Talk:2007 in spaceflight

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2007 in spaceflight article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Spaceflight: Timeline of spaceflight High‑importance

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

ATV[edit]

According to ISS assembly sequence, an Ariane 5 rocket will launch an Automated Transfer Vehicle to the ISS on February 22, 2007. Anyone have more details to add this to the list? Oskar Liljeblad 20:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Edit[edit]

I am modifying the page to bring it up to the same standard as List of spaceflights (2006), by installing the new templates and format. Please do not edit while the {{inuse}} tag is in place. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 19:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete[edit]

The 10th Jan launch also carried a small 6kg payload from AATE (Asociación Argentina de Tecnología Espacial) (Argentinian Space Technology Asociation) called PEHUENSAT-1. Its use is basically transmit information in 3 languages, this can be recieved from any normal amateur antenna. Here's an image: http://www.aate.org/pehuenfot/posicion%20satelites.jpg (can't upload it) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.117.205.183 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China's Satilite Killer[edit]

Maybe it is because the information is still pretty secretive but does that count as a spaceflight in 2007 Emperor 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, absolutly. Anything that crosses the Karman line qualifies. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delay for February 2nd launch[edit]

It appears the GeoEye-1 will not be launching until the 3rd quarter of 2007 due to a busy Delta II schedule not sure if it will be updated Emperor 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delay for Falcon 1 launch[edit]

An update on the SpaceX website indicated that the launch window will be moved to March 9th unless further delays show up Emperor 03:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minuteman[edit]

Regarding the recent Minuteman launch, during which there was some confusion as to the launch time. Please note that the times listed in the Southwest Space Archive are in local time, but this article is in GMT. Therefore, the correct time is 08:15, and not 00:15 (which is PST). --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Flat Launches again[edit]

It appears there was a launch on Feb 12th and four on Feb 14th I have not confirmed all as crossing the 100 km mark but at least a few went above 140 miles. Emperor 01:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this. Both the BB and TO can easily reach space. I'm just converting the time zones, and then I'll add them. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MANY updates on www.russianspaceweb.com/2007.html[edit]

Could someone please help? Buttockhat 15:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here: www.satelliteonthenet.co.uk/launch.html Buttockhat 17:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran successful rocket test[edit]

According to www.space.com Iran has successfully reached orbit on the 25th of February don't have any times yet.

Emperor 16:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've heared, it was a sounding rocket. I've added it as such. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GW can you please update the ANIK F3 launch i'm having some trouble with it. Thanks

Rendez-vous or Rendezvous?[edit]

I'm curious about the hyphenation in the title of the "Rendez-vous" section. In English I haven't encountered it hyphenated before this. Is it common to do this in some context? Is there some implication beyound what "Rendezvous" provides? Sdsds 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dictionary (G.E.C Gads on-line dictionary, 1994 CD-ROM) uses "rendez-vous" with hyphen, as my MS Word 97 spell control. Regards Necessary Evil 22:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes hypehenated as it derives from two French words. I believe that the correct way to spell it is without a hyphen. This is how it is spelt on its article here - Rendezvous. I propose we use this. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the English dictionaries I have consulted list it as one word with the etymology of the word being a hyphenated French phrase. In addition, Word 2003 rejects the hyphenated word and suggests the Anglacized single word. It appears that the concensus (along with the latest dictionaries and spell checkers) is for a single word. I am going to change the article to remove the hyphen.

Epolk 19:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm going to make a note of this discussion at WT:TLS, and try to standardise it across other such articles. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATV[edit]

Can someone change the date of the ATV I heard that it was delayed? Not to launch until November 2007

COSMO-SkyMed-1 operator[edit]

I added CONAE as this probe operator, here is an english document that confirms this: http://www.asi.it/CosmoSkymed/About_COSMO-SkyMed.htm --190.31.185.133 00:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

This page has numerous links to disambiguation pages, please consider using a tool (especially Wikipedia Cleaner) to fix them. Rich257 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahab-4/Mesbah-1[edit]

I've removed this because the Shahab-4 programme was cancelled. There are a number of cites that this will launch at some point in 2007, but seeing as the rocket does not exist, I am guessing that they are probably either speculative or out of date --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Still in Orbit'?[edit]

Shouldn't spacecraft orbiting other planets, such as Kaguya, be listed as 'In Lunar Orbit' rather than 'Still in Orbit', as the latter is somewhat confusing. What about interplanetary probes such as Dawn: perhaps they should be listed as 'En Route' or 'In Space' etc? Opinions please.

