Talk:Explorer 1

message: I was reading this and translating this to the norwegian article :no:Explorer I and while looking for some more info I found a lot of the text here. How is this to the GFDL?
: Usually writting from the US. governement are public domain. See Wikipedia:Public_domain_resources#US_Government. WARNING: there are exception! -- Cate 10:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Norwegian article

message: Names are contradictory. Sometimes it's "Explorer-I" while other NASA sites such as JPL or Goddard call it "Explorer 1" (with an arabic numeral). Short of finding the cover of the NY Times on Feb. 1, 1958 (and comparing it to later coverage that month), it would be hard to pick between these two credible sources. JoelWest 23:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest renaming this article to Explorer 1. Currently all other spacecraft that have double names (e.g. Pioneer V vs. Pioneer 5, Sputnik I vs. Sputnik 1, Mariner II vs. Mariner 2), all use Arabic numerals. For consistency reasons I recommend naming this one Explorer 1. Let me know what you think. Van der Hoorn (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names are contradictory 

message: I am suprised there isnt more mentioned about the fact it was designed to rotate about the centreline axis, but instead rotated end over end. I came to this page expecting to find a comment (even a small one) about the design flaw that caused this.
:I've attempted to address this well known fact about the spacecraft. It's mentioned in every advanced classical mechanics course!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Long Island Expressway (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  spinning around the wrong axis 

message: Last night's PBS Nova program Sputnik Declassified offered some interesting perspectives on the early satellite programs.  It made such claims as Explorer could have launched a year before Spudnik, von Braun's team worked in secret (building things at home, hiding satellite parts from IG investigators) after they were ordered not to work on satellites, they kept a rocket in storage just in case but claimed it was there for military rocket research, and that Eisenhower may have been glad Spudnik launched first (his real agenda was to establish a principle for free international outer-space to clear the way for his spy satellite program).  Once a transcript of the Nova show is posted (a few weeks from now) I shall try to remember to add content to the article. — Eoghanacht talk 14:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nova also claims that Explorer 1 is still in orbit today? 142.167.64.101 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the statement in the show was about Vanguard 1, the second U.S. satellite launched by the Naval Lab.  Explorer is no longer in orbit, but Vanguard is -- although it has not sent any signals since 1964. — Eoghanacht talk 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PBS Nova tv-show

message: Large portions of this page appear to be lifted from http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/expinfo.html (or vice-versa... that page says it was last modified on 1/27/05 and the history shows that the identical content was here in 2004, but the way back machine says some was there in 2000: http://web.archive.org/web/20000706222547/http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/expinfo.html ) 
Maybe most of the sections are short and direct enough that this isn't quite at the level of plagiarism, and is just convergent co-editing, but it's not clear who owns the words. And some is a bit specific and sort of a digression, e.g. 
The discovery of the Van Allen Belts by the Explorer satellites was considered to be one of the outstanding discoveries of the International Geophysical Year.
and
was designed and built by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) of the California Institute of Technology under the direction of  Dr. William H. Pickering. The satellite instrumentation of Explorer-I was designed and built by  Dr. James Van Allen of the State University of Iowa.
were pretty clearly cut-and-pasted.
also, I second the above comment that the failed spin stabilization should be included both here and at the NASA history page. 
Montyy0 18:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA content is public domain. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible plagiarism 

message: In my opinion the following things need to be done to improve the quality of this article:
* Rename the article to 'Explorer 1' for consistency with other satellite articles. I believe this is the only article on spacecraft left using roman numerals.
* Remove the EST time from the introduction. Launch times always use UTC.
* Create a proper template for the Explorer program (see other programs for proper templates).
* Improve the structure of the article (there are for example some sentences in 'Mission results' that definitely belong in 'Spacecraft design' and the other way around).
* Include more references and/or rewrite external links so that the information from that link is referenced properly.
* Rewrite sentences so they are not just random sentences, but actually follow up on each other.
* Add more images (there are lots of NASA and USAF images that we can use).
* Try to find the data somewhere that Explorer 1 returned. This is probably not an easy one, but is most definitely necessary to get an A rating or higher. Manring (1959) and Dubin (1960) have data from the micrometeorite experiments.  is a PDF file with observations of the cosmic ray detector (although it is only volume 4 out of 5).
* Say something more about the backup in the museum (and preferably add a picture)
* Say something about the 50 years anniversary.
Let me know your thoughts. Van der Hoorn (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo list 

message: * Support - Per reasons provided User:Van der Hoorn above, and because NASA is reasonably consistent regarding this: both JPL and Solar System Exploration websites use the Arabic numeral "1" rather than the Roman "I". (sdsds - talk) 22:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Explorer 1 poll 

