Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manned Orbiting Laboratory/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2020 [1].
Manned Orbiting Laboratory edit
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC) and Hog Farm (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is about the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, a US military space program of the 1960s. Much of it was shrouded in secrecy until 2015, when the National Reconnaissance Office began declassifying documents about it. This has enabled a comprehensive article to be written. In many ways, the MOL was harbinger of things to come, insofar as they spent a billion bucks with little to show for it. However, the article delivers a good deal to the reader. It contains a comprehensive account of the way that "black" projects were funded. There is also a food for thought about the relative roles of humans and automated systems. And about the US military space program, which was eclipsed by its NASA counterpart, but was, and remains, important. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Image review—pass edit
Per ACR (t · c) buidhe 11:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt edit
- "single-use laboratory" Does this mean only used once or used only for.a single purpose?
- "at The Pentagon" I would lower case the The.
- MOS:THECAPS is unclear on this point, but lower cased following the styling used in the Pentagon article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- "The laboratory module was 19 feet (5.8 m) high and 10.0 feet (3.05 m) in diameter." is "long" a better word than "high"?
- "The laboratory module was divided into two sections, but there was no division between the two, and the crew could move freely between them.[48]" maybe "partition" for "division"?
- 'Bays 1 and 8 contained storage compartments; ..." Is this description of the whole module or the "upper" part? Because you then go on to describe the "lower" part.
- "Congressman George P. Miller from California, convened a special session on the MOL Program on 7 February 1966." I might say "hearing" not session.
- "The government then went ahead and condemned the land under eminent domain, compulsorily acquiring 14,404.7 acres (5,829.4 ha) from the Sudden Ranch and 499.1 acres (202.0 ha) from the Scolari Ranch for $9,002,500 (equivalent to $55.3 million in 2019)." I might scrap the word "compulsorily" as implied (and I'm not sure it's commonly used in AmEng in that context, at least, I've not seen it so)
- "After the Gemini B eparated an for a sub-orbital reentry, the MOL mockup continued into orbit and released three satellites. was released onto a suborbital trajectory during launch." I've been correcting typos as I come to them but I'm not 100 percent certain how this should read, so I'll leave it for you.
- Don't know what happened here. I have rewritten this bit: The adaptor connecting the Gemini spacecraft to OPS 0855 contained three additional spacecraft, two OV4-1 satellites, and an OV1-6 satellite. The Gemini B spacecraft separated for a sub-orbital reentry, while the MOL mockup continued into low Earth orbit, where it released the three satellites. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- "equivalent to $54 thousand in 2019" probably better stated as $54,000.
SG edit
Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
- Pls tell me about Mark Wade and reliability of http://www.astronautix.com/index.html ... I see no About information and it feels like a hobby site.
- He's an astronautical engineer who works at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. The Encyclopedia Astronautica is listed as a RS on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190#Johnston's Archive - self published site. Used on 12,000 articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I read that discussion; it's not as clear as you say, and has one respondent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well that puts it ahead of the MOS. WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. That seems to be satisfied here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- That discussion has one editor mentioning in passing that it meets RS as an SPS, but not offering any evidence to back that claim. What are the reliable, independent publications that have used Mark Wade? Also, that it is used in 12,000 articles has no bearing on its reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- The fact that it is widely used indicates that many editors agree with the assessment of the RSN. I ran a search for publications that use it, and found a large number [2]. I also ran a search on Google Scholar and found it cited by many academic papers. [3] It is also cited on NASA's site. [4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- The 12,000 articles are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the NASA links and other mentions are relevant to policy. I will leave this outside of the "resolved" collapse for others to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- This passes WP:SPS. It is a reliable expert self-published source that is cited in many other reliable secondary sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The 12,000 articles are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the NASA links and other mentions are relevant to policy. I will leave this outside of the "resolved" collapse for others to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- The fact that it is widely used indicates that many editors agree with the assessment of the RSN. I ran a search for publications that use it, and found a large number [2]. I also ran a search on Google Scholar and found it cited by many academic papers. [3] It is also cited on NASA's