Template talk:Infobox spaceflight/Archive 1

Archive 1

Include the booster and spacecraft IDs

Hi. I think the booster and spacecraft should be included in the infobox, but thought I'd throw the idea out there before I go and make the change. If things like the launch pad, spacecraft mass and "time in lunar orbit" are included, I can't think of a good reason why you wouldn't want to list the fact that the SA-506 booster was used for Apollo 11, which also used LM-5, CM-107 and SM-107.

Any objections?

Justin 07:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the silence to indicate no objections.  :-)

Justin 03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Navigation section

I would like to change the title of the section currently called "Navigation" to something less ambiguous. ("Navigation" might be confused with how the spacecraft was navigated.) Would "Mission sequence" work OK? Any other suggestions? (sdsds - talk) 01:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Another option might be "Mission chronology". I don't really have a preference between those two --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed this to "Related missions". Looking at both of the alternatives mentioned above, either could be misconstrued to mean the chronology or sequence (of events) of this mission. Only by getting in a plural, e.g. "related missions" is it clearly not about this mission. Or so it seems to me.... (sdsds - talk) 22:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Restructure ?

I was looking at this box on an Apollo page, and i'm not happy with it. There is just way too much statistic information in it, that makes it look messy and unreadable. As some people might have noticed, Things i'm considering.

1. Move spacewalk times and some of the lunar information back into the article
2. Add launch/landing location parameters (replacing launch pad)
3. More separation between configuration and orbit statistics (new header).

The intention would be to make it as readable as its usage is on recent STS missions like: STS-118 Does anyone think this is a good idea? If so, then I might start a new design in a /Sandbox. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

#1: Agree #2: Would have to consider those editing it, would they understand that they'd have to add the specific location? #3: Agree Ariel♥Gold 16:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, the other alternative, and perhaps a better one, would be to make a separate infobox for Apollo/Mercury missions, and leave this for shuttle missions? Just a thought. Ariel♥Gold 16:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Mars landing

I think we should add parameters for a Mars landing (just like those on the template for the Lunar landing) so that this infobox can be used on articles about Mars mission proposals (i.e. Design reference mission 3.0). Nat682 (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversion to {{infobox}}

User:59.149.32.100 has twice reverted a change to make this template use the {{infobox}} template as a base (as it common with other space templates, such as {{infobox spacecraft}}). This change makes the template code significantly cleaner and more readable, as well as being much easier to update and maintain, and brings the template's appearance closer to that of other modern infobox designs. If there are no objections I'm going to restore the new layout. For minor issues such as the way that the header is styled, these can be eaily changed in the new format, and the template code should not be reverted solely for presentational issues. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no reply to this issue, I am restoring the updated version of the template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

New parameters for Soyuz

A "spacecraft_type" parameter would be nice to have for the Soyuz missions − there have been about 100 Soyuz flights spread across seven revisions of the hardware. Some of the Soyuz articles use the "spacecraft_name" param for this − Russian call signs are assigned to the crew, rather than the spacecraft − but I really don't like overloading the param like that.

A "landing_site" param would be nice too; this information is available as lat/long coordinates for the later Soyuz missions.

I don't know how to make these changes; if someone feels like adding them and leaving me a note on my talk, I'll change the Soyuz articles to use them. Otherwise I may come back later and figure it out. Please leave any objections to the idea here. jhf (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done I'll drop you a note on user talk as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks. jhf (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove distance traveled

Item "distance traveled" needs to be removed because it is unscientific. Distance traveled must be a distance from somewhere to somewhere else. When earth revolves around the sun this is not considered a distance traveled. Therefore space shuttle revolving around the earth shouldn't count either. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with you scientifically, I do think it is curious that we are setting a higher standard than the original sources here. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this. The distance travelled info is useful in giving the reader a human measure of the scale of the speeds and sizes involved in spaceflights. That the FAI keeps records for this information (like [1]) seems definitive in proving it's considered scientifically rigorous, even if it is relative. Heck, length and width are relative too, but they remain useful measures on a human scale.

