Talk:Constellation program

message: Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --Oneiros (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automate archiving? 

message: The Alternatives section (Constellation_program#Alternatives is becoming a bit ridiculous in my opinion.  Do we really need to list every possible method of reaching space, theoretical or not?  Should we add Space Elevators, Soyuz, Shenzhou (spacecraft) and the possibility of using the tried and proven Apollo spacecraft launched on the good old Saturn V?
This Section needs to be limited to only alternatives that are being SERIOUSLY and OFFICALY considered, and not include any old method that a Wikipedia editor thinks may work.  To do otherwise is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research
I will remove non-verified information from this section on April 22, 2010. Aalox (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with that section is not so much the list of what's there now (someone had added the X-33, which I thought was going overboard).  My problem with it is that "alternatives to Constellation" is really "alternative near-term methods of servicing the Space Station" and "alternative methods of attaining access to the Moon".  The former topic is useful and verifiable; the latter one is more subject to speculation.  It's possible that a section on possible lunar access methods might be useful to distraught users looking for solace or ammunition, both legitimate uses of Wikipedia, if a good, well-referenced section on the topic could be supplied.  Voronwae (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the suggestion that the X-33 could be an alternative, with a reference to an archived letter someone (possibly the editor) sent to nasa with the suggestion.  Quite silly.  Perhaps the ""alternative near-term methods of servicing the Space Station" should be moved over to one of the International Space Station articles, and the the alternatives to get to the moon in Exploration_of_the_Moon?Aalox (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit I just initially did a drive-by edit on the list of what was there without including references or going beyond getting rid of the X-33 bits.  I think that what's on that list as of just now is legitimate and maybe even useful to people who come to the page looking for Constellation/Ares-specific info.  I just hit it again and removed the Ares IV ref, given that Ares IV demonstrably doesn't exist, and basically just threw in a list of the CCDEV/COTS vehicle contractors (without listing the non-vehicle awards).  I don't have time right now to make the section any better, but reasonably speaking the entire article could really stand some work.  This is probably a very popular article right now, and it really would be good to have answers for the many questions I see people asking in their blogs (or articles in mainstream publications, for that matter).  Most of the American public are very misinformed about Constellation.  I think right now it's not a bad section to have in the article.  The rest of the sections, on the other hand...  Voronwae (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting this be a "Bash Constellation Article?"  I would not condone anything of the sort.  This must be WP:NPOV (Although the debates section has pretty much destroyed all hopes of WP:NPOV.  Aalox (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the present article is at all neutral and it doesn't present a clear picture of the opposing arguments to CxP.  I'd say that probably the CxP debate section should be moved to its own article, and the CxP article re-neutralized to include only objective information.  Regarding CxP debate, few CxP negatives are presented here in any substantive manner, whereas there's a liberal sprinkling of quotes from angry CxP advocates.  The article needs to present just the facts.  Regarding Ares IV, it isn't a proposed alternative to anything unless somehow someone brings it back, very unlikely, although it certainly merits mention elsewhere and it has its own article.  Like I said, there's a lot of information that could be mentioned in this article and probably should be, like the many design changes that have occurred that make it no longer "shuttle-derived".  Objective and factual information can be presented without "Constellation-bashing".Voronwae (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives 

message: The name of the program is the *Constellation Program*, which is a proper noun and both words are capitalized. Inkeeping with Wikipedia's style guide, the P in the article title should be capitalized., and this page should be moved to Constellation Program.   –Justin Force 19:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalize title 

message: This article is in need of updating, and hence I put up the update tag. Specifically, how the decisions surrounding the Constellation led to the Space Launch System (SLS). It should be noted that the SLS re-uses the space shuttle orbiter engines (in a throw away manner no less!!) and designs for the external tank, but the question that needs to asked is how does that compare to Constellation program's goals and costs? Historically it's important, and this article needs a lot of work and updating. Nodekeeper (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just visited the article as a reader I agree that it badly needs a once over. As a start have requested a copy edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Constellation_program. That should tidy things up making it easier to work on but it won't make any of the additions Nodekeeper suggests. -Arb. (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Came by and did some editing, updating and error correction, but lots and lots of work remains on this article.  Voronwae (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

text:  I believe that the "alternatives" section needs to be mostly scrapped and rewritten to cover the larger and more general idea of using other launchers versus listing the world's current launch vehicles. Comments, anybody?  Voronwae (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs updating pretty bad. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Constellation program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100204201200/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/afp/20100131/ts_alt_afp/usspacepolitics to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100131/ts_alt_afp/usspacepolitics
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose List of Constellation missions be merged into this article, or either Ares I-X / Orion where applicable. The article currently consists of an extensive list of planned missions as of 2009, but with it being cancelled in 2010 is it still notable enough for a separate article? If kept as its own article it should be made clearer in both the page name and table of planned missions that the program is cancelled. MarsToutatis talk 13:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Against I think its better to leave these as two separate articles. Thanks Fotaun (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Constellation program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811185822/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/trs.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/trs.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)