User talk:Rowan Forest/Archive 15

BFR

I appreciate your measured and incremental edits improving the BFR article.

I'd appreciate it if you would help review all the major edits. There's been so many that it is getting hard to see what is being left out, and downgraded in importance, as others are making rather major changes in the midst of what will turn out to have been very little real news last week, and the major secondary sources on the actual announcement(s), whatever they may be, won't be here until approx. Tuesday daytime US time.

I fear that substantive material that has been stable for a long time is getting lost, and new LOTS of new phrasing is coming in without sufficient review. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@N2e: This development pretty much will grab the world's attention -for a little while but it will. Big changes in design. Big and loud headlines too. Expect a flood of editors and edits. Lets cope and be patient; in the near future there will be time to polish the text and recover the history and context that you see is being overun. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Explain the science and engineering of lunar landers

Hi Rowan. Given your knowledge in the area, you may be interested to edit the Lunar lander article, that I just tagged for expansion. — JFG ^talk 08:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I'll take a look at it to see if I can contribute to it. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I was able to only expand the intro a little bit, but I do not have enough knowledge and training to investigate and explain the engineering and physical principles applied to lunar lander design. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a great start, thanks! — JFG ^talk 18:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Mars: potential underground life?

If interested, recent news item re potential underground life on ancient Mars? - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

We know that for a while Mars had volcanism (source of chemical energy), liquid water and a thick atmosphere. I don't see any new info in this simulation, except that they focused on hydrogen. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Another related life search news item - but, more broadly, on other "new worlds".

Nice. I remember that there is a project where they are creating a "catalog" of different colors (reflection) that may differ from the expected surface geology or atmospheric content - and suggestive of vegetation. I can't remember the name of this catalog/project. It may be the same people. They are certainly getting ready to use the next generation of space telescopes for studying exoplanets. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the same people I thought of, at the Carl Sagan Institute: [1]. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk)

@Drbogdan: The search for biosignatures will be beyond color or oxygen abundance, and into "atmospheric chemical disequilibrium". [2]. Cool. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Another related life chemical news item - re evidence of phosphorus compounds in space, and delivered to early earth (and elsewhere) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting to know that phosphorus can be naturally synthetized in outer space and not exclusively by stars. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - perhaps another interesting study - re search for ETs - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Other interesting related articles? (at least imo) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Early life - or not?

Some signs of the earliest life on Earth - may be geological instead? - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I saw the headlines last night but I had no chance to read that. Thanks. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Life on Mars

If interested, recent refs about life on Mars. - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that deep freezing subglacial perchlorate brine can be rendered "habitable" simply by the presence of oxygen. But always good to explore new ideas. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

References

SLIM's rover

I'm afraid I don't know much about it, but ISAS seems to be developing a rover for SLIM, as in [3] Here's another image of it, on the bottom-center of this PDF. All I know is that it uses a spring to hop, has one wheel to flip over to the other side when it gets stuck, and it (probably) has two motors. I'm not even sure if it really is an 'rover'. SLIM originally had a proper two-wheeled rover as in here, but this one got cancelled around 2015 due to weight limits. The current one seems to be a new, unrelated project. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hms1103: For the moment I noticed there is absolutely no mention of a rover in that Wikipedia article, only the stationary lander. I'll certainly look into the link you offer and any additional info I may find. If so, I will update the article accordingly. As always, thank you for the valuable feedback. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

When I originally wrote the article, it was after the rover wasn't selected as a scientific instrument (a spectroscopy camera mounted on the lander was instead selected), so I left it out. The current one began around 2017, but there's little information, no mention even on the SLIM project page. Here's a recent paper about the hopping mechanism used. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

LiteBIRD latest design

Just to note, LiteBIRD's spacecraft bus design changed drastically around this summer. The old design had two solar array paddles, while the latest one has three, as in this presentation. There was a pdf with a good image (here) but it seems to have been deleted. As a reminder, the old design is still used in fairly recent materials (including the project website). In the latest design only the bus design looks different; as far as I can tell the telescope design is the same as the old one. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll work on this on and off during the weekend. I think I will focus on the science payload and objectives, as the bus and hardware may change fast. By the way, I'm cheering for OKEANOS to be selected. Using a solar sail for a possible sample-return would be a legendary accomplishment. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hms1103: Hello. Do you know which mission was JAXA's first Large-Class mission? Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

