Talk:Spacecraft

message: These words are all their own plurals, you you DO NOT put an "s" on them to make them plural. How simple is this? ALL of them: { aircraft, craft, lakecraft, motorcraft, rescuecraft, rivercraft, sailcraft, seacraft, spacecraft, warcraft }. This is not thermonuclear physics. This is just like don't put an "s" on moose and swine.98.67.163.16 (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether or not you are correct, you would be hard pressed to find an actual person in real life who calls multiple spacecrafts "spacecraft". FizzleDrunk (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many of you folk need to get straightened out on plurals 

message: Hey guys, what do you think: I noticed that the space shuttles (including Buran) are listed as "parially reusable". In the case of the US space shuttle, it forms part of the launch vehicle and new tanks and boosters are needed every time it flies. But just because it is partially reusable as a launch vehicle does it also mean that it is partially reusable as a spacecraft? And if it is, then should the Buran shuttle (a payload seperate to the Energia booster) not be called a fully reusable spacecraft? Stacked.pancakes (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "Reusable Spacecraft" 

message: This article states that Pioneer Venus was the first "orbiter & lander" of Venus. However, the respective articles on Pioneer Venus and the Venera program show that almost all the Venera orbiters and landers arrived at Venus before Pioneer Venus. Can someone confirm this and correct the inaccurate article? --71.205.97.111 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Pioneer Venus program, the orbiter and the "multiprobe" that examined the atmosphere were two completely different spacecraft, and they were launched from the Earth by two completely different rockets. We have a big problem in articles about spacecraft in that people who write stuff in them that are complete bullcrap! The first spacecraft to go into orbit about Venus was indeed a Soviet one, and besides that, the first spacecraft to land on Venus was a completely-separate Soviet one that went there via a different rocket.98.67.163.16 (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is no excuse that going in a completely different direction, the United States sent an orbiter and a lander to Mars in 1976 Viking 1 that rode on the same Titan III Centaur rocket. Then, some weeks later on, a different Titan III Centaur rocket delivered Viking II at Mars with a different orbiter and lander combination. By the way, the first spacecraft to go into orbit around Mars was the American Mariner 9 some years later, and the first spacecraft to land on Mars was a Soviet one. However, that landing was rather hard, and the spacecraft did not last very long. In contrast, the two Viking landers lasted for years, powered by their radioisotope electrical batteries.98.67.163.16 (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pioneer Venus as first orbiter? 

message: Hi, I'm an engineer an interested in making this page better. I figured I would put a comment here to see if others would be improving this page also. Rob 23:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Self-intro) 

message: I'm really not sure that any of the fictional spacecraft from the "Halo:  Combat Evolved" series should be listed as equally famous as either the "Millennium Falcon" from Star Wars or the "U.S.S. Enterprise" from Star Trek, because most people have heard of either of these two items but not necessarily of the Pillar of Autumn or In Amber Clad.  Nevertheless, all of the above are noted as being "[s]ome of the most famous fictional spacecraft." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammargeek (talk • contribs)   — Preceding undated comment added  00:31, 26 May 2006
*I would say that the Enterprise, the Falcon, and possibly Voyager, would be sufficient. --GW_SimulationsTalk | Contribs | E-mail 19:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed this segment and deleted the Eagle, seeing as how I'd never even heard of the show and I'm a pretty solid sci-fi buff. I substituted it for the TARDIS, which I feel is far more notable as it is the central point of the longest running sci-fi series in history. I also reworded the BattleStar Galactica part to make it clearer to the reader. I also chucked the Death Star in the Star Wars part, I think the list is sufficient now, all of those ships are famous to many people due to their prominence in franchises that have become popular for extended periods of time. --Spoonman.au 04:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Eagle must be on this list. It is one of the better known sci-fi spacecrafts. There are lot's of models and kits of it. And all this 30 years after Space: 1999 aired. Also, it's one of the few fictional craft that could work based on real world technology. Ricnun 14:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so. And the merits of the ship and the series are not in question, simply the importance of this particular fictional vessel in popular culture, and I would argue this is not in the same league as the other ships on the list. --Spoonman.au 02:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "most famous fictional spacecraft" is unqualified 

message: I always hear that its from the friction of air, but i've also head that the compression of air is the course, whats the truth?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.222.142 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2006 
:Vast majority is compression.WolfKeeper 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the heat come from compressing of air or friction at reentry to earth? 