I'm going to revert the change. jhf (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Destruction" parameter

Some tables on spaceflight mission pages also have a "destruction" parameter. I've been converting some of those to this infobox and wondering if perhaps we should add that parameter. Otherwise should I discard that piece of information from the infobox completely? KimiNewt (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Image parameter

Hey. I really think there should be a default image parameter, different from insignia. If no one objects I will add it. Kind regards. Rehman 10:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Rehman 01:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Location of mission insignia

The first thing I noticed about your "phase 1" deployment to the Gemini missions, was the glaring absence of the mission insignia, which you moved down below, with the crew photo. Having an image near the top of the infobox is consistent with most infoboxes in general, makes the article look sharper, and I think is an expected visual cue to most readers. Could you please move the photo back towards the top? For reference, I've put the old and new Gemini 4 side by side, along with a representative Apollo mission, Apollo 11, which is a GA. (Also, Apollo 8 is an FA.) I think there will be a general perception of degradation if the insignia stays near the bottom. What does everyone else think? JustinTime55 (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Craigboy (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox spaceflight/Archive 1 End of mission

Gemini 4 Operator NASA Mission duration 4 days, 1 hour, 56 minutes, 12 seconds Distance travelled 1,398,800 nautical miles (2,590,600 km) Orbits completed 66 (62 revolutions) Spacecraft properties Spacecraft type Gemini Manufacturer McDonnell Launch mass 7,880 pounds (3,570 kg) Crew Crew size 2 Callsign Gemini 4 Start of mission Launch date June 3, 1965 , 15:15:59 (1965-06-03UTC15:15:59Z) UTC Rocket Titan II GLV, s/n 62-12559 Launch site Cape Canaveral LC-19 End of mission Landing date June 7, 1965, 17:12:11 (1965-06-07UTC17:12:12Z) UTC Landing site 27°44′N 74°11′W Orbital parameters Reference system Geocentric Regime Low Earth Perigee altitude 87 nautical miles (161 km) to 85.3 nautical miles (158.0 km) Apogee altitude 153 nautical miles (283 km) to 139 nautical miles (257 km) Inclination 32.53 degrees Period 88.94 minutes (L-R) White, McDivitt Project Gemini

Infobox spaceflight/Archive 1 Mission duration 8 d 03 h 18 m 35 s Start of mission Launch date July 16, 1969 (1969-07-16), 13:32:00 UTC

Sources

• I think part of the problem here is that you're looking at phase 1 articles. Phase 1 was my attempt to deploy the new infobox using AWB and then tidy it manually at Phase 2. I abandoned this in favour of a custom tool allowing both stages to be performed at once after a lot of problems with AWB, particularly on the Gemini articles. Please be assured that the absence of an image in the top right corner is only temporary, and will be rectified at phase 2.
• Part of the standardisation process is to ensure that all spaceflight articles use the same style and formatting of infobox. The design that I proposed and was accepted by the project is based on that used by most other (i.e. mostly unmanned) missions, where the primary image is one of significance to the mission - either a picture of the spacecraft or a significant event - so in the case of Apollo 11, for example, the first thing readers see would be a picture of Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon, rather than a logo which doesn't really show that much about the mission. The insignia is still in the infobox, and there will still be an image in the top corner. --W. D. Graham 22:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A mission emblem is a representation of the mission as a whole, an image on the other hand can only depict a very specific portion of that mission.
With the format you're proposing it is essentially impossible to objectively determine what image should be used in the lead, especially on the missions that don't have a 'big moment'.--Craigboy (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It may represent the mission in some ways to some people, but it rarely defines it or can stand alone. Space geeks like patches, but they don't really mean anything to the rest of the world. According to the manual of style, the lead image "helps to provide a visual association for the topic, and allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page." I do not believe users unfamiliar with the topics would recognise mission patches over actual images of the missions. In any case, the patches are still there in the infobox, in a fairly prominent place. It is worth noting that under your proposed change, we'd be standardising on a format which does not provide for the majority of articles where no mission patch is available/existent. --W. D. Graham 12:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I would have responded sooner but I've been swamped by family and work. Mission patches almost always have the mission name on them. If an user is unfamiliar with a topic then they wouldn't be able to discern an image from Apollo 11 from any other of the moon landing missions. Almost every human spaceflight mission has a mission patch, the only exception is the early flights for which a generic program emblem can be used instead. Once again a picture can only represent a very small portion of a mission.--Craigboy (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

?

I would disagree with quite a few of those assertions. I randomly selected a group of ten Shuttle articles, only one of them had the mission name on the patch, and that one, STS-117, only had part of it, making it fairly cryptic. Without reading the file name or looking up the names of the astronauts, how easily can you identify the patch on the right?

There are a bunch of Soyuz missions we have no patches for, nor do we have a programme patch there, and in any case I think using generic patches would be even harder for "a user [...] unfamiliar with a topic [...] to discern" that mission from another mission in the programme. Also, please don't forget unmanned missions - this is a standard infobox, and there are a hell of a lot of unmanned missions which this would leave without a lead image.

