Talk:JP Aerospace

message: A group of senior JPA staff left(removed)not at the end of the Air Force contract, but half way through it.
The philosophical differences that emerged were in regards to the direction the organization would take. Several members wish to halt the space development and eliminate the volunteers. Their intent was to make JP Aerospace a more conventional aerospace contractor. Over nearly thirty years JP Aerospace has ranged in size from 20 to 80 members. As sad as the loss of those who did not continue with us was, they were only four people, the rest of the team continued on. The Air Force did offer, (in fact insisted on), JP Aerospace doing the follow-on work on the Ascender airship. JP Aerospace turned down the contract for a varity of reasons.
The rocket work continues on strong. Launches are not as frequent as the balloon launches, but that is just the nature of our development.
We remain dedicated to the notion of a space program that reqular folks can be a part of. 
I have seen volunteers run a more professional operations than many organizations with paid staff.
It's the training, dedication and drive of the individual rather that the paycheck that counts. 
Last note, high winds are no longer and issue. We have spend a great deal of effort on that challenge 
and we can now launch in all weather conditions.
JP
www.jpaerospace.com
jpowell@jpaerospace.com
Note on edit. David Brock was listed as a founder on the front page. This was in error and was removed. David joined JP Aerospace approximately four years after it's founding. He participated for two years prior to joining the US Air Force. He was then not involved for the next six years due to his Air Force obligations. He then was a participant from 1995 to 2003.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmpowell (talk • contribs) 19:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: JP's notes on the article:

message: This sentence is not cited to any source that discusses JP Aerospace:
The only cite is to a handbook on space materials. So I've marked it as original research. It does not match what John Powell says about the airship design in his "Floating to Space". On page 109 he says 
He also says that the skin would be made of nylon rip-stop polyethelene (page 111). It reaches supersonic speeds at 200,000 feet and slows down at a very high altitude on re-entry. He doesn't actually give figures for the skin temperature but with such a design it is clear that they are not expecting high skin temperatures. 
Of course if there are WP:RS that say the skin temperatures are far higher than they estimate, then that should be mentioned. But I don't know of any. They have done the modeling and wind tunnel tests etc and they say the skin will not get hot. I have seen many critical forum posts that say the skin temperature would be high. But they don't give any citations or refer to any experiments or detailed models. It is all just back of the envelope calculations or just saying they don't think it is possible without explanation. So, I expect this remark is just based on forum discussions. Whether, you think they are right or not is beside the point really. A "forumy" remark like this without any citations doesn't count as a WP:RS.
So, I suggest that if nobody can find an WP:RS for this sentence then it should be removed. The book does discuss space debris, so can be cited on that. It's on page 112.
I don't know if it mentions elemental oxygen, or radiation, but again, if no WP:RS raises those issues, I don't think we should here either.  I don't see why they would be a problem. But to discuss that any further would be to take forum discussions into wikipedia and is not appropriate. 
I suggest that the sentence is just replaced by a sentence that briefly describes the meteorite question and their response, as that is the only part of the sentence that can be sourced to a WP:RS unless anyone can come up with any other reliable sources on the matters mentioned. Robert Walker (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As there was no reply, I've now just removed the WP:OR sentence and replaced it with a summary of some of the information in the book. If anyone has cited WP:RS sources that criticize the proposal, do let's add them. But please, not just statements that have no citable sources. There is a lot of forum discussion saying the plan is impossible but that is just not acceptable as a source for wikipedia. Does anyone know of published peer reviewed research that is critical of it? Robert Walker (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I've also added an estimate of the cost to orbit of $310 per ton. I know this has to be very speculative at this stage - but it is the only estimate I can find, in a book by Ezekiel Nygren, Hypothetical Spacecraft and Interstellar Travel, Page 181, and at least it gives the reader some idea. Robert Walker (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research on temperatures

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on JP Aerospace. 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  tag to http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/careers/careerstemplate.jsp?ArticleId=p050105
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080429193419/http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive03/balloonarch_012103.html to http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive03/balloonarch_012103.html
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) 13:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)