(To be clear there's a number zero, XRISM. This wasn't supposed to exist but had to be implemented after Hitomi's failure.) The first Large-class mission in the 2020s is MMX, then there's either LiteBIRD or OKEANOS, and the third one is SPICA. Here's an image of all of them. By the way, my pick for the 2nd L-class mission, the Mars Landing Demonstrator didn't get pass the cut. There were five candidates submitted, and though it's now an one-on-one match, I'm sure the winner would bring unprecedented results in science, regardless of which field it is in. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

References

New "Planet Simulator" to study abiogenesis?

Recent news of possible interest => Researchers at McMaster University announced the development of a new technology, called a Planet Simulator, to help study the origin of life on planet Earth and beyond. - interesting comment? => Based on initial tests with the new tehnology, physicist Maikel Rheinstadter, who is also the director of the project, stated that it "seems that the formation of life is probably a relatively frequent process in the universe". - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

They just started this summer and still have to publish. But such confidence hints at early interesting findings. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This looks like an interesting and novel approach to narrow down some guesses in the Drake equation, thanks for the tip. Are you aware of the recent Drexler paper "Dissolving the Fermi paradox"? It presents new statistical arguments for humanity's isolation. Still very hard to choose between just 1 or a great number of civilizations... and there seems to be no space in between those extreme cases! — JFG ^talk 14:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance - of interest?

Of possible interest => Researchers reported possible transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (i.e., transmission of information from one generation of an organism to the next that affects the traits of offspring without alteration of the primary structure of DNA) in the form of paternal transmission of epigenetic memory via of sperm chromosomes in the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans, a laboratory test organism. - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Two Moon bound missions

I'd like to know if there are any information regarding two Moon bound payloads, both flying on board Astrobotic's 2020 Peregrine lander. The Mexican space agency is having a payload taken to the moon (apparently rovers), and Ecuador and Colombia are jointly developing a small satellite technology demonstration payload for deployment in lunar orbit. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hms1103: I remember looking into the Mexican rovers a few months ago, with almost nothing available online at the Mexican Space Agency and its affiliated universities. Will take another look at it and at the other Latin-American payloads tomorrow. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hms1103:: Mexican rovers - Still not much available online. The Mexican Space Agency (AEM) was recently created and exists in paper only. Its organization or structure are still being defined, as well as its goals and potential projects. The lunar payload was announced on 14 June 2015 [4] and would be managed by the federal research institution known as Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT). I have scoured the CONACYT-AEM archives and this is the only info I got: [5] it is a proposal from 2015 and it seems the one selected because it was funded. It proposes to test technology mounted on many small modular rovers, each with different capabilities that would work autonomously but in synergy to help build structures on the lunar surface. The payload includes the small rovers (unspecified number), a deployable ramp to drive them down to the surface, tools, communications through radio and images to the lander and between rovers, algorithms and software. The document shows that the funding was awarded in October 2015, in the amount of $5,840,000 Mexican pesos ($300,000 USD). Bear in mind most of the work is from unpaid graduate students from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). I will look into the other countries next. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hms1103: Ecuadorian-Colombian campaign by their national space agencies: Agencia Espacial Civil Ecuatoriana (EXA) and Agencia Espacial de Colombia (AEC). This is is a very recent announcement dated 4 October 2018 and described as "EXA and AEC will jointly develop a small satellite technology demonstration payload for deployment in lunar orbit." This will continue with a campaign across multiple Peregrine lunar landers and lunar orbiter missions. Phase 1 is set to start in 2020-2021 with the insertion of an ARTEMIS-class 2U CubeSat in lunar orbit. Its main payload will be a laser communications array able to deliver Internet traffic at no less than 100 Mbps. The in-orbit detector will be an Indian SHARMAN-class 2U CubeSat in low-Earth orbit, and the ground detector will be an IRVINE-class laser ground station receiver. Source: [6]. I found no mention of this at the Colombian or Ecuadorian space agencies. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