-- Buttockhat 09:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are still in orbits. just not earth orbit. leave as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.59.241 (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the anon said, they are still in orbits, just not geocentric ones. The only exceptions are the Voyagers, Pioneers 10 & 11, and New Horizons. Whilst I am undecided on this, I see no reason to change from what we are doing, and therefore my recommendation would be to leave as is (ie "Still in orbit" for anything in any orbit, not just those in geocentric orbits). It is made clear elsewhere that the spacecraft are being sent to other planets. I would also suggest that this be taken to the project talk page (WT:TLS), where a decision can be made that affects all articles. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star One Link[edit]

The operator of Star One-C1 is Star One but the link- links to something else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.182.154 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio??[edit]

Copyvio, please explain. Necessary Evil 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio = Copyright violation. Use of the ESA logo in this article violated copyright. Therefore, I removed it. To be honest, I can't see what's wrong with just using flags, anyway. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong in using flags, except letting

represent ESA. The

has been embraced by the European Union so much, that even its inventor the Council of Europe, is using another logo/flag. ESA is an European Agency, independent of the European Union. EU is funding the Galileo positioning system, so we must reserve

for those satellites, and for future EU spacecraft. There has been a hot debate whether

should represent ESA or not, please read Talk:European_Space_Agency#Page_protected. The article European_Space_Agency was even writeprotected in August due to flag icon issues. Necessary Evil (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a better flag with the same meaning, I would suggest that this one is retained for now. Whilst it may represent the EU, it is as close to a flag for Europe as we have, and seeing as we cannot list every single member country, this seems to be the best choice here. Does anyone have a better idea? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps [ESA] ?

Necessary Evil (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text defeats the object of having flags. The whole point of having the flags is pictoral, not text, representation. Anyway, Ariane is Arianespace, not ESA. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 00:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very precise e.g. Dnepr from

launched from Baikonur in

by ISC Kosmotras from

.

It should therefore not jar on the ear with

for non-UN satellites and

for non-EU satellites. For Antarctica there is

so why not a similar for European satellites? I'll also suggest

for international satellites. Necessary Evil (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Europe has its own version of

. It is

. It is the flag of Europe, not the flag of the EU. The flag predates the EU by about thirty years. Your stance that it should not be used because it is promoting the EU, not Europe, is hardly neutral. Secondly, in this context, it is blatantly obvious that the flags represent areas not organisations. NASA and US Air Force are both American. Do we need to use different logos to differentiate them? No. It is obvious that

is being used to represent Europe, and in the absence of a global flag,

is generally accepted to be the closest thing to an international flag for planet earth. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I think it all started with your

European Union in the summary from 17th November 2007. Necessary Evil (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"{{flagicon|EU}} applies to a joint project such as ESA." Starsem is also a joint project. Necessary Evil (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ran out of space in the edit summary - what I was trying to say was that Russia contributes as Russia to Starsem, not as part of Europe. Starsem describes itself as a "European-Russian organisation"[1].

For the record, the use of {{EU}} that you mentioned above was a template defaulting error which had been rectified even before you brought it up. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is part of Europe and must therefore be covered by the

.

"Starsem describes itself as a European-Russian organisation" and Microsoft describes its own Windows Vista as the best of the best. It's less important what people's own home pages claim.

/

is rather unlogical, why not

/

for the ISS? Necessary Evil (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why must Russia be covered by the European flag. You conflate your use of

/

as an analogy as the ISS is by no means a Russo-International project, but instead a pure international project, whereas Starsem is a Russo-European programme - TsSKB-Progress and RKA for Russia, EADS and Arianespace for the whole of Europe.