Perhaps a better way to deal with mission patches would be the approach used in {{Infobox space station}}, which has not been included in the standardisation yet. Have a look at International Space Station, it has a photo as the lead image, but the mission patch is much higher up the infobox. Would this alleviate some of your concerns? --W. D. Graham 08:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of miniature insignia for next and previous mission

Another change you've made to the Gemini's is purely stylistic, the removal of the small insignia beside the previous and next missions. Consensus has been to use these for the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Vostok, Voskhod, and Soyuz (at least classical) missions. The decision to remove them is mostly subjective; the only good reason possibly for eliminating them would be the occasional annoyance if the user happens to click on them instead of the mission hyperlinks, he is taken to the file page instead of the mission page. But I think this is easily gotten around by making them imagemaps. In fact, this would be a useful feature. Would it be possible to add next_insignia and previous_insignia parameters, and apply them as imagemaps which link to next_mission and previous_mission? JustinTime55 (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Again, this is a case of standardisation; there are missions that use insignia, and there are missions that don't. The old format was extremely bulky and looked awful on articles without patches, while on those that had them, the patches didn't really add anything - especially to someone not familiar with the subject. I would also suggest that WP:MOSLOGO discourages their use in this manner. Because of this, when I designed the template I used the format introduced on one of the other infoboxes - I forget which one - which used smaller links without logos. --W. D. Graham 22:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Landing attribute

In the above example of {{Infobox Space mission}} I see a value labeled "Lunar landing". Won't that be confusing to some readers? Would changing "Landing", "Landing site", and "Landing date" to "Return", "Return site", and "Return date" (respectively) or something to that effect in this and the other templates (in the interest of standardization) be an acceptable solution?
Right now it's only an issue for just over a dozen articles. But, I'd venture they're amongst the higher trafficked mission articles and more are supposed to be on the way. After all, extraterrestrial missions are supposedly going to become a priority again. —Sowlos  20:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• There are several fields to handle different EOM scenarios, so precise terms such as "landing" are necessary to differentiate them. Since the older templates will be phased out, this shouldn't be a long-term problem. --W. D. Graham 20:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Why won't these photos format correctly?

I tried constructing an Infobox Spaceflight for the Apollo 1 article, and for some reason it won't shrink the three photos down to thumbnail size. (Example below, with enormous photos.) The instructions say not to use the "File: ..." syntax, so I didn't, and this is what happens. I then tried using "File:filename|thumb" (with brackets) and this makes the photos size correctly, but gives some extra garbage text based on the caption inputs. It looks like I'm following the example in Gemini 4 properly, and I noticed those picture names happened to not have embedded blanks, or else replace the blanks with underscores. I tried replacing all my name blanks with underscores, but that gives the same result as the first. Do you know why this is happening? What am I doing wrong? Or is something "wrong" with these images? Help, please.

Title Open to see example ruined by enormous images

Apollo 1 (aka AS-204)

Charred remains of the Apollo 1 cabin interior, after a fire which killed the entire crew
Mission type	Crewed spacecraft verification test
Operator	NASA
Mission duration	Up to 14 days (planned)
Spacecraft properties
Spacecraft	CSM-012
Spacecraft type	Apollo Command/Service Module, Block I
Manufacturer	North American Aviation
Launch mass	45,000 pounds (20,000 kg)
Expedition
Ended	Fatal spacecraft fire on launch pad 18:31 EST, January 27, 1967 (1967-01-27UTC23:32Z) UTC
Crew
Crew size	3
Members	Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, Command Pilot Edward H. White, Senior Pilot Roger Chaffee, Pilot
Start of mission
Launch date	February 21, 1967 (planned)
Rocket	Saturn IB AS-204
Launch site	LC 34 Cape Kennedy Florida, USA
Orbital parameters
Reference system	Geocentric (planned)
Regime	Low Earth
Perigee altitude	160 nautical miles (300 km) (planned)
Apogee altitude	120 nautical miles (220 km) (planned)
Inclination	31 degrees
Period	89.7 minutes
Apollo

JustinTime55 (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

should be fixed now, there was a bug when the 'image_size' parameter is specified, but is left blank. I fixed it. Frietjes (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

payload_items not working correctly?

In the article Hispasat AG1, which I have just created, I couldn't get the parameter payload_items to display unless cargo_mass was also present AND filled in (having it empty was not enough). I had copied the entire text from "Usage" in the documentation, and then removed sections which wouldn't be used. When payload_items wouldn't show, I started looking for another article where it had successfully been used, and finally found Progress M-MIM2.

Does this have anything to do with the source under "data10", where cargo_mass follows a #if? I don't really know how to fix it. Ardric47 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

should work now. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It does. Thanks! Ardric47 (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

What is "BOL mass"?