A quick Google search, and it seems the Artemis-class CubeSats are connected to Synergy Moon, a NGO that was one of the finalists for the Google Lunar X Prize, so I assume it was designed for lunar orbit from the start. Thanks for all the information. As always, Hms1103 (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For excellent updates to Ionospheric Connection Explorer Fotaun (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

organizations involved in colonizing space

I wish to write an article about this. Would you have any suggestions to help me come up with a good one. Can i post this here for you to check or read through? Thank you.LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@LOBOSKYJOJO: Hello. I don't know if there are any "organizations" dedicated to it, but I am aware that there are "concepts" published here and there. The closest thing to an organization for colonization that I know of is Breakthrough Initiatives, but they are doing their diligent research before any talk of space colonization. The article Space colonization may offer you some clues, as well as related books, the good ol' Google search, and Googgle Scholar. There are existing articles on the Colonization of the Moon, Colonization of Venus, Colonization of Mars, Colonization of Europa, Lagrange point colonization, etc., you can screen for info. Also, I recommend you define the differences between a space station (a disposable lab such as the SkyLab, ISS and Mir), a long-term base (generational), and a full fledged self-sustaining colony. Would a robotic mining operation count? I don't think so. And yes, I'd be happy to read/review any draft you come up with. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sir, I am very grateful for your gesture.LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Welccome. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Galactic panspermia?

If interested => Harvard astronomers presented an analytical model that suggests living biological components can potentially be exchanged across the vast distances between galaxies, a process termed galactic panspermia, and not be restricted to the limited scale of solar systems.

@Drbogdan: I tweaked the entry because although matter could be potentially exchanged, it might take billions of years, and these researchers did not model the survival or viability of spores, just the potential transfer of particles/matter in general. I hope that is OK with you. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - and tweak - no problem whatsoever - seems better to me as well - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Proposed start of article

I am writing this article with reference links. The first two paragraphs will look like these.

I will be grateful for your comments and which topic to include my article.

Thank youLOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Self-sustaining colony in space

Scientists remain in the process of designing and building a space station colony that can go beyond the Earth’s low orbit. Professor Emeritus (Physics) Gerard K. O’ Neill of Princeton University in New Jersey was one of the scientists who said orbital space colonies have become physically viable, economical and attractive dwelling places. These experts said orbit was ideal for developing technological civilization. The orbital space settlement refers to a huge orbital space settlement that will travel eternally through space. Families stay inside to live normal lives. These communities will rotate. Hence, people will feel very near Earth’s normal gravity at the underside. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/29/nyregion/gerard-k-o-neill-professor-69-led-studies-on-physics-and-space.html http://space.nss.org/orbital-space-settlements/ Low earth orbit The first settlements would be several hundred miles from the Earth in Low Earth orbit or LEO. Objects in LEO stand at an elevation of between 160 and 2,000 kilometers or 99 and 1,200 miles. Anything that goes below this height will suffer from orbital deterioration and quickly fall into the atmosphere. The object can either crash or burn. Orbital period or the time will bring objects circle the Earth once at this height is from 88 up to 127 minutes. https://www.universetoday.com/85322/what-is-low-earth-orbit/

@LOBOSKYJOJO: Hello, and I apologize for the delay in responding. Some thoughts in no particular order:

• It seems O'Neil was a reputable scientist and he seems to have written about space colonization (not just temporary orbital stations), so for the purpose of Wikipedia, it seems the subject (and the proposing scientist) is notable for creation of such article, however, it needs more references.
• I recommend you search for more articles and books that describe his proposal beyond the mere thought of doing it. Assembly in low Earth orbit, habitable volume, propulsion, food sources, radiation shielding, and rotating habitats are examples of concept designs that are needed for your article).
• Find and get access to reliable publications such as [7] and similar books. Sometimes you can get e-books for a fraction of the paper book cost.
• Find additional publications by other proponents (authors, engineers and scientists). You'd be writing about the subject in general, not just O'Neill's concept.
• May want to divide the space colonies' concepts in 2 (or more): orbital [8], and interplanetary/extrasolar (O'Neill).
• After you gather the publications and the descriptions, the text can be started, and then it can be "Wikified", meaning creating a few sections and, then the prose would be massaged for a while to render it neutral, clear and objective.