message: ON: "a vehicle designed to leave Earth's atmosphere"
If an alien came to Earth in a ship, would it not be in a spacecraft? Shamess 20:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I see you changed it.  It's more accurate now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: *Helios I & II Solar Probes (43333399999.9999 miles per second).<BR>
The speed of light is approx. 186,262 miles per second !<BR>
And, sorry to be picky, but is its the speed of these spacecraft really known to an accuracy of one part in 1015 ?<BR>
Mikegm71 16:30 & 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is truly an absurd number of digits of accruacy for the speed of anything, and it is also amazing that thousands and thousands of people have no idea how absurd numbers like that look. They are positively brain damaged, and those people have too much brain damage to round numbers off to something reasonable. You're not being picky at all, but rather you're being reasonable.98.67.163.16 (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest spacecraft 

message: I think as the ATV is now operational and in Orbit it should be moved to the in orbit section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.191.35 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATV 

message: should Mir and gang be listed as a spacecraft? i was under the assumption that a spacecraft need to be able to go some where, while the spacestation is capable of boosting itself, it is not design to travel, hence the term "craft" sound a little weird for an object designed to be stationary. should we vote on this? Akinkhoo (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacecraft vs Spacestation 

message: I was thinking that the SpaceX all ports forward Dragon should be in the Under Development category.  Anybody disagree with that? Planet Ceres 71.158.212.128 (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of it.  If you have reliable sources for refs, go ahead and add it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Did it.  Reliable sources on it's own page.  It's amazing how many people haven't heard of it.  It's the only manned spacecraft under development by a U.S. firm that would have the ability to get people to and from the space station on standard sized launch vehicles.  So, when I read the article on spacecraft with absolutely no mention of one of the most important ones I guffawed a little. Planet Ceres 71.158.212.128 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SpaceX All Ports To Foreward Dragon in the Under Development category? 

message: Somethig should be added but im no expert  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortuga135 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The article Rishabha (Jain tirthankar) links to "space vehicle" which redirects here... Is this "Space vehicle" the same as this article discribes, or is this connection inapropriate? I'm just wondering if the link on the Rishabha page should be removed... 210.185.17.159 (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you could ask at the talk page for that article, but the link seems reasonable. Religious and mythic stories in many traditions involve gods traveling through space using vehicles designed for the purpose. Also, see Chariots of the Gods? (sdsds - talk) 05:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rianna 

message: I think the lists of spacecraft which are currently in this article should be moved to the article List of spacecraft (which is in very bad shape, at the moment). The content in the "Spacecraft" article could then be written in prose, instead of list form. Does that sound like a good idea? Mlm42 (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "List of spacecraft" should probably just be deleted since it's not too well put together (but the formatting isn't bad) and the information not already in the "Spacecraft" article can be added to it if needed.--Craigboy (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good call. I've redirected List of spacecraft to here. Mlm42 (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move content to List of spacecraft 

message: Because of the very specialized and complex technical concepts defined by terms like spaceworthiness, airworthiness, seaworthiness and crashworthiness, I have the opinion that each of them deserve to have their own entry in Wikipedia, as is now. So, my proposal is against the mere merge of the "spaceworthiness" entry with the "spacecraft" one, but just to include some reference to "spaceworthiness" in the entry for "spacecraft". Sethemanuel (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaceworthiness merger 