This parameter exists in the template, but isn't listed in the doc. I can't find anything the acronym might mean on the BOL disambiguation page. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• see http://www.spectrolab.com/faqs-space.htm we should add a tooltip or article link for this term. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Appended to Bol as, BOL in engineering, the abbreviation for "Beginning of Operational Life". nagualdesign (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Blank fields

I've been editing Chang'e 3, trying to hide the empty field End of mission/Last contact. Removing it completely made Launch contractor (also empty) visible instead. Removing that made Launch site misalign with its parameter, so I gave up. FYI, at each stage the problem seemed to affect the last field on the list, if that means anything. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that, I fixed it by adding the following before the {{Infobox spaceflight/IP}} template:
| interplanetary = <!-- This field enables proper formatting of the following {{Infobox spaceflight/IP}} -->
Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

To link or not to link? That is the question

I recently unlinked the word Rocket from this infobox in accordance with WP:OVERLINK. As this edit was reverted I shall state my case here. Wikilinks are supposed to be added when they are needed to aid understanding of the article, explaining words of a technical nature, jargon, slang expressions or proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers. 'Overlinking' can make it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding. For this reason we do not usually link everyday words understood by most readers in context. In this infobox, not only has Launch vehicle been linked, but it has been relabeled as Rocket, which I find entirely unnecessary. I suppose at a push we could link the less common term, Launch vehicle, or re-label it as Rocket (without the link) but not both. And since other terms like BOL mass have been left to the readers' imagination it seems doubly unhelpful (and, frankly, patronizing) to use Rocket. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the Simple English version. As WDGraham did not provide an edit summary when reverting, if no valid case is made here I will simply repeat my edit. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on whether it should be linked, but I reverted your edit because of the change in terminology; "rocket" was chosen over "launch vehicle" for three reasons: firstly the term launch vehicle is American English, while a large proportion of spaceflight articles are not written in that dialect - the term "carrier rocket" is often used outside the United States. Secondly, this infobox is not just used for orbital spaceflights, so an orbit-specific term such as "launch vehicle" or "carrier rocket" would be inappropriate in some cases. Thirdly it was chosen to avoid the mess which resulted from inconsistent terminology at Template:Infobox spacecraft, where several fields had to be used to cover a single entry rather than just using a simple term which could be used consistently in all cases. So yes, I have no problem with unlinking but I strongly oppose changing the terminology away from "rocket". --W. D. Graham 08:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I unlinked Rocket, as discussed. ..Then I thought, maybe it should be Launch rocket, the same as the parameter name, to avoid any confusion? Feel free to revert that edit if you strongly disagree. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The header just above it is entitled "Start of mission", so that should hopefully eliminate any ambiguity. "Launch rocket" isn't a term which is typically used - whereas "launch site" and "launch date" are. I'd say leave it as "Rocket" for now, but if we can find a better solution I'm happy to support some kind of change in principle. --W. D. Graham 13:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Whilst we're on the subject of links, do you think it might be useful to link BOL mass? Unfortunately it's only a disambiguation page, and the definition of BOL that I appended there doesn't link to anywhere, but at least it provides a straightforward (ish) way of discovering the info. nagualdesign (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

After a quick search I linked operational life on the Bol page (then skipped the redirect by linking directly to Service life). Is this helping at all or shall I just drop the whole idea? New ideas would be welcome. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I had another idea, ran with it, and wrote this. If it meets with your approval, please could you link BOL mass (or BOL mass) within the template. Thanks. nagualdesign (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Making an Instruments Sub-template Work

I created Template:Infobox spaceflight/Instruments as a replacement to the current system of templates that makes the Instruments of Template:Infobox spaceflight work. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to make it work. Applying the if:# templates to make the additional columns disappear doesn't work for me. How do I make this template work? PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 06:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

fixed it for you? 98.230.192.179 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that doing a long list of entries is the way to go. I would like to think a bit about it and design an Instrument template that then can be called many times, as happens with Dock and IP. On thing that I've noticed is that there is no Talk page on the sub pages. Is this because that's how subpages are treated or is it simply that nobody bordered to make one? – Baldusi (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't. We honestly don't need the infoboxes to be any longer than they already are. Details about the instruments are most appropriately detailed in the prose, and the subtemplate keeps it nice and concise, and collapseable. As for its talk page, I've redirected it to this talk page, as is standard for subtemplates. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple Programme.