site. [4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- That discussion has one editor mentioning in passing that it meets RS as an SPS, but not offering any evidence to back that claim. What are the reliable, independent publications that have used Mark Wade? Also, that it is used in 12,000 articles has no bearing on its reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well that puts it ahead of the MOS. WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. That seems to be satisfied here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I read that discussion; it's not as clear as you say, and has one respondent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- He's an astronautical engineer who works at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. The Encyclopedia Astronautica is listed as a RS on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190#Johnston's Archive - self published site. Used on 12,000 articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NBSP, unless it’s at the beginning of a sentence or in a table, deal with spacecraft names like Gemini B, SLC 6, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Sometimes desirable" is interpreted to mean "almost never". Inserting nbsps means that the editor and browser searches no longer function, making the article much harder to edit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you're worried about searches, you can use Template:Nowrap instead of nbsp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Sometimes desirable" is interpreted to mean "almost never". Inserting nbsps means that the editor and browser searches no longer function, making the article much harder to edit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
That’s all for now; I will read after I am assured on sourcing. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Two remaining questions above (Mark Wade, and toilet image caption), SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- In addition to the query about Mark Wade’s website, what makes this source reliable? http://www.russianspaceweb.com/site_info.html There is a sentence cited only to this source, and a page that Mark Wade has taken down. Why would he have taken down the Almaz page on a still-active site? Also, fn 103 uses Wade’s name as author, while the others do not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't assume that. The Almaz ref was an old part of the article that I cut back drastically. When it moved, a bot automatically added the archive link. If you check the site, you'll see that it has been greatly expanded. Replaced references with ones to ESA and NASA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- In addition to the query about Mark Wade’s website, what makes this source reliable? http://www.russianspaceweb.com/site_info.html There is a sentence cited only to this source, and a page that Mark Wade has taken down. Why would he have taken down the Almaz page on a still-active site? Also, fn 103 uses Wade’s name as author, while the others do not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Source review – Pass edit
- I have started a source review. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi C&C, any progress on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot. I will get this done today. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Spot checks
- "on 21 January 1963" should be changed to "by 21 January 1963" or just "in January 1963" – source says the agreement was reached "in a series of meetings ... over the weekend of 19–20 January"
- Notes
- References
- Corcoran, William J.; Morefield, George S. – I think the publication date of March 1972 is better for referencing
- Day, Dwayne (1998) – The 1999 edition has a 13 digit ISBN and is available for preview on GBooks
- Ref #9 – change page number to 48, or change to p. 48–49
- "SP-4221" – Add "NASA"
- Heppenheimer, T. A. (2002) – remove "SP-4221"
- This book is the Volume 2 of a series called History of the Space Shuttle. You could add something like
|series=''History of the Space Shuttle'' |volume=Volume 2 - The ISBN may be wrong. I think it should be "978-1-588-34009-2"
- This book is the Volume 2 of a series called History of the Space Shuttle. You could add something like
- "SP-4201" – Add "NASA"
I will add more in the next few hours. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- That is it for me. I made a bunch of changes without asking. Feel free to undo. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Candc, are you happy with the source review and spot checks? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: perfectly satisfied. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Copy review: Support as of 11-27-20 edit
Copy review by Neopeius
|
|---|
|
Since source is being done and my skill lies in editing, I am reading through for errors and inconsistencies. There aren't many so far (as expected of an A/GA!) Here's what I have thus far. I will continue until I am done. Background:
1st paragraph
5th paragraph
7th paragraph
Planning
3rd paragraph
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 4
Anyway, this section (recommended to be two sections) needs a bit of work and expansion before I'd sign it off as FA. It's really the heart of the article since it describes exactly what MOL would have been had it come to fruition. Sorry to be so exacting! ^^;; @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Astronauts Selection
When it came to selecting astronauts for MOL
For the first three NASA astronaut groups in 1959, 1962 and 1963, the USAF established
a selection board to review candidates
before forwarding their names to NASA. The Chief of Staff of the USAF, General John P. McConnell, told Schriever he expected the selection of MOL astronauts to follow the same procedure.
