Talk:Attitude control system

Article importance

Based on the project's importance scale, this article is of at least mid importance ("Most well-known concepts and components of spaceflight ", and quite possibly high ("Main concepts and components of spaceflight"). A spacecraft without some form of attitude control would probably be useless in practice. And since Atmospheric entry is rated as high (and not all spacecraft are meant to return), you could say attitude control is also high. (In fact, I notice that the project's talk page example is wrong; Atmospheric entry is actually rated Top importance.)

Is it better to under-assess or over-assess? JustinTime55 (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Assessing isn't a precise science. I would say it's better to over-assess as higher rated articles are more likely to be at the top of lists and hence viewed, if it still survives there with no one changing it then clearly it's at the right level.

It was me who rated Atmospheric entry top while converting talk-pages to the new banner. The Importance list was generated by another member of WP Spaceflight, I'm not sure if that was before or after I assessed it. If we're basing it off that then I suppose no Atmospheric entry shouldn't be top, but then I had in mind a broader definition of top than he seems to. This was back when we only had a couple of thousand pages tagged rather than the ~6000 odd now, I knew we had more articles within our scope than it appeared and so needed to be a bit broader. So I'm not sure I 100% agree with the importance list. ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

[[Ed. note: this proposal was originally made, with the target being Flight dynamics (spacecraft), when that article was written around the Attitude control (spacecraft) topic. Therefore the appropriate target changes to that page. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)]]

There isn't much on the Attitude_control_system page that isn't covered here. This might possibly include a change of name from Flight_dynamics to "Spacecraft Attitude and Orbit Control" or some such. LunaCity (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I support your proposal completely, but let's have the entire discussion in one place. I will leave my comment at Flight dynamics (spacecraft). Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Note, since the originally suggested target Flight dynamics is wrong, the discussion logically moves back here. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• SUPPORT the proposal to merge. Rationale: the Attitude control system article is little more than a bunch of wikilinks, with only one source, and that source refers to not only attitude control but also all the other aspects of spacecraft flight dynamics. Little is explained in that article, and what is, is not sourced. N2e (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OPPOSE Flight dynamics (spacecraft and otherwise) is a distinct topic from attitude control, though there is some overlap. Therefore it should be the other way around; most of the attitude control info in Flight dynamics (spacecraft) should be moved into here. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)