Have fun and good luck, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much Sir. LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@LOBOSKYJOJO: I just noticed this article: Space habitat, which has significant overlap with the "Space colony" subject. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

TheFamousPeople.com as a source

Hi Rowan Forest. I noticed that you recently used thefamouspeople.com as a source for biographical information in Martyn Ford (athlete). Please note that there is general consensus that thefamouspeople.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for such information. (Discussions here and here). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of the bad reliability of that site. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

El Chapo

Thanks for the recent article fixes! I'm excited to see how the trial unfolds. Maybe once things have settled down (once he's convicted and no longer in the news every day), we can try to get this to GA status. The article has a lot of good info but all over the place, so a major clean-up will be needed. In the meantime, I'll try to get a few CJNG members fixed and nominated in the following weeks/months: Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, Rosalinda González Valencia, and Rubén Oseguera González, among others. Always happy to use your help if you're interested/available. Happy editing, MX (✉ • ✎) 16:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I'm retired from the Mexican drug war articles, but I could not stay away from el Chapo's trial. Yes, his article needs an overhaul, and I'm willing to help you in any way I can. It can be done before the trial begins. A sus ordines, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Got it. I guess you can keep an eye on my updates – I tend to make a lot of grammatical mistakes when doing large updates. Gracias, amigo. MX (✉ • ✎) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Sobrevivi la decada de los 80s en Mexico y no quiero atravesarme a un sicopata como les paso a El Pirata de Culiacan, reporteros y testigos. Por eso me retire, pero puedo ayudar en Wikipedia con cambios menores. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Lo mismo a pasado por mi mente. Nací/crecí en Tamaulipas en los 90s y 2010s, y aún voy muy seguido (más de lo que puedo admitir). Jamás escribo estando allá por temor a que mi laptop termine en otras manos. Ahora me aseguro de usar VPN estando en casa, pero siempre con la preocupación que esta actividad – aunque sea por Wikipedia – tiene su riesgo. Un abrazo, MX (✉ • ✎) 17:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Europa Lander mission may not be continued?

If interested - added the following to the "Europa Lander (NASA)" article => On 10 November 2018, the Europa lander mission reportedly may not occur after all, due to recent political events, although there is no official word at this time. - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it makes sense to first explore Europa from orbit and study the data, make models and predictions before designing a lander for an unknown environment and location. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the Europa Clipper should drop off some impact probes. Several designs were proposed to fly with it; we will see if any was accepted. But the problem is that they don't know yet if the SLS rocket will be available, so it has been a nightmare for them to budget the launch mass. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Proposed Article

Hi Sir,

I look forward to publishing this article.

Will you have some suggestions: THANK you!

Self-sustaining colony in space

Scientists remain in the process of designing and building studying concepts for a space station colony that can go beyond the Earth's low orbit. One description of an orbital space colony is a colossal spacecraft where human beings can live in. (better description needed, especially for the service time desired).

overview

Professor Gerard K. O'Neill of Princeton University in New Jersey thinks that orbital space colonies have become physically viable, economical and attractive dwelling places. He and other experts think that Earth orbit is ideal for developing a technological civilization. The orbital space settlement refers to a huge orbital space settlement that could travel eternally (for decades? centuries? - can't be "eternal".) through space. These habitats would rotate to generate centrifugal force to simulate Earth's gravity. [9], [10]

Orbital colonies would travel infinitely through space while people inside work, socialize, and engage in other human activities. [11]

Colonization advocates

Among the arguments of the late Professor Gerard K. O'Neill about space colonies, is that there is more potential energy in high orbit compared to the Earth. [12] In an interview with Omni Magazine about space colonies, O'Neill maintained that “unlimited energy and materials of space can make possible a new and attractive life for millions of people.” [13] He reasoned that permanent habitation and extensive manufacturing in space will soon replace the traditional practice of launching expensive chemical rockets.

(must explain the nature and source of this "unlimited energy", and the same for the materials, which I assume are from asteroids and comets?)