A selection board was convened in September 1965, chaired by Major General Jerry D. Page. On 15 September, the selection criteria for MOL was announced.[52] Candidates had to be: Qualified military pilots; Graduates of the ARPS; Serving officers, recommended by their commanding officers; and Holding US citizenship from birth.[52]
In October 1965, the MOL Policy Committee decided that MOL crew members would be designated as "MOL Aerospace Research Pilots" rather than astronauts.[53]
The names of the first group of eight MOL pilots were announced on 12 November 1965 as
a Friday night news dump to avoid press attention. To prevent their return to the Navy, as would normally have occurred on their graduation from ARPS, Finley and Truly stayed at ARPS as instructors until the announcement:
Major Michael J. Adams, USAF Major Albert H. Crews Jr., USAF Lieutenant John L. Finley, USN Captain Richard E. Lawyer, USAF Captain Lachlan Macleay, USAF Captain Francis G. Neubeck, USAF Major James M. Taylor, USAF Lieutenant Richard H. Truly, USN.[52] Around this time, the USAF began selecting a second group of MOL pilots.
This time applications were accepted. Selection occurred at the same time as for NASA Astronaut Group 5, with many applying to both programs.
Successful candidates were told that NASA or MOL chose them, with no explanation.
Over 500 applications were received, from which the names of 100 candidates were forwarded to USAF headquarters. The MOL Program Office selected 25, who were sent to Brooks Air Force Base for physical evaluation in January and February 1966. Five were selected. The names of the second group of MOL pilots were publicly announced on 17 June 1966: Captain Karol J. Bobko, USAF Lieutenant Robert L. Crippen, USN Captain C. Gordon Fullerton, USAF Captain Henry W. Hartsfield, USAF Captain Robert F. Overmyer, USMC.[50][56] Bobko became the first graduate of the United States Air Force Academy to be selected as an astronaut.[57]
Eight other finalists had not yet completed ARPS. One was already attending; the other seven were sent to Edwards Air Force Base to join Class 66-B. They would be considered for the next MOL astronaut intake.
The MOL Astronaut Selection Board met again on 11 May 1967, and recommended that four of the eight be appointed. The MOL Program Office announced names of those selected for the third group of MOL astronauts on 30 June 1967: Major James A. Abrahamson, USAF Lieutenant Colonel Robert T. Herres, USAF Major Robert H. Lawrence Jr., USAF Major Donald H. Peterson, USAF.[50][58
Training
They received security clearances, and were introduced
to Sensitive Compartmented Information such as Dorian, Gambit, Talent (material obtained from US manned overflights) and Keyhole (intelligence obtained from satellites)—what Truly described as "two space programs: the public, what the public knew and astronauts and all that jazz, and then this other world of capability that didn’t exist".[59][60] He later recalled that "When I was introduced to the program, it was stunning. It was almost magic ... I marveled that the government could pull off what was right before my very eyes."[59]
Simulators were developed for each of the different MOL systems. There was a Laboratory Module Simulator, Mission Payload Simulator, and Gemini B Procedures Simulator.
Training was conducted in a zero-G environment on a Boeing C-135 Stratolifter reduced-gravity aircraft.
