252: 246: 242: 238: 232: 231: 229: 227: 223: 219: 206: 201: 200: 199: 198: 197: 196: 190: 186: 182: 181: 180: 179: 173: 169: 164: 163: 162: 161: 158: 154: 153: 152: 150: 140: 136: 135: 134: 133: 130: 126: 121: 117: 116: 113: 108: 107: 106: 104: 98: 97: 89: 83: 81: 77: 75: 68: 67: 59: 53: 52:edit requests 48: 43: 37: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 6044: 6037: 6027: 6012: 6000: 5971: 5957: 5942: 5910: 5863: 5824: 5809: 5801: 5797: 5793: 5781: 5651: 5634: 5632: 5608: 5589:Olympus Mons 5586: 5582:Olympus Mons 5536: 5535: 5503: 5502: 5488: 5477: 5464: 5441: 5432: 5393: 5379: 5375: 5192: 5173: 5167:Glynn Lunney 5112:Support crew 5111: 5110: 5065:Commander - 5057:Back-up crew 5056: 5055: 5043: 5042: 5037: 5008: 4990: 4972: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4947: 4929: 4911: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4878: 4859: 4818:Primary Crew 4817: 4816: 4807: 4799: 4787: 4781: 4762: 4742: 4733: 4707: 4686: 4665: 4605: 4523: 4452: 4411: 4396:discuss here 4385: 4356: 4334: 4301: 4260: 4226: 4205: 4195: 4173: 4120: 4113: 4022: 4018: 3856: 3852: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3713: 3711: 3699:my talk page 3639: 3635: 3626: 3610: 3605: 3568: 3544: 3535: 3512: 3498: 3484: 3474:Talk:STS-115 3471: 3455: 3454: 3417: 3415: 3381: 3370: 3356: 3346: 3328: 3309: 3305: 3294:, 2006-07-24 3289: 3256: 3234: 3194:Mars Express 3188:series, the 3169: 3133: 3114:Deep Space 1 3090: 3076: 3066: 3032: 3018: 3012: 3009: 3006: 3002: 2999: 2996: 2992: 2989: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2975: 2972: 2969: 2952: 2942:Succeeded by 2933: 2917: 2909: 2902: 2876: 2873:Mir missions 2868: 2853: 2845: 2809:has created 2800: 2784: 2776: 2763: 2735: 2652: 2640: 2630:Answered on 2613: 2607: 2592: 2588: 2581: 2569: 2552: 2540: 2532:Apollo-Soyuz 2528: 2518: 2508: 2494: 2480: 2465: 2455: 2445: 2435: 2425: 2418: 2406: 2399: 2391: 2285: 2205:Titan rocket 2180: 2170: 2154: 2146: 2137: 2124: 2108: 2101: 2091: 2081: 2071: 2061: 2049: 2039: 2029: 2019: 2009: 1997: 1985: 1975: 1963: 1951: 1937: 1927: 1920: 1864:Titan rocket 1849:Titan rocket 1838: 1805: 1778: 1769: 1732: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1650: 1601: 1575: 1559: 1556: 1549: 1532: 1531:(officially 1528: 1426: 1374: 1316: 1300: 1292: 1289: 1269:I worked on 1268: 1237: 1225: 1056: 1048: 1040: 1032: 1024: 1015: 913: 902: 891: 880: 871: 839: 828: 770: 713: 692:Elizabeth II 673: 669:Village pump 666: 655: 651: 646: 642: 638: 617: 579: 575: 567: 563: 559: 557: 545: 541: 537: 533: 521: 507: 495: 491: 487: 479: 468: 351: 342: 335: 326: 319: 305:(or perhaps 298: 291: 282: 256: 249: 240: 215: 145: 124: 119: 99: 93: 80:attributions 71: 