I've been writing a lot of communications satellite articles. And there it is very common to share a satellite among operators. These means that I would love to have multiple programmes on the infobox. It could also be useful for things like Soyuz flights, that are part of the ISS increment and the Soyuz programme. I don't know if this would require to add a {{programme}} template. But I believe this idea is worth discussing. — Baldusi (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for. In terms of operators, just use that specific field, and add something like (2006-2014) to show order of ownership/operation. I see no problem with the current setup of Soyuz articles...perhaps you can elaborate? — Huntster (t @ c) 22:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I didn't made myself more clear. You can see the N-SAT-110 satellite, that is part of the Superbird and JSAT programs, being known as N-SAT-110, JCSAT-7 (before launch), JCSAT-110 (after launch), Superbird-5 (before launch) and Superbird-D (after launch). I would like to have a way of saying that under the Superbird program the previous was Superbird-B2 and the next was Superbird-A2, and under the JSAT program the previous was JCSAT-4A and the next was JCSAT-2A.
In a similar fashion, Progress M1-4 under the ISS program would have had as previous Progress M1-3 and next Progress M-44, but under the Progress Program, the previous would have been Progress M-43 and the next Progress M1-5, both of which went to Mir.
But to do that I have to be able to put two programs. Basically, treat as you do with spaceflight/Dock or spaceflight/IP so I can add more than one program. Or may be is a chance of adding |programme2= |previous_mission2 = |next_mission2= which is clearly a kludge but backwards compatible. Is this more clear? – Baldusi (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• First, I don't think you need multiple program capability for the Progress. The spacecraft was built to service any type of space station, and it's just a coincidence that late Mir and early ISS overlapped. Looking at the List of Progress flights, the chronologically previous mission to M1-4 was M-43, and the next was M1-5. You could link the "Progress program" (note we have no such page) to either Progress (spacecraft) or the List of flights article, and that would be enough. The previous_mission and next_mission links are intended to be a navigational aid; I don't think it's necessary to complicate this by tracking the Mir and ISS threads.
• I'm not sure if it's necessary or not to reprogram the template for the N-SAT-110 case; how often does this sort of thing happen? According to its reference in the JSAT Corporation article,

  The Japanese government made both JCSAT and SCC share the 100°E position and thus both made on November 1998 a joint order for N-SAT-110...

  I also see there is no explanation of this situation on the N-SAT-110 page; I would do this first. Without it, I think it would be confusing to link the one spacecraft to two different program threads. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, my problem arises from re writing the JSAT Corporation article and general comm sats. Companies like to co-own satellites where it makes business sense. And the issue is not so much with the satellite itself, since I can easily put that information on the text. But if you want to navigate by going forward and backwards through the Next and Previous links, one of the programs will have a missing link. – Baldusi (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Baldusi, for this situation, I would not recommend using the infobox's program fields for the JSAT satellite, since a timeline of corporate satellites is not what I'd call a program. If you really want something similar, I suggest using {{Succession box}}es at the bottom of the page as a navigation aid, or maybe better, develop a navbox for the company's satellites (as I see has been done with {{JCSAT}}). There are plenty of options other than the infobox. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

How do we fit reusability?

I've been trying to delete occurences of the old Spacecraft infobox. In doing so I've tried to do the MPLM's. But here I have an issue when I tried to do Raffaello MPLM. They are not station modules, but rather part of a reusable resupply stack. As such, they did many trips to the station, to Spaceflight can only list a single flight. Since {{Infobox Spacecraft}} was deprecated and {{Infobox spacecraft class}} would be the MPLM themselves, I'm forced to either do an article for each flight, or go with a general MPLM article that lists everything.

Neither applies quite well. And once Dragon (spacecraft), CST-100 and Dream Chaser and even the Falcon 9 first stages start being re used operationally, we will have the same issue. How do we refer to reusable spacecraft that do operational mission that are, themselves, different hulls of a single class? – Baldusi (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The only solution is can imagine is to simply add a parameter to "Infobox spaceflight/Dock" to note the parent spacecraft or mission, in this case the particular STS number. However, I'm not comfortable with using "Dock" in this way...to take it to an extreme level, do you really want to detail a dozen missions in the infobox?? They aren't intended for such purposes, and so I think such things should be better left to the prose, rather than trying to shoehorn in all that errata. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Which I wouldn't like to do. In fact, that's exactly my point. Somewhere in the {{Infobox Spacecraft}} to {{Infobox spaceflight}} transition, the option for a multi mission spacecraft was lost. Conceptually, the spacecraft as a concept separated from a mission in not applicable within those templates not deprecated. I think it would be pretty simply to retrofit, though.