A Flotation-Egress trainer allowed the astronauts to prepare for a splashdown and the possibility of the spacecraft sinking.[61] NASA had pioneered neutral buoyancy simulation as a training aid to simulate the space environment. The pilots were given scuba diving training at the U.S. Navy Underwater Swimmers School in Key West, Florida. Training was then conducted on a General Electric simulator on Buck Island, near St. Thomas in the US Virgin Islands. Water survival training was conducted at the USAF Sea Survival School at Homestead Air Force Base in Florida, and jungle survival training at the Tropical Survival School at Howard Air Force Base in the Panama Canal Zone. In July 1967, the pilots underwent training at the National Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington, DC.[62]
@Hawkeye7:, would you mind pinging me when you've implemented changes? It will keep me on track. Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The names of the first group of eight MOL pilots were announced on 12 November 1965 Major Michael J. Adams, USAF Major Albert H. Crews Jr., USAF Lieutenant John L. Finley, USN Captain Richard E. Lawyer, USAF Captain Lachlan Macleay, USAF Captain Francis G. Neubeck, USAF Major James M. Taylor, USAF Lieutenant Richard H. Truly, USN.[52]
--
"to Sensitive Compartmented Information such as Dorian, Gambit, Talent (material obtained from US manned overflights) and Keyhole (intelligence obtained from satellites)—what Truly described as "two space programs: the public, what the public knew and astronauts and all that jazz, and then this other world of capability that didn’t exist".[59][60]" Since the casual reader may not remember that Truly was one of the astronaut candidates from up above (and in a different subsection), how about "1st group astronaut candidate Richard Truly described as..." @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Planned operations Reconnaissance From the MOL's regular 150-kilometre (80 nmi) orbit, the main camera
had a circular field of view 2,700 meters (9,000 ft) across. At top magnification it was more like 4,200 feet (1,300 m).
This was much smaller than many of the targets that the NRO was interested in, such as air bases, shipyards and missile ranges, so the astronauts would have limited time to respond as the MOL passed over them.
The astronauts would search for targets using the tracking and acquisition telescopes, which had a circular view of the landscape about 12.0 km (6.5 nmi) across, with a resolution of about 9.1 meters (30 ft). The main camera would focus on the most important targets, providing a very high resolution image. The aim was to have the most interesting part of the target in the center of the image; due to the optics used, the image was not as sharp around the edges of the frame.[64] While surveillance targets were pre-programmed and the camera could operate automatically, astronauts could decide target priority for filming. By avoiding cloudy areas and identifying more interesting subjects (an open missile silo instead of a closed one, for example), they would save film,[65] the major limitation, since it had to be returned in the small Gemini B spacecraft. In cloudy areas like Moscow, it was estimated that the MOL would be 45 percent more efficient in its use of film than an automated satellite system through the ability to react to cloud cover, but for sunnier areas like around the Tyuratam missile complex
, this might be no more than 15 percent. Nonetheless, Tyuratam was the sort of target that MOL was intended for. Of 159 KH-7 Gambit photographs of the area, only 9 percent showed missiles on the launch pads, and of 77 photographs of missile silos, only 21 percent were with the doors open.
The analysts identified 60 MOL targets in the complex. Only two or three could be photographed on each pass, but the astronauts could select the most interesting ones on the spur of the moment, and photograph them with greater resolution than Gambit. It was hoped that valuable technical information would thereby be obtained.[64] The Air Force expected that Block II of the space station, expected to be available in July 1974, would add image transmission and geodetic system targeting. Astronauts would perform infared, multispectral, and ultraviolet astronomy when they had time during an extended mission duration on twice-annual flights.[66] After Block II, the program hoped to use MOL to build larger, permanent facilities.
A planning document depicted 12-man and 40-man stations, both with self-defense capability. It described the 40-man, Y-shaped station as a "spaceborne command post" in synchronous orbit. With the "key requirement – post attack survivability", the station would be capable of "Strategic/tactical decision making" during a general war.[67][66]
@Hawkeye7:, Tag! --Neopeius (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC) @Neopeius: Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Spacecraft A couple of general notes on the spacecraft section, which is largely fine in so far as it goes:
@Hawkeye7:, Tag! --Neopeius (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Spacecraft The Gemini spacecraft originated at NASA as a development of the Mercury spacecraft, and was originally called Mercury Mark II. The name "Gemini" was chosen in recognition of its two man crew.[73] The NASA Gemini spacecraft was redesigned for the MOL and named Gemini B, although the NASA Gemini spacecraft was never referred to as Gemini A.[74] The astronauts would fly into space in the Gemini B capsule, which would be launched together with the MOL modules.
