Talk:NASA X-38

message: Whew! fixing the verb tenses took a lot more time than I thought!  Somebody else do the links! AlainV 17:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 edits 

message: I have no problem with the proposed merge, as long as "X-38" ends up being the title (or prominent in the title) of the article to be consistent with the naming of other articles about X-planes. Akradecki 15:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like, err, the Lockheed Martin X-35? // Duccio (write me) 16:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, except the X-38 didn't have a main mfr (though Scaled did built the airframe), so how about "X-38 Crew Return Vehicle"?Akradecki 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was supposed to be a joke since you said as long as "X-38" ends up being the title (or prominent in the title) of the article to be consistent with the naming of other articles about X-planes while the Lockheed Martin X-35 redirects to F-35 Lightning II, where I see no "X". // Duccio (write me) 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh...yeah, I shoulda caught that....Akradecki 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tag

message: I have just discovered that some clever minds have merged both articles. As a former member of the X-38 team, let me tell you this was really a wrong decision. These were two different vehicles with two different industrial organization. For a start, the X-38 was NASA's while the CRV would have been produced by an Industrial Prime Contractor. The X-38 was a prototype, while the CRV was human rated. The X-38 was unable to attach to the ISS, while the CRV could be berthed to the Station by the Canadarm... I could continue. Really, bad, bad, bad... 193.56.37.1 13:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, there really should be two articles. Frankly, I consider the X-38 to be more a "technology demonstrator" than a "prototype" per se. If it had gone into production, you can be pretty sure the industrial prime contractor would have given it a different name since "CRV" is too generic. Perhaps the articles would best be named something like "NASA X-38 Crew Return Vehicle Demonstrator" and "Crew Return Vehicle Concepts" (with emphasis on the plural). This would allow the CRV article to grow to be more than a stub essentially related only to the X-38. There have indeed been "oodles" of concepts, so just covering the more notable ones would be a fine encyclopedic reference article.Askari Mark | Talk 15:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who reluctantly agreed to do the merge, and am now regretting it given the contention it's raised, I'd gladly seperate them out into two articles again, but I'd appreciate a few more editors agreeing that this would be the best course of action. Given the contention, a clear consensus is essential in this case. Akradecki 16:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason that made me merge these articles was that too much information should be shared between to make them comprehensive. The X-38 was the development program for the CRV, so a CRV article would share 80% of the sections with a X-38 article: in both articles you'll have to mention that it's a lifting body, that it uses a parafoil, that it lands on skids, and so on - because that's what a X-38 did and that's what a CRV would have done, and so you have to say it in both articles. Unmerging really makes no sense to me: one thing that I'd support would be to rename the whole article Crew Return Vehicle, and making a X-38 section , like the one that now is called Development, but I doubt that there could be consensus on this as Akradecki already said he prefers X-38 Crew Return Vehicle, if I understood correctly from the early discussion on merging. // Duccio 22:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More correctly, "The X-38 was the development program for "a" CRV ..." — not "... for "the" CRV ...". That's why I suggested there be an article on CRVs in general, rather than on this CRV specifically. Askari Mark | Talk 23:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not the first one rising this point, see the discussion above. However, as I said before with another guy that considered the X-38 the prototype for "one possible CRV" instead of "the CRV", I couldn't find any single reliable source telling different possible designs, or at least one single alternative for the ISS CRV. The CRV development, like any other space related program, probably featured an initial stage in which engineers brainstormed and came up with many designs, but "probably" and "we think it's gone this way" simply isn't a reliable source. Additionally, the X-38 was internally developed, there were no competitors, no alternatives, at least since the X-38 program start. // Duccio 08:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Your are absolutely correct Askari, the X-38 was the development program for "a" CRV ..." — not "... for "the" CRV ...".  In fact, the X-38 wasn't even a CRV -- it was never going to be attached to the ISS.  It was a prototype that was going to be delivered to orbit in the Space Shuttle's payload bay with a deorbit stage.  If things went well, a new, larger vehicle built by a contractor would have served the role of a CRV.  The program was cut, and the Soyuz is currently used as a CRV.  At best, the X-38 was a prototype for a CRV -- one of several considered by NASA.  