message: Does anyone see a glaring problem with this section? The scope of this article is supposed to be the actual craft themselves, but this section is written as basically a summary of the history of the manned space programs and flights, which are adequately covered in their own articles. This page needs to concentrate more on the vehicles themselves. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya it looks like someone destroyed this article, maybe we can revert the whole thing back.--Craigboy (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I probably wrote most of the section you're talking about; previously it was just a list of spacecraft. Rather than reverting back to just a list (which is more appropriately put in a list-article), I think we should keep the prose. If you don't like the way it's written, then I suggest you be bold and reword it. Mlm42 (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manned spacecraft section 

message: There are a number of conventions for communicating on WP talk pages that are widely followed by experienced editors, bcz they make it more feasible (less laborious) to follow the development of the corresponding articles' content. I find most of these conventions somewhat neglected on this talk page, and am undertaking some cleanup, in the course of checking to see if some of my impulses toward the accompanying article seem likely to be more helpful than disruptive. I'm not sure how far or fast my cleaning up will go, and beg the indulgence of editors, whether new or more experienced with the article than i, since the long-term clarity of the talk page will profit from some changes that may be at least temporarily annoying. If there are others who have concerns about the kind of "talk fixes" (edits that remedy changes that tend to obscure the record of the "talk" on this page) that i'll be making, let's discuss those in this section, and not have anything as silly as an edit-war about the content of the talk page (as opposed to the more typical conflicts about what ultimately matters, the content of the article).--Jerzy•t 06:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, i moved a block of sections (which AFAIK-so-far may be in chrono order within the block) from the beginning to just before this section. I'll be retrofitting annotations to repair the undated (or for that matter, unsigned) ones, so the data for checking their positioning is at hand.--Jerzy•t 07:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Stepping thru the edit history i've seen (in addition to the sigs and timestamps that i've been adding to unsigned contribs) several sections that have been removed. Some of them have little or no merit, but there is no clearcut vandalism, and pretty much of a continuum from empty fanboyish enthusiasm on up. Archiving is clearly called for in the case of some removed sections  -- can these be from before we had well-defined archiving procedures? -- and enough archive-worthy stuff was just cut out that i expect to restore all the removed material and propose relying on the archiving process as the means of reducing clutter to a comfortable level.--Jerzy•t 09:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk-page conventions 

message: In particular, in the 1970s there were several test launches of the V-2 rocket, some of which reached altitudes well over 100,000,000 km. This looks like vandalism to me. Should probably read "1940s" and "well over 100km". Does anybody have more information about this? Otherwise I propose making those changes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.26.5 (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  V2 tests? 

message: The article lede sentence is: "A spacecraft is a vehicle or machine designed to fly in outer space."
This would imply that some upper stages (specifically, those final/terminal upper stages that not only accelerate their payloads to orbit but are designed to, afterwards, "fly in space" for sufficient duration to make more in-space maneuvers like orbital delta-V trajectory changes or to subsequently force a deorbit are also spacecraft.
But is this correct?  I don't think this is usually how the term (spacecraft) is used; but I might be wrong.
* So, are upper stages "spacecraft" if they "fly in space" — as the article is currently?
* Or should we improve the article by making the distinction more clear?  
Other thoughts?  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are —upper stages "spacecraft" if they "fly in space"? 

message: * There is an article page on spacecraft systems, which is called Astrionics. There should be a Main hatnote pointing to this. This section should be written in summary form based on the structure of the Astrionics page.
*  Should say satellite bus. Also, subsystems are mounted in the bus, do not "comprise" the bus:
:
* GNC is ambiguous and needs to be spelled out and Wikilinked (it doesn't mean "General Nutrition Centers"). JustinTime55 (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Subsystems" section needs a rewrite 

message: As of this writing, this article features two images of spacecraft followed by the . That's a problem, because the latter currently includes the same Shuttle image already included above. I am however hesitant to just single-handedly delete that File:Space Shuttle Columbia launching.jpg picture from this article, because that would trash the information in the caption as well. Thoughts? —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  An image problem