splash down in the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans and be recovered by the same Department of Defense spacecraft recovery forces used by NASA's Project Gemini and Project Apollo.[77] NASA had a paraglider under development to enable a Gemini spacecraft to land on land, but was unable to get it working in time for Project Gemini missions. In March 1964, NASA attempted to get the USAF interested in using the paraglider with Gemini B, but after reviewing the troubled paraglider program, the Air Force concluded that it still had too many problems to overcome, and turned down the offer.[78]
The MOL laboratory module was intended to be used for a single mission only, with no provision for a later mission to dock and reuse it. Instead, its orbit would decay and it would be dumped in the ocean after 30 days.[77]
Externally Gemini B was quite similar to its NASA twin, but there were many differences. The most noticeable was that it featured
a rear hatch for the crew to enter the MOL space station. Notches were cut into the ejection seat headrests to allow access to the hatch. The seats were therefore a mirror image of each other instead of being the same. Gemini B also had a larger diameter heat shield to handle higher energy reentry from a polar orbit. The number of reentry control system thrusters was increased from four to six. There was no orbit attitude and maneuvering system (OAMS), because capsule orientation for reentry was handled by the forward reentry control system thrusters, and the laboratory module had its own reaction control system for orientation.[75][76] The Gemini B systems were designed for long-term orbital storage (40 days) but equipment for long duration flights was removed since the Gemini B capsule itself was only intended to be used for launch and reentry. It had a different cockpit layout and instruments. As a result of the Apollo 1 fire,
the MOL was switched to use a helium-oxygen atmosphere instead of a pure oxygen one. At takeoff, the astronauts would breathe pure oxygen in their spacesuits while the cabin was pressurized with helium. It would then be brought up to a helium-oxygen mix.[75][76] This was an option that had been provided for in the original design.[79] Four Gemini B spacecraft were ordered from McDonnell, along with a boilerplate aerodynamically similar test article, at a cost of $168.2 million (equivalent to $1004 million in 2019).[80] In addition, in November 1965, NASA agreed to hand over Gemini spacecraft No. 2 and Static Test Article No. 4 to the MOL program.[81] Gemini B specifications Crew: 2 Maximum duration: 40 days Length: 3.35 m (11.0 ft) Diameter: 2.32 m (7 ft 7 in) Cabin volume: 2.55 m3 (90 cu ft) Gross mass: 1,983 kg (4,372 lb) RCS thrusters: 16 by 98 newtons (3.6 lbf × 22.0 lbf) RCS impulse: 283 seconds (2.78 km/s) Electric system: 4 kilowatt-hours (14 MJ) Battery: 180 A·h (648,000 C) Reference:[75] Gemini B layout
Space station
Spacesuits The MOL program's requirements for a spacesuit were a product of the spacecraft design. The Gemini B capsule had little room inside, and the MOL astronauts gained access to the laboratory through a hatch in the heat shield. This required a more flexible suit than those of NASA astronauts. The NASA astronauts had custom-made sets of flight, training and backup suits, but for the MOL the intention was that spacesuits would be provided in standard sizes with adjustable elements. The USAF sounded out the David Clark Company, International Latex Corporation, B. F. Goodrich and Hamilton Standard in 1964.