If we would add something like this:

<!-- Flight History (optional) -->

Flight History

Type {{{history_type}}} <!-- Type of mission (Resupply, Recognaince, etc) or contract (CRS, ISS, Almaz, etc.) -->

Status {{{history_status}}} <!-- Active, Retired, Planned, etc., required -->

First mission {{{history_first}}} <!-- First mission if available (SpaceX CRS-1) and/or first launch date, optional -->

Last mission {{{history_last}}} <!-- Last active mission, optional -->

Only mission {{{history_only}}} <!-- If only performed a single mission, optional -->

Notable missions {{{history_notable}}} <!-- Notable missions or payloads, optional -->

Total missions {{{history_total}}} <!-- Total performed missions, optional -->

Successful {{{history_success}}} <!-- Total successfully performed mission, optional -->

Partial {{{history_partial}}} <!-- Total partially performed mission, optional -->

Failure {{{history_failure}}} <!-- Total mission failures, optional -->

Retirement {{history_retirement}} <!-- Retirement type like Lost at launch, Retired, Lost on re-entry, Mothballed, etc., optional -->

Satellites deployed {{history_deployed}} <!-- Total number of satellites deployed, optional-->

Time spent in space {{history_time}} <!-- Total time spent in space, optional-->

I think with some more thought it would be a trivial addition, and really help. The space shuttles had to do their own template, because they wouldn't fit on the current template. As I said before, reusable spacecraft are coming and having a clear way to fit them in here would be great. Thoughts? – Baldusi (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Propellant and flight history

Add propellant_type, propellant_mass and propulsion to the Spacecraft properties section and add a Flight history section.

When {{Infobox spacecraft}} was deprecated, we lost the concept of a single hull of a spacecraft class that does multiple missions. A spacecraft class has {{Infobox spacecraft class}}, a mission has {{Infobox spaceflight}}. But what about things like Raffaello MPLM, that did multiple missions to the ISS? What about Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope that flew on STS-35 and STS-67?

And then we also have the reusable trend. The Space Shuttle needed its very own infobox. The Falcon 9 first stage has {{Infobox rocket stage}}, but what about a core that flies more than once? We now use {{Infobox spaceflight}} for Dragon (spacecraft) missions, but what about the individual hulls themselves? What we'll we do with fuel depots like ACES? I believe that all of these issues can be solved with a few modifications to {{Infobox spaceflight}}.

The name might sound a bit counter intuitive, but we just need a few more labels in the Spacecraft properties section, and a new Flight history section and we would be done. @רונאלדיניו המלך, JustinTime55, Cincotta1, Kees08, Craigboy, Frietjes, JFG, Rmvandijk, N2e, Ulflund, Nagualdesign, and WDGraham:

Proposal 1: to add propellant_type, propellant_mass and propulsion to the Spacecraft properties section.

Rationale: this a typical characteristic of satellite, spacecraft and rocket stages. It should have been there even if we don't chose to create the Flight history section. Most articles I've written regarding satellites include data about the propellant type, propellant mass and propulsion section. But a lot of robotic spacecraft like Progress (spacecraft), ATV (spacecraft) or Dragon (spacecraft) really need that. — Baldusi (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I have seen many questions regarding its use. So I will try to explain it here. Then it will be reflected into the documentation. Let's take a some examples:

Soyuz-MS
propulsion=[[KTDU-80]]
propellant_type=[[Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine|UDMH]]/[[Dinitrogen tetroxide|N<sub>2</sub>O<sub>4</sub>]]
propellant_mass={{convert|892|kg|abbr=on}}

Dawn
propulsion=3 × [[NASA Solar Technology Application Readiness|NSTAR]
propellant_type=[[Xenon]]
propellant_mass={{convert|425|kg|abbr=on}}

SES-10
propulsion=[[Bipropellant rocket|bi-propellant propulsion]] [[Liquid Apogee Engine|LAE]] and 14 × S10-21 thrusters <br />[[Hall-effect thruster]]
propellant_type=[[Liquid Apogee Engine|LAE]] and thrusters: [[Monomethylhydrazine|MMH]]/[[Mixed oxides of nitrogen|MON]]<br />[[Hall-effect thruster]]:[[Xenon]]
propellant_mass= <!-- propellant mass unknown -->

These examples should make it clear the use of the fields. These are relatively common but generally is not completely disclosed. So it would most probably be used only when available. I believe it would complete the description of the spacecraft in hardware term, at least at the infobox level.– Baldusi (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Support: I am fine with this addition as long as the commented out description in the documentation is clear enough to prevent too much information being added--Cincotta1 (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Conditional support: I essentially agree with Cincotta. The best way to specify something like this is with the documentation comments. This would go in the Spacecraft properties section; I propose calling the fields:

|propellant = <!--propellant used in spacecraft, optional-->

|propmass = <!--propellant mass carried by spacecraft, use {{convert|PROPMASS|kg|lb}}, optional-->

Not sure what your "propulsion" field means, would that be for exotic non-rocket systems such as "ion propulsion"? Also, the documentation must make clear that this is intended only for self-propelled spacecraft, not separate upper stages such as would be used to put geosynchronous satellites in place, etc.