70: 64: 26:This is the 5946:Tim Vickers 5913:MOSNUM talk 5648:New article 5611:Esperanza's 5499:Stablepedia 5412:peer review 5394:Hello. The 5334:Soyuz TMA-8 5330:Soyuz TMA-7 5128:Jack Lousma 5118:Vance Brand 5050:Soyuz TMA-9 5046:Soyuz TMA-7 4703:spaceflight 4414:Soyuz TMA-9 4304:Soyuz TMA-9 4223:WikiProject 4131:Given that: 3775:User:Pipian 3771:User:Pipian 3577:2006-SEP-15 2925:Preceded by 2440:(call sign) 2125:Payload to 2119:118,000 kg 1379:instead of 1042:Inclination 904:Inclination 704:Go for it. 480:spationauts 168:Soyuz TMA-2 5804:Colds7ream 5788:Colds7ream 5491:Colds7ream 5485:Colds7ream 5435:Jmclark911 5408:assessment 5161:Gene Kranz 5143:Joe Kerwin 5134:Bill Pogue 4768:recently.. 4360:Colds7ream 4312:Colds7ream 4257:Categories 4232:, or even 4156:because".) 3828:accuracy. 3607:September. 3573:2006-09-15 3539:readers. ( 3456:How about: 3445:Coldstream 3422:Coldstream 3329:Shouldn't 3149:Space race 2760:Cosmonauts 2696:Hephaestos 2671:Hephaestos 2649:Coloration 2513:(duration) 2489:(location) 2436:Call Sign: 2132:47,000 kg 1841:User:Audin 1830:Done :) -- 1748:Hephaestos 1387:is now at 1016:Satellite 676:Shenzhou 5 538:yuhangyuan 492:yuhangyuan 125:spacecraft 6050:User Page 5711:MLilburne 5597:S.dedalus 5311:MLilburne 5287:MLilburne 5241:MLilburne 5186:question. 3583:Thoughts? 3518:User Page 3418:Universal 3384:matter... 3360:Thoughts? 3237:the table 3144:Apollo 11 3129:Voyager 2 3124:Voyager 1 2945:Soyuz 18a 2742:satellite 2599:enceladus 2543:Apollo 17 2509:Duration: 2378:enceladus 2352:Rlandmann 2324:enceladus 2275:Rlandmann 2256:enceladus 2248:S-I stage 2233:Rlandmann 2165:enceladus 2096:RP-1/LOX 2082:Burn time 2044:RP-1/LOX 2030:Burn time 1992:RP-1/LOX 1976:Burn time 1894:enceladus 1853:Rlandmann 1851:pages. -- 1832:Rlandmann 1799:enceladus 1688:enceladus 1653:Apollo 16 1604:enceladus 1552:enceladus 1523:and link 1489:enceladus 1393:enceladus 1296:enceladus 1271:Apollo 17 1249:enceladus 1240:Rlandmann 1210:Rlandmann 1155:Rlandmann 802:rlandmann 722:rlandmann 684:Mercury 3 680:Mercury 3 580:bemenscht 546:kosmonaut 542:cosmonaut 534:astronaut 530:astronaut 526:taikonaut 522:taikonaut 512:rlandmann 508:taikonaut 488:taikonaut 484:Astronaut 331:Mercury 8 287:Mercury 8 245:Mercury 8 218:Mercury 9 185:Rlandmann 129:rlandmann 28:talk page 6078:contribs 5958:Per the 5936:AfD for 5927:Rmhermen 5891:Update: 5845:contribs 5724:WP:POINT 5676:Rmhermen 5564:article. 5479:It's at 5429:User Box 5130:, CAPCOM 5124:(CAPCOM) 4907:Launched 4710:Rmhermen 4649:Apollo 1 4622:Rmhermen 4588:Rmhermen 4582:See how 4540:similar. 