That's my only comment for this section. Moving on. --Neopeius (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Facilities Launch complex The military director of the NRO, Brigadier General John L. Martin Jr. suggested Easter Island In the event of an abort, the Gemini B spacecraft could have come down in the eastern Pacific Ocean. To prepare for this contingency,
That's it for this section. --Neopeius (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Test flight An MOL test flight was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex 40 on 3 November 1966 at 13:50:42 UTC, on a Titan IIIC, vehicle C-9.[98] The flight consisted of an MOL mockup built from a Titan II propellant tank, and Gemini spacecraft No. 2, which had been refurbished as a prototype Gemini B spacecraft.[83] This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice, albeit without a crew.[99] The adapter connecting the Gemini spacecraft to the laboratory mockup contained three additional spacecraft: two OV4-1 satellites, and an OV1-6 satellite. There was only one issue with this section -- I did add a link to the second Gemini capsule since it has its own article. This is going faster than I'd thought. --Neopeius (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Public Response Delays and cost increases Within weeks of the Johnson's announcement of the MOL program, Since this was now unlikely, McNamara saw no reason to continue with the original budget. Brown examined the schedules, and
the date of the first qualification flight was pushed back still further, to December 1970, with the first crewed mission in August 1971.[110][111] Contracts were signed in May 1967. Cancellation A few months after MOL development began, the program also began developing an automated MOL that replaced the crew compartment with film reentry vehicles. In February 1966, Schriever commissioned a report examining humans' usefulness on the station. The report, which was submitted on 25 May, concluded that they would be useful in several ways, but implied that the program would always need to justify the cost and difficulty of the MOL versus a robotic version. Although it did not fly until July 1966, the authors were aware of the capabilities of the KH-8 Gambit 3.
It could not achieve the same resolution as the Dorian camera on MOL,[115] and the automation necessitated a longer development time and added weight.[116] The Dorian camera had a resolution of 33 to 38 centimeters (13 to 15 in), could remain in orbit longer, and carry more film than earlier spy satellites.[117] As automated technology improved,
On 7 June 1969, Stewart ordered Bleymaier to cease all work on Gemini B, the Titan IIIM and the MOL spacesuit, and to cancel or curtail all other contracts. The official announcement that the MOL was Legacy MOL might have been the world's first space station.[67]
Al Crews believed that automated systems were probably superior, and said that when he saw high-resolution photographs from Gambit 3 he knew that MOL would be canceled.[115][118] "Looking back now", he said in 2014, "it's obvious that our country had decided to put everything into the civilian part of the space program".[119] Some believed that MOL should have launched astronauts before the optics were ready.[130][131] Abrahamson later agreed that his and other MOL astronauts' advice to fly the first mission fully operational was a mistake. He learned while serving as Deputy Administrator of NASA in the early 1980s that launching anything, even "an empty can", made cancellation of a project less likely.[67][110]
Following the decision to cancel MOL, a committee was formed to handle the disposal of its property,
Work on Space Launch Complex 6 was 92 percent complete. The spacecraft used in the only flight of the MOL program
In July 2015, the NRO declassified over 800 files and photos related to the MOL program.[160] It produced
@Hawkeye7: I see only the five following issues outstanding, which I'm reiterating here because they'll get lost in all the strikethrough (I will know for next time to quote only the essential text): Background 7th paragraph
Selection
How about "When MOL astronaut selection began"--Neopeius (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Planned operations Reconnaissance From the MOL's regular 150-kilometre (80 nmi) orbit, the main camera
had a circular field of view 2,700 meters (9,000 ft) across. At top magnification it was more like 4,200 feet (1,300 m).
Space station
Delays and cost increases Since this was now unlikely, McNamara saw no reason to continue with the original budget. Brown examined the schedules, and
|
Coordinator comment edit
This has been open five weeks and has only attracted one support. The nominators may wish to contact those who have so far and/or see if they can engage further reviewers. Ping me if you think that it would be useful for me to add it to Urgents. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging A-class reviewers: @Cplakidas, Ykraps, JennyOz, Hog Farm, and Mztourist: I'm sure any comments would be welcome here! (t · c) buidhe 22:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Support Comments from Ykraps
edit
I have no knowledge of the subject so apologies in advance for any stupid questions.
Lead
Although it is clear by the second paragraph, I would perhaps mention when this was, sooner? The Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) was part of the United States Air Force (USAF) human spaceflight program during the 1960s (for example).