message: Here is a sentence from the "Mission" section of the current revision of the article: The Jupiter-C used for the launch had already been flight-tested in nose cone reentry tests for the Jupiter IRBM and was modified into Juno I. This seems to imply the launch vehicle used for Explorer 1 had flown before, and was being reused for this flight. Is there a reliable source supporting a claim that the Juno I was in any way reusable? Else, perhaps the wording should be:The Jupiter-C design used for the launch had already been flight-tested.... (sdsds - talk) 05:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. There were actually 12 Jupiter-Cs built and some of them were used for nose cone reentry tests. See  for more details. I put your suggested fix into practice, although the part may be rewritten with the information of the reference. Van der Hoorn (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text from current Mission section 

message: As noted above, we need more data in the article about the backup that's currently in the museum.  It says it's "an identically-constructed flight backup", but surely it is not a working space probe?  If it were, then they would have launched it as Explorer 2, right?  Tempshill (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good observation. As it turns out, Explorers 1 thru 4 were all very similar in construction, nearly identical, especially regarding the outer shell. A number of such shells were built as primary and backup hardware. This page,  https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/satellite-explorer-i, hosted by the National Air and Space Museum, explains that the one on display has no interior instrumentation, so it's not really flight-ready. The reason the Museum says that it was the backup for Explorer 1 is that the interior is marked "Payload II".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The museum backup 

message: :It made a fiery reentry over the Pacific Ocean on March 31, 1970.
I guess it goes without saying that it was "fiery", but to me, this sentence is saying that the reentry was particularly fiery, or "fiery" wouldn't have been in the sentence.  As the kids say, "Pictures!  Or it didn't happen."  Tempshill (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and rewrote the sentence. Van der Hoorn (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fiery" re-entry 

message: the launch date is incorrect, per NASA JPL,
Launce was Jan 31 1958 
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCatalog.do?sc=1958-001A  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.174.198 (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The launch date is correct. Remember that it is UTC, while NASA uses EST. Also from the same website: "Launched late on 31 January 1958 (10:48 p.m. EST, or 03:48 UTC on 01 February)". Van der Hoorn (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that nothing that could possibly be called UTC existed prior to 1960, for the agreement between the US and UK to coordinate their time broadcasts was not made until 1959 August.  It would be better simply to say "UT", for that was the CCIR recommendation at the time.Steven L Allen (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect launch date 

message: The references provided on the rotational instability seen in Explorer 1 seem tangential to the actual events.  The Efroimsky, 2001 article seems to focus on excitation states of rotations, and doesn't discuss Explorer beyond the first paragraph.  More appropriate citations seem to be Asteroid Nutation Angles by J. A. Burns and V. S. Safronov, 1973.  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1973MNRAS.165..403B and The effects of imperfect elasticity in problems of celestial mechanics by  K. H. Pendergast, 1958.  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958AJ.....63..412P The 2002 article does have a reasonable-length related discussion, and should probably be kept.  But IANA astronomer, so an expert can correct me if I am in error.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscitizenjason (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References on Satellite Instability 

message: If Explorer 1 was a space probe, then should its name be italicized? It is that way for other articles on space probes like Sputnik 1 and Cassini-Huygens. Transphasic (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By consensus, that is not how we interpret our style guide for italics. Spacecraft are not considered named vessels if they are named in series. Note Sputnik 1 has since been corrected; the italics are appropriate for Cassini–Huygens because that was a unique name given to only one spacecraft.
*Not uniquely named: Explorer 1, Sputnik 1, Gemini 3, Apollo 11, etc.
*Uniquely named space vessels: Columbia (Apollo 11 Command Module), Eagle (Apollo 11 Lunar Module), Space Shuttle Challenger, etc. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italicized heading? 

message: "and was the first documented use of transistors in the U.S. Earth satellite program" - hardly a significant comment as Explorer 1 was the start of the U.S. Earth satellite programme... perhaps it would make more sense if the article stated that transistors were used right from the start of the programme? Stub Mandrel (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence is literally copied from the source, a violation of WP:COPYRIGHT policy. Good catch. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Also, the museum curator's assertion that it was "a very early time frame in the development of transistor technology" doesn't seem to make much sense, seeing that practical transistors were in existence since 1948. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Tautomerism?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Explorer 1. 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/20080129085025/http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/explorer/facts/ to http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/explorer/facts/
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) 09:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Explorer 1. 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/20131005021134/https://ssel.montana.edu/msus-twin-satellite-to-launch-oct-28-on-nasa-rocket/ to https://ssel.montana.edu/msus-twin-satellite-to-launch-oct-28-on-nasa-rocket/
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) 09:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Explorer 1 was the first orbital object to return scientific data.  Its launch happened 100 years to the day after the  was launched.  The ship was larger than any that came before it, and accomplished laying the first lasting transatlantic telegraph cable.  Both events served to more closely knit the world together."
There is no citation, no causal relation, and only the most strained of relevances.  I recommend deletion from this otherwise fine article.  --Neopeius (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this necessary?