4508:Apollo 8 4489:Rmhermen 4474:Shimgray 4470:Apollo 8 4341:Dhartung 4322:Rmhermen 4289:Rmhermen 4248:Rmhermen 4092:Rmhermen 4036:Rmhermen 3732:write me 3598:Rmhermen 3536:Columbus 3432:Rmhermen 3312:Shimgray 3302:Linkspam 3273:Rmhermen 3245:Walkerma 3176:Walkerma 3162:Rmhermen 3105:Walkerma 3070:Rmhermen 3045:Rmhermen 2980:report. 2928:Soyuz 16 2905:Rmhermen 2754:Rmhermen 2723:Rmhermen 2716:Rmhermen 2623:Rmhermen 2595:Soyuz 27 2584:Soyuz 27 2576:Rmhermen 2555:Rmhermen 2495:Landing: 2320:Apollo 4 2316:Saturn V 1908:Saturn V 1845:Saturn V 1824:Rmhermen 1782:Rmhermen 1773:Rmhermen 1739:Rmhermen 1658:Rmhermen 1615:Rmhermen 1533:Gemini V 1529:Gemini 5 1525:Gemini V 1521:Gemini 5 1496:Rmhermen 1389:Gemini V 1385:Gemini 5 1275:Rmhermen 1206:Vostok 1 1115:Vostok 1 1094:Vostok 1 759:Ark30inf 706:Ark30inf 592:Rmhermen 472:Rmhermen 422:Rmhermen 391:Apollo 4 376:Rmhermen 355:Gemini 3 347:Gemini 1 307:Gemini 3 303:Gemini 1 261:Gemini 1 226:Rmhermen 222:Apollo 1 120:launches 32:redirect 5897:STS-115 5882:STS-115 5874:STS-118 5870:STS-117 5866:STS-116 5859:STS-115 5790:wrote: 5765:Bubba73 5728:Bubba73 5693:Bubba73 5658:Bubba73 4449:STS-115 4418:STS-116 4371:Cjosefy 4141:2) The 4123:Cjosefy 3880:Cjosefy 3830:Cjosefy 3797:units". 3778:anyway. 3760:Cjosefy 3388:WP:BOLD 3373:STS-115 3298:18:01z 3292:Jeandré 3202:feature 2819:Wikibob 2682:Tuf-Kat 2663:Tuf-Kat 2519:Orbits: 2466:Launch: 2227:. Also 2110:Payload 2054:Engines 2002:Engines 1943:Engines 1317:Launch: 1026:Perigee 882:Perigee 643:Womaned 576:bemannt 47:watched 5982:, and 5768:(talk) 5731:(talk) 5696:(talk) 5661:(talk) 5572:3Idiot 5550:Hektor 5525:ROCKER 5518:MESSED 5459:member 5414:, and 5382:3Idiot 5366:3Idiot 5345:3Idiot 5265:3Idiot 5195:3Idiot 5106:Russia 5074:Russia 4986:Russia 4968:Landed 4961:Brazil 4925:Russia 4870:Brazil 4835:Russia 4786:(ISS) 4736:Hektor 4656:3Idiot 4647:...or 4634:3Idiot 4610:3Idiot 4550:3Idiot 4433:3Idiot 4211:STS-93 4206:before 4202:STS-92 4198:STS-91 4178:, and 4161:3Idiot 4079:Duccio 4027:Duccio 3969:Duccio 3905:3Idiot 3870:3Idiot 3802:3Idiot 3728:Duccio 3722:to be 3690:3Idiot 3629:3Idiot 3611:format 3587:3Idiot 3501:3Idiot 3465:3Idiot 3408:Atrian 3394:3Idiot 3364:3Idiot 3358:cases. 3186:Venera 3054:Exodio 2887:TMA-11 2787:STS-47 2564:Pipian 2501:(time) 2499:(date) 2487:(time) 2485:(date) 2472:(time) 2470:(date) 2364:Pipian 2086:~ sec 2062:Thrust 2034:~ sec 2010:Thrust 1980:~ sec 1953:Thrust 1928:Stages 1816:Vostok 1755:Pipian 1702:Pipian 1678:Pipian 1672:, and 1666:Lander 1643:Pipian 1624:Pipian 1537:Pipian 1431:Nikola 1365:Pipian 1339:Nikola 1323:(time) 1321:(date) 1304:Pipian 1284:Pipian 1261:Pipian 1136:Pipian 1119:Pipian 1098:Pipian 1071:Nikola 1050:Period 1034:Apogee 1018:weight 981:Pipian 963:Pipian 930:Nikola 915:Period 893:Apogee 844:Pipian 832:Nikola 783:Pipian 740:Pipian 696:Pipian 647:Crewed 645:, and 639:Manned 618:manned 604:Pipian 568:manned 564:crewed 560:manned 550:Pipian 500:Pipian 482:, see 444:Pipian 395:Pipian 368:Pipian 189:Pipian 157:Pipian 139:Pipian 112:Pipian 96:Pipian 36:merged 6070:TheDJ 6001:Ariel 5880:into 5837:TheDJ 5813:Sdsds 5640:Sdsds 5227:Mlm42 5209:list. 4690:Mlm42 4584:STS-1 4575:Mlm42 4535:Doe"? 