I have no more energy to argue this obvious point though -- see the previous thread.ThreeE 19:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above, to me, gives ample reason to re-seperate the two. As a part of WikiProject Aircraft, the X-38 deserves its own article. It's an X-plane, it flew test missions, there's plenty of verifiable information on it, and an article on X-38 by itself would survive an AfD hands down. There's no reason to make the info on the X-38 as subsection of another article. That's why I'm strongly opposed to calling this article "CRV" or the like, and reducing the X-38 to merely a subsection. There is a place in this encyclopedia for an article dedicated to this vehicle and its test program, and because of my personal interests, that's where my attention is focused. If other editors want to have an article dedicated to the various CRV concepts, I think that's a great idea...I believe such an article would be a valuable asset to the encyclopedia from the point of view of the researcher, and having a subsection of that article which summarized the project goals of X-38 (rather than getting bogged down in the vehicle's specs and test details) would certainly be appropriate, especially if accompanied by a "main article" tag that pointed to the X-38 page for those who want more specific details on the test vehicle. Someone looking on CRV information would naturally find such an article a valuable research tool, as long as sources support the article. That's not where my interests lie, so I'm not going to focus on writing that article, but it sounds ThreeE and others here could do a very effective job. I'm ready and willing to do the work to seperate the two, I'll detail out the X-38 article, and leave the CRV article for those with more knowledge and interest in that side of things to take if from stub to full article. Does this sound like an acceptable compromise to everyone? Akradecki 00:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rough consensus rule gives you the right to proceed without everyone's agreement. As the only - to date - article contributor among those participating to this discussion, I cited five highly reliable (NASA, ESA; the federation of american scientists) sources that consider the X-38 a prototype or the development for the CRV, but you decided to ignore them and refuse to cite any reliable source telling about other, alternative CRV designs for the ISS: it's your right, Wikipedia is consensus-driven, so just go on and split. // Duccio 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that I've refused to provide sources, its that the couple dozen other sources are not related to the X-38 version of the CRV, and therefore not appropriate. I've rethought my statements above, and will take up the task of writing a thorough CRV article...there's certainly enough material out there (helps to Google under "Assured Crew Return Vehicle"). It'll be done by the end of this week. Akradecki 16:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of real life, I may not make the end of the week deadline, but progress is being made. If anyone wants to view the draft of the CRV article, its on my sandbox. There's still a ton of refs that I need to glean info from, but basically the article is a chronological look at all the designs that have come and gone in the quest for a workable, affordable CRV. I've learned a lot in doing this research, all of which really supports the idea of splitting these two subjects apart. Akradecki 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your time. Also, consider using  for references, it's much better than a plain link. Or if you want I can change'em all myself when you'll have made the split, as you like. // Duccio 10:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong decision (to merge X-38 article with CRV) 

message: As promised, the new Crew Return Vehicle article is done and up. It could probably use a good copy edit, if anyone's interested in doing so. I'll now refine this X-38 article to focus on the actual X-38 part of the program. Last change to comment on a new name. To keep with Wikipedia "most common name" guidelines, and to make things easy for folks looking for info, I am proposing simply "NASA X-38". Akradecki 21:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A masterful job putting this article together! I concur with the name "NASA X-38". Askari Mark | Talk 04:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New CRV article

message: http://gsaauctions.gov/gsaauctions/gsaauctions/ and type "X-38" 65.166.89.2 21:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auction 

message: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10168114@N04/6994880432/in/photostream/
--Craigboy (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of X-38 V-131R 

message: Need more sources - eg. about reaction to announced cancellation. And how much money was saved by cancelling X-38. Some suspect that it was cancelled as it was a threat to the space shuttle contracts. - Rod57 (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more sources - eg. about reaction to announced cancellation 

message: Can we have more on the design of X-38 V201 (planned for orbital test) ?  How did it differ from STS orbiter ? Was it aluminium frame and surface ? Was it Space shuttle style thermal protection systems, or what ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have more on the design of X-38 V201