Contributions and achievements

(this is information for his biography, but is completely unrelated to space colonies. Also, I assume other scientist have contributed concepts and discussions. Need more colonies concepts from other researchers.) The early research of O’Neill concentrated on high-energy particle physics. [14] O’Neill worked on enormous atom-smashing devices in Princeton as well as Stanford Universities, Switzerland, and Italy. [15] In 1956 (while still a 29-year old physics instructor at the Princeton University), O’Neill invented a machine (storage ring technique) that allowed accelerating protons to collide with each other. This contribution helped other scientists to study the traits of sub-atomic particles. [16]

O’Neill’s studies on the field of space colonization started in 1969. These were the results of his undergraduate teaching at Princeton. The findings were published in 1974. [17] His landmark book, The High Frontier (first published in 1977) suggested the construction of massive solar-powered cylinders where 20 million people can dwell in space. O’Neill also founded the Space Studies Institute at Princeton University in the same year. [18] [19] As a physics teacher in Princeton, Doctor O’Neill came up with problems for students’ learning guides to highlight elementary physics applications to people and objects on the moon and while in orbit. These were based on Apollo missions. https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html In 1974, he wrote a paper entitled “The Colonization of Space” which was published in Physics Today in 1974. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3128863 http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/space-exploration/space-colonization/living-space-6-beyond-oneill/ O’Neill envisioned a space habitation with two revolving 32-kilometer-long cylinders containing giant mirrors allowing sunlight to enter and reflect lengthy petal-shaped looking glasses. He recommended the use of lunar materials launched into space through an electromagnetic mass driver. This colony will have a living space measuring 1,259 square/kilometers capable of supporting several million human inhabitants. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/gerard-oneills-utopian-space-colony-fantasy-was-a-view-too-far-for-nonbelievers/news-story/ United States President Ronald Reagan appointed O’Neill to the National Commission on Space in 1985. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/gerard-k-oneill-collection-1950s-1990s He founded the GeoStar Corporation, a development company that advanced a satellite-based positioning, navigation, and communication system. https://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue51/184_1_The_COMPUTE!_Interview.php O’ Neill also founded O’Neill Communications Incorporated responsible for developing the Local Area Wireless Network (LAWN) that utilizes radio waves until the present time. Before he died (April 27, 1992) of Leukemia, O’ Neill was working on the “Magnetic Flight” device, a form of high-speed and ground-based transport system that can reach a certain speed that will make possible travel from Boston to Los Angeles in just one hour. http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1322_1_space-colonization

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

..Genesis

Will comment on the talk page. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Martyn Ford (athlete) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Martyn Ford (athlete) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martyn Ford (athlete) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PRehse (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Space RIDER

Hi Rowan, I believe the image that you put on the Space Rider article is actually from an older concept. That is a circa 2014 concept for the PRIDE space plane, which has a larger size than the latest design for Space RIDER. While that version has wings, the latest images for Space RIDER, (examples [20] [21]) sports a lifting body design, like its predecessor IXV or Dream Chaser. According to this article:

After IXV, ESA had plans for its Programme for Reusable In-orbit Demonstrator for Europe – Innovative Space Vehicle (Pride-ISV). Space Rider is the new name for Pride-ISV with a slightly different design.

To make things clear, I'm only noting the design changes of the spacecraft, I'm not sure what the overall program is being called. And perhaps one of the Space Rider image at the ESA website should be uploaded to Wikimedia. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hms1103: Hello. Last night before going to sleep I looked deeper into the Space Rider design, and collected additional info and references for that article: [22]. Indeed, the Space Rider design team considered both a lifting body, and a lifting body with wings or vertical fins. The final choice was the lifting body just like IXV prototype. I am about to continue editing that article. I was thinking of leaving that image there with the caption stating it is an older concept. I think within one year we may get a free-access image. What do you think? As usual, thank you again for the feedback, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: Can I please have a link to the Fact Sheet you mentioned? Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's the factsheet. This recent article may also help. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It is greatly appreciated. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Exoplanet biosignature search

If interested - several recent references re the exoplanet search for biosignatures - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

MRO chemistry detection problem?

Seems the "Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter" may have a serious chemistry detection problem - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This is huge. Regarding water, we'll have to see what the other orbiters have reported in the past (specially those with a neutron spectrometer). After all, this instrument did not search for water, but minerals that could be related to water -or sequestering water. Regarding the high perchlorate estimation, it might not be a big deal, as the rovers on the ground have given us a ground truth. Lets see how this develops in the next couple of weeks. I'll likely be busy this weekend and won't be able to do large edits. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

References

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congratulations and thank you on behalf the space reading community for writing Rotation and Interior Structure Experiment, with a special thanks for getting in started the day before InSight attempts its Mars landing! Fotaun (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rowan Forest. You have new messages at Blue Origin landing platform ship's talk page.
Message added 11:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've started a WP:BRD discussion on a new article that you have contributed to. Would appreciate your input if you have an opinion. N2e (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

New article => Lulu and Nana

FWIW - newly created article => Lulu and Nana - hope it's ok - at least for starters - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Be conservative. There are doubts it happened at all: [23]. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - all may not amount to anything after all - otoh - with so much worthy press atm there may be something afoot so-to-speak - quess we'll find out something one-way-or-another soon I would think - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

New Article

Sir

I am writing an new article on Exploration of the universe through nano technology.