4512:Mlm42 4457:Mlm42 4400:Mlm42 4279:Mlm42 4238:Mlm42 4215:Mlm42 4184:Mlm42 4138:, and 4045:siafu 4025:. // 3990:siafu 3951:siafu 3931:siafu 3857:miles 3668:UTC". 3541:sdsds 3207:siafu 3135:siafu 3035:siafu 2960:Bryan 2939:1975 2838:Ryjaz 2828:Ryjaz 2791:Theon 2547:Audin 2536:Audin 2456:Crew: 2336:Audin 2305:Audin 2289:Audin 2189:Audin 2150:Audin 2092:Fuels 2040:Fuels 1987:Fuels 1873:Audin 1763:Audin 1720:Audin 1674:Total 1632:Audin 1535:) -- 1427:today 1350:Audin 1178:Audin 1096:. -- 999:this: 816:STS-9 660:Audin 498:. -- 458:Audin 205:Audin 30:of a 6074:talk 6056:Talk 6013:Gold 5975:NASA 5917:Tony 5841:talk 5509:See 5421:B2T2 5332:and 5022:Iran 4889:Iran 4877:(1) 4858:(1) 4777:Crew 4701:and 4478:talk 4345:Talk 4306:and 4150:here 4136:UScu 4116:UScu 4015:UScu 3853:feet 3718:for 3643:Greg 3546:talk 3524:Talk 3316:talk 3220:Tito 3216:here 3198:good 3021:Rick 2970:Hi, 2771:andy 2703:andy 2689:andy 2242:RE: 2219:and 2207:but 2199:and 2076:sec 2066:lbs 2024:sec 2014:lbs 1970:sec 1958:lbs 1847:and 1566:USAF 1562:X-15 1412:andy 1401:Stan 945:andy 820:andy 690:and 630:andy 584:andy 548:.-- 536:and 415:andy 172:andy 149:andy 103:andy 55:and 5991:USA 5962:on 5899:. 5782:At 5223:ESA 4143:MoS 3404:UTC 3259:Rob 3200:or 3079:Rob 2879:Mir 2637:Jia 2610:Jia 2545:. 2127:TLI 2114:LEO 2112:to 2072:ISP 2020:ISP 1965:ISP 1871:. 1670:LCM 1570:FAI 1470:as. 658:. 654:to 612:In 562:or 528:to 442:-- 90:old 63:• 40:• 6080:) 6076:• 6053:| 5994:}} 5988:{{ 5872:, 5868:, 5851:) 5847:• 5843:• 5833:}} 5827:{{ 5786:, 5770:, 5733:, 5698:, 5663:, 5656:? 5570:-- 5462:of 5410:, 5364:-- 5343:-- 5263:-- 5193:-- 5145:, 5136:, 5120:, 5024:/ 4891:/ 4678:}} 4672:{{ 4654:-- 4632:-- 4608:-- 4548:-- 4480:| 4476:| 4431:-- 4398:) 4343:| 4273:, 4269:, 4236:? 4200:, 4159:-- 3868:-- 3800:-- 3734:) 3712:A 3688:-- 3627:-- 3585:-- 3579:). 3549:) 3543:- 3521:| 3499:-- 3463:-- 3392:-- 3382:do 3362:-- 3318:| 3314:| 3224:xd 3192:, 3019:-- 2881:, 2862:, 2752:? 2748:, 2641:ng 2614:ng 2187:. 2175:, 1932:3 1797:. 1668:, 1238:-- 671:: 641:, 582:. 6072:( 6007:♥ 5839:( 5527:★ 5516:★ 5471:. 5052:. 5009:* 4991:* 4973:* 4948:* 4930:* 4912:* 4746:. 4651:? 4152:, 3730:( 3622:. 3495:. 3296:t 3286:. 2050:3 1998:2 1938:1 1602:- 1053:: 1045:: 1037:: 1029:: 1021:: 357:) 309:) 268:) 264:( 82:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:WikiProject Space missions - Knowledge (XXG)

Index