Talk:SM-62 Snark

message: SURVIVING SNARKS?
I'm pretty sure the Wright-Patterson Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio has a Snark. It can be found near the entrance to the "Cold War" hanger. Could somone confirm/deny whether the missile in question is a Snark? 167.206.204.93 15:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The missile at W-P AFM is a Snark. Added to the list in the article.
There is no Snark missile in Presque Isle, Maine. They were based there, but the city does not have one. It has an AGM-28 Hound Dog, see http://www.pirec.org/facilities/veterans-park/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8000:2C3:C11A:333A:FA71:22CE (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SM-62 Snark. 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/20120206090346/http://www.patrick.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=4516&page=1 to http://www.patrick.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=4516&page=1
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) 16:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers. Wikipedia is the largest and most-read reference work in history.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
An encyclopedia is a reference work or compendium  providing summaries of knowledge either general or special to a particular field or discipline.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia
The reliability of Wikipedia concerns the validity, verifiability, and veracity of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Should a Wikipedia article not contain explanation of sufficient detail to provide a summary of a the whole history of a missile system? Particularly programs of a generation created from chaos and which was in extreme flux for many formative years? Should a Wikipedia article not contain sufficient authoritative documentation that a student coming upon the article would be satisfied and have sufficient leads to pursue further study of the subject?
The previous editors of SM-62 Snark did not fail as far as they went. The situation of missile programs in the late 1940s and early 1950s has made the problem of research daunting. I have strove to keep the SM-62 article as brief as possible while attempting to cover and document a complex subject sufficiently to achieve those goals.
There were clear mistakes appearing in the Snark article which were repeats of published data which was in itself misleading. For example it was stated that the error in the accuracy of a crucial test flight was due to a mapping error of the location of the target. The reality was that the guidance error was in azimuth and not in range. Thus the claim made in some published sources that the Snark only missed due to an old mapping error is wrong.
 
Perhaps the best single reference article for the SM-62 Snark is by Kenneth Werrell, ‘’The  Case Study of Failure‘’ in the American Aviation Historical Society Journal, Fall 1988
Ecclesiastes said there is nothing new under the sun. Mark Twain observed that history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” Snark and other missile programs of the immediate post WWII era exemplify both sentiments.
To stay abreast of how technology is developing I recommend https://www.techbriefs.com
Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Snark Program 1946 - 1961 

message: The article refers to the facility at Cape Canaveral as Space Force Station, it was not so named until 2020. This should be corrected to the name used at the times referenced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.215.121 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. I didn't rename the location of the display missile since the present-day name of the facility is appropriate in that case. Carguychris (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronistic use of Space Force Station