I still think this might be better met with an {{infobox spacecraft/propulsion}} which fits inside a modular {{infobox spacecraft begin}} which works similarly to the {{infobox aircraft begin}}. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Conditional Support: Essentially agree w/ others. My only fear is that the word propellant will be misused as it often is, especially without any clear guidelines. Should it be Oxidizer/Fuel? What about for monopropellants? I would prefer to replace the propellant field with three fields: oxidizers, fuels, and monopropellant. While I understand the monopropellant field isn't ideal, I think it might be the most clear. Do we need anything special for types of propulsion other than chemical?

Small sidenote, make sure the field works for both propellant and Propellant. There is an issue with converting one of the old infoboxes to the {{Infobox spaceflight}} infobox because one template has the first letter capitalized and the other does not. I have not had time to fix that yet (bonus points if someone else does it..). Kees08 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I was going to work on better documentation, with examples, like most complex infoboxes have. So I think I will start with the documentation first, and then add these fields. – Baldusi (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2: to add a Flight history section, for which I propose the following first implementation:

<!-- Flight History (optional) -->

Flight History

Type {{{history_type}}} <!-- Type of mission (Resupply, Recognaince, etc) or contract (CRS, ISS, Almaz, etc.) -->

Status {{{history_status}}} <!-- Active, Retired, Planned, etc., required -->

First mission {{{history_first}}} <!-- First mission if available (SpaceX CRS-1) and/or first launch date, optional -->

Last mission {{{history_last}}} <!-- Last active mission, optional -->

Only mission {{{history_only}}} <!-- If only performed a single mission, optional -->

Notable missions {{{history_notable}}} <!-- Notable missions or payloads, optional -->

Total missions {{{history_total}}} <!-- Total performed missions, optional -->

Successful {{{history_success}}} <!-- Total successfully performed mission, optional -->

Partial {{{history_partial}}} <!-- Total partially performed mission, optional -->

Failure {{{history_failure}}} <!-- Total mission failures, optional -->

Retirement {{history_retirement}} <!-- Retirement type like Lost at launch, Retired, Lost on re-entry, Mothballed, etc., optional -->

Satellites deployed {{history_deployed}} <!-- Total number of satellites deployed, optional-->

Time spent in space {{history_time}} <!-- Total time spent in space, optional-->

Rationale: To fit rocket stages, modules that flew many times in the Space Shuttle, reusable spacecraft like Dragon, etc, we need a history section regarding the missions performed. It would obviously hide if not applicable, so it wouldn't clutter too much, and it would allow us to use this template for a range of cases where we can't quite fit them now. — Baldusi (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: Proposal two I have mixed feeling about. While it would allow more articles to have an infobox, I am worried that allowing infobox spaceflight to be used for general reusable crafts will result in flight specific parameters (e.g. cosparIDs, orbital params, launch dates etc.) to be misused and lead to a glut of information that makes the infobox unwieldy. You can see how bad this can get, even if well organized, in Space Technology Research Vehicle where I consolidated 4 flights into single box.

I would prefer to see infobox spaceflight used only for specific missions and have a distint infobox for reusable craft. The infobox spacecraft might be versatile enough to be used in cases like Rafaelo and dragon. Trying to make a more general version of infobox Space Shuttle would also fill the niche discussed. Overall I think there are better solutions--Cincotta1 (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No opinion, I do not really work with these much. Kees08 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Analogy to aircraft infoboxes?

As reusable spacecraft technology progresses, they will become more analogous to aircraft, which is "mature". What would you think of converting the spacecraft templates to modular versions which nest together, like the aircraft infoboxes nest inside Infobox spacecraft begin?

• Template:Infobox spacecraft begin like Template:Infobox aircraft begin
• Template:Infobox spacecraft class like Template:Infobox aircraft type
• Template:Infobox space program like Template:Infobox aircraft program
• Template:Infobox rocket engine like Template:Infobox aircraft engine (Or: maybe new infobox spacecraft propulsion?
• Template:Infobox spacecraft career like Template:Infobox aircraft career This might fit your proposal 2???