Starsem is 50% owned by Russian companies (hence

) and 50% owned by pan-European consortiums (hence

). Regardless, it should also be noted that Russia is not entirely European, as it extends into Asia. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please enlighten me:

As Arianespace is 60.12% owned by French companies [2] this article should have:

/

Arianespace. — or..

Starsem's factories (Samara Space Center) lies in European Russia, its HQ in Evry, France and they launch from Baikonur in Kazakhstan. So it's either

Starsem or

/

Starsem.

Necessary Evil (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nationality of the launch site is covered in the launch site column. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You never did answer me before; which option is correct?

1)

/

Arianespace and

/

Starsem

- or

2)

Arianespace and

Starsem

Necessary Evil (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. The circumstances are completely different. I will, however, conduct a poll to find out other editors' opinions. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 07:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, as with all polls on Wikipedia, you are only entitled to one vote. If you make more without cancelling previous votes, they will be ignored. Use the <s> tag to strike deleted votes/comments. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having conducted further research, I would now say that Arianespace should be represented as entirely French (though its rockets should still be represented as European). --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus, discussion will be continued. As this issue is now affecting other pages, discussion should be taken to WT:TLS. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll[edit]

How should Starsem and Arianespace be represented? Poll will close on 31 December 2007 If no consensus is reached, no change will be made, and discussion will continue. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 07:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1[edit]

Leave as is (Arianespace and /Starsem)

Arianespace is pan-European, Starsem is Russo-European. Both see themselves as such. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 07:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Next vote here

Option 2[edit]

/Arianespace and /Starsem

According to GW Simulations Starsem is 50% owned by Russian companies and that percentage entitles them to be represented by their own flag. Following that logic the French flag should be present at Arianespace, since French companies own more than 50%. Necessary Evil (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First vote here

Option 3[edit]

Arianespace and Starsem

GW Simulations claims that represents all of Europe, not only the European Union. That is not the issue for this option, but assuming that can represent non-EU members too - Arianespace and Starsem are rather equal. They both consist of European companies and space agencies - and they launch their rockets outside of Europe. Starsem's factories (Samara Space Center) lie in European Russia and is just as European and non-EU as Switzerland.Necessary Evil (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First vote here

Option 4[edit]

Arianespace and Starsem (no flags)

Neither Arianespace nor Starsem flies on their web pages or launch vehicles (except EU's Galileo positioning system satellites). The reason is the same: they want to show their independence of the European Union. The European Union has embraced so much, that it has been a EU symbol regardless of the inventors intentions. If we shall respect Starsem's wish to be called a Russo-European organisation, we shall also respect ESA's and Arianespace's non-EU status. Necessary Evil (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No flag icons. Not for Arianespace and Starsem. Not anywhere. Their nationalistic connotations make keeping a neutral point of view difficult. Also, they are distracting. In almost every case they lessen the overall quality of the articles in which they are used. Their use certainly lowers the quality of "Timeline of spaceflight" articles. (sdsds - talk) 12:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you not oppose the proposal to add the flags in the first place? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 14:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably a lack of certainty about the issue. Indeed, despite the strongly worded opinion above, I'm still rather uncertain about what's really best. For those who lived through the "Space Race" it's hard not to see space launches as a sort of national competition. But should wikipedia emphasize that aspect of each launch? Or should we be using some eye-catching graphic to boldly indicate whether the launch vehicle used liquid or solid fuel? Or cryogenics vs. hypergolics? Re-usable vs. expendable stages? I guess I'm wondering, "Is nationality really so important that it should be graphically 'flagged?'" And if so, doesn't e.g. Sealaunch get pretty difficult? U.S./Russian/Ukranian/Norwegian, eh? Do any of those nationalities really matter much to the Sealaunch multi-national consortium? Yet it would be truly misleading to use e.g. the flag of the U.N., since certainly most nations don't have anything to do with Sealaunch.... (sdsds - talk) 04:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal was made after a trend in other related articles to use flags. No objections were noted at the time. WT:TLS is probably the best place to discuss it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.