Can I post it here for you to review?

Then, I will write the other topics you suggested.

Can you help me?

One editor always accuses me of disruptive editing.

Thank you.LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@LOBOSKYJOJO: Hello. I think that your edits may be misunderstood because you are still in the process of getting familiar with the policies and writing style, and because you are interested in highly technical subjects. Please do not be discouraged! Instead of embarking on the creation of such challenging articles -with significant overlap to existing articles- or adding large entries at once, I recommend you edit several Wikipedia articles for a while, and pay attention to the format, linguistic style, and neutrality used, and understand the collaborative corrections and article buildup over time. Making several small contributions over time and studying the corrections done to your entries will further develop a sense of what information is best for any given section, and how to phrase it in an encyclopedic way.

Note that in science and technology there is a very large gap between a concept and a plan, and we have to be very clear about it. A given concept becomes most relevant after it undergoes "Concept and Feasibility Studies". From there, it undergoes several more phases of studies involving objectives, payloads and many engineering studies needed. Then follow design studies, which are revised and matured ad nauseum, and filtered trough a "Critical Design Review". Of all space exploration concepts, very few reach the later stages of studies (concept development). Very few are formally proposed and only some of them get funded to actually become a plan --impacting its WP:Notability in this Wikipedia environment. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think what you suggested would be best. I will start with edits again. Much grateful.LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Innovative Solutions In Space for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Innovative Solutions In Space is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovative Solutions In Space until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For exceptional work producing articles relating to spacecraft and improvements to articles. Fotaun (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Chang'e missions

Hi, I believe you may be mistaken about the status of the Chinese tech demo mission Chang'e 5-T1. Chang'e 5-T1 has two modules (the image in Gunter's Space Page may give an idea). There's the spacecraft itself(the service module), and the reentry capsule(nicknamed Xiaofei). On 31 October 2014, Chang'e 5-T1 returned from a lunar flyby, but only the capsule section entered the atmosphere. The service module remained in orbit, and later maneuvered to EM-L2 Lagrangian point (practice for Queqiao?), and finally to lunar orbit. There hasn't been any official announcement the mission ended, so I assume its still functioning. This recent web posting (note: it's not an news article or academic writing so reliability should be checked) says that along with Chang'e-4, transmission from Chang'e 5-T1 could be received. It's difficult to come by accurate information on the Chang'e program as a whole; I know Change' 5-T1 is in lunar orbit, but don't know what its current task is, for instance. As always, Hms1103 (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I was reading about the service module as you wrote this. You are correct, and I will reinstate it. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be conflict in sources regarding the launch order of the Chinese polar missions, for example this one says Chang'e 6(2020), P1(2023), P2(2026). Taking a look at the P1/2 spacecraft, it seems to have a mini lander on the upper right side. Off topic, but the rover carried by the McCandless Lunar Lander concept looks like nothing but this. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Great! That chart is from 2018, so it trumps the dates stated in 2017. By the way, I saw in a forum that the spacecraft labeled HX-1 and HX-2 are Mars-bound; Know anything about that, and if they are related to the Mars Global Remote Sensing Orbiter and Small Rover? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Satellite

Rowan, pretty-much exactly half of the size of the article is unused template. Why exactly do you want to inflict wasteful data handing on every visitor the that page? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It looked like vandalism to me, now I see what it was meant. The field are empty because I still don't have the corresponding values. Following publications will provide that data. Standard procedure for WP Spaceflight Project. However, there are fields unlikely to be filled; will delete them now. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Blue Origin landing platform ship

On 18 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Blue Origin landing platform ship, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos aims to land rockets on a moving ship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blue Origin landing platform ship. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Blue Origin landing platform ship), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)