Current Infobox spaceflight is intended for unique missions only, and thus shouldn't be expanded for proposal 2. It has no analog for aircraft, since obviously we don't write articles for individual aircraft flights (except of course for the notable ones, usually because they end in disaster).

(BTW: Please stop using the words "crafts" and "spacecrafts". There is no such word in the English language. The word craft (meaning a vehicle) and its derivatives, used in this sense, is its own plural. Crafts refers to something else entirely.) JustinTime55 (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

English is not my mother tongue and I'm bound to make mistakes on the irregularities of a language that even lacks a centralized language definition. — Baldusi (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

On a different note, I don't think that aircraft are the right concept. Here we can have rocket stages, capsules, shuttles, which are all quite dissimilar, but we can also have space station modules, like the MPLM, propellant depots, or even instruments. It should be able to be used for the Space Shuttle airlock (which was actually an add on), telescopes added to the Shuttle, and more.

I've been thinking of {{tl:Infobox spaceflight vehicle}}. It is customary to have what's called a flight model, and each hull is usually referred as vehicle. Within that framework I could make a proposal. But I don't know if this is the exact place to discuss it. I would hope to receive more input on the subject before going forward. If you could give me your opinion on the Proposal 1, I would really appreciate it. Propellant and propulsion are the two data that I have on most satellites and that I can't reflect on the Infobox. — Baldusi (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Baldusi and JustinTime55: I would opine that spacecraft information can't be modeled after aircraft and I support adding propulsion and propellant fields here. If we want to build a modular spacecraft template, we should first agree on broad spacecraft categories such as launch vehicles, satellites, probes, telescopes, supply ships, etc. Divide and conquer ftw! — JFG ^talk 08:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Where are we at with this? Kees08 (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I didn't liked it at first. But it is kind of growing up on me. Since feedback on the very simple three additional fields has been very slow coming, I will first work on documentation and examples of what we have, then on adding those three fields, and after that I would guess we will have processed this a bit more. What I need to understand is if this is the right place to discuss a template that, potentially, can replace {{tl:Infobox spaceflight}}, which was a huge effort itself to amalgamate quite a fie other templates. – Baldusi (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Social media links?

Many missions these days have Facebook and/or Twitter accounts. Should we add one or more fields to the infobox to accommodate that? Right under "website" perhaps? I'd recommend adding Facebook and Twitter fields, but we could just add a generic "social media" field and allow it to be populated with multiple URLs... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cepheid666 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are mixing {{Infobox company}} with {{Infobox spaceflight}}. What you are proposing is better put either in a External Links, or on the company infobox. – Baldusi (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Baldusi, there's no need for social media links in the infobox. It is long enough already, and such links can be put into the External links section, or preferably, folks can find them at the official mission website, and leave them out of the article altogether. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Baldusi, I'm referring primarily to scientific missions, so there is no "company." Things like Rosetta, New Horizons, etc. that have mission-related FB/Twitter pages, not specific to a corporate or government entity. For such missions, what would you recommend would be the best way to include such links? Still in external links? Unfortunately there is no Infobox specifically for social media, but that could be an option, if it's possible to include two infoboxes on a single page. (I don't know if it is -- I'm not a Wiki-expert...) – Cepheid666 (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my statement after reading through things again. Check out WP:ELNO, where it states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5] one should generally avoid providing external links to:" ... "Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." So, I'd suggest pointing your energies elsewhere. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Huntster: Well, the twitter feeds of Rosetta, Curiosity and al are official, and quite often the primary news channels for long-duration space exploration missions. I agree with Cepheid666 that adding such would be informative to our readers. I also agree we must avoid frivolous multiple links, which is what the guideline against external links addresses. — JFG ^talk 08:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Those can go in external links if they are considered absolutely critical, which I would still argue that they are not. Almost all important news items can be found on official websites, and their social media links can almost always be found there as well. There is absolutely no reason to throw in social media links in the infobox. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that "there is absolutely no reason." Social media is one of the main ways that information reaches the public these days. The websites of these missions are often not updated quickly and/or do not reflect current news (press releases, etc.). The social media links do. We cannot ignore that social media is one of the main communications methods these days. Given that, I think there should be the option to include social media links in the infobox, as it could be (and often is) one of the primary methods of official communication. Cepheid666 (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand how you feel. I again refer you to WP:ELNO, which says this is specifically something not to be done. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Cepheid, please review WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This supports Huntster's point, with which I agree, that infoboxes should not be overloaded with information, even if considered "critical". The upshot is, the infobox is supposed to summarize, not supplant, key information; beyond a certain point, "less is more". JustinTime55 (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)