Talk:Antares A-ONE

Comments

Apparently some nanosatellites are also being launched. More info can be found here.--Craigboy (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a picture of the Cygnus mass simulator.--Craigboy (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Lots of info on mission here--Craigboy (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Antares A-ONE. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Cygnus Mass Simulator → Antares A-ONE – The article focus is on the mission not the payload. Also, why did you wait until the 'day of the launch' to change the name? Craigboy (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose per WP:LAUNCHES and the precedent set with Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit. We do not consider individual launches of rockets to be notable, even maiden flights. However we do consider their payloads to be notable, hence launches should be covered in those articles. For the record, the reason I moved it today was because I was not previously aware of the article's existence. --W. D. Graham 23:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"per WP:LAUNCHES" I'm arguing that this isn't a 'launch article' but a 'mission article'. "precedent set with Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit" I'm actually in the process of renaming and cleaning up that article. "We do not consider individual launches of rockets to be notable, even maiden flights." That isn't done for all launches, a few notable examples are most of the manned launches (STS-26 is not called TDRS-3, Apollo 11 isn't called CSM-107, etc.) and the Dragon launches.--Craigboy (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no mission here beyond the launch, ergo the launch is the mission. In the case of STS-26, and indeed all Shuttle missions to deploy satellites, the Shuttle orbiter performed its own mission as well - in the case of A-ONE, the only "mission" being performed is putting the satellites into orbit and performing a CCAM - there is no difference at all here except for the fact that it is a maiden flight, which has not in the past been considered notable enough to warrant an exception to WP:LAUNCHES. Apollo 11 was a mission performed by the Apollo spacecraft, not the Saturn V, so that point is irrelevant. --W. D. Graham 08:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support the payload if necessary can have a separate article. The nominal interest of the world outside of Wikipedia is the rocket, not its payload. That WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is to ignore rockets for less-notable payloads is quite wrongheaded. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support There simply isn't enough coverage in 3rd party sources on this aspect of the mission nor is there enough to say about this dummy mass itself to warrant a dedicated article. This can be adequately covered in the mission article. It's a dummy mass, there really isn't that much to say about it.--RadioFan (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per reasons discussed above: for weeks I've been pouring through the articles and coverage, which tend to tangentially mention the payloads; they have instead been on the mission end of things, i.e. getting the thing up there, which encompasses much more than merely the payloads. Further, the mission includes several payloads, not just the mass simulator, but several microsatellites; focusing on the mass simulator is too narrow. As for notability, this mission has received extensive coverage in both the space press and the general national/East Coast/Mid-Atlantic press, which would appear to make it meet the general Wikipedia notability requirements. Morgan Riley (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Have the two used spaceflight items deorbited yet?

Has the Antares second stage deorbited yet? Have a source, or a way to find out? Ditto for the Cygnus Mass Simulator? Or are they both derelict? Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)