"The MOL program was announced to the public on 10 December 1963 as an inhabited platform to prove the utility of putting people in space for military missions..." - I read this as if its military purpose was openly admitted. Is that correct?- President Johnson said:
So there was an admission that it had a military purpose, but not what the specific purpose was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)This program will bring us new knowledge about what man is able to do in space. It will enable us to relate that ability to the defense of America. It will develop technology and equipment which will help advance marred and unmanned space flights. And it will make it possible to perform their new and rewarding experiments with tlat technology and equipment.
- President Johnson said:
I have an inkling that this is one of those stupid question but what is satellite reconnaissance? Is it the use of a satellite to reconnoitre or is it reconnoitring other satellites? If it's the former, I would be inclined to say, its use as a reconnaissance satellite.
- :)
"...all of whom eventually flew in space on Space Shuttle". - Can we say when? ...between x date and y date or during the 80s and 90s, for example.
Not knowing much about the subject, I find myself clicking on links just to find out when things occurred. Is it possible to add some sort of time frame throughout the last paragraph, or will this make it too messy?
Background
"Starting in 1956, the United States had conducted...." - This doesn't sound grammatically correct to me (although it might be). Since 1956 the United States had conducted or Starting in 1956 the United States began conducting... perhaps?
"On 18 August 1958, Eisenhower decided to give responsibility..." - Was this the date he came to the decision and he didn't actually give responsibility until a later date or did he transfer responsibility on that date? If the latter, I would be inclined to just say, "On 18 August 1958, Eisenhower gave responsibility..."
"...but no funding was forthcoming..." - Do we know why?
"...with resupply arriving every 120 days". - What is being resupplied? Crew members?
"No administration official could even admit they existed ..." - Could or would?
Down to Initiation.--Ykraps (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Initiation
".....asked the NRO Program A Director (responsible for the Air Force aspects of NRO activities)" - I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be better to flip this, "...asked the NRO Director responsible for the Air Force aspects of NRO activities (Program A)".
Presumably then MOL is pronounced Em Oh El? I had been treating it like an acronym so an Mol didn't sound right.
"In the wake of the President's announcement... ...at the Los Angeles Air Force Station in El Segundo, California", is some sentence. Consider splitting up. Perhaps start a new sentence after Program 632A.
(equivalent to $|103 million in 2019) - Is that line meant to be there?
Astronauts
Should dates not be M/D/Y format?- Per MOS:STRONGNAT, military articles use military date format. (This is also the preferred format for spaceflight articles.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Spacecraft
"...the Air Force concluded that it still had too many problems still to overcome" - Lose the second occurrence of 'still'.
Gemini B specifications
Shouldn’t the dimensions have US units first?
Space station
"The 2.7-foot (0.81 m)" – Isn’t a sentence. Is this something left behind after a copyedit?
"...below that a secondary food console". Should there be a comma after that?
Spacesuits
"...a full prototype with cover garments was delivered in March 1969". The cover garments were never completed. – If they were never completed, how were they delivered in March 1969?
Down to Facilities.--Ykraps (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Facilities
"The loss of a MOL..." - Per previous comment, this should be an MOL.
Rochester
"....of test chambers, built at a cost of $32,500,000" - No 2019 equivalent cost?
Test flight
"The flight consisted of a MOL..." - A or an but consistency is needed.
"This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice,..." - So this was the second time?- Yes, this was the second time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- It may be me but I'm struggling to understand what this means. Are we saying that previously a different spacecraft intended for humans, flew in space once and then MOL came along and flew in space twice? Also, if 3 November 1966 was its second flight, when was its first? Sorry if I'm being a bit dense.--Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- The article says: The flight consisted of an MOL mockup built from a Titan II propellant tank, and the refurbished capsule from the Gemini 2 mission as a prototype Gemini B spacecraft. This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice, albeit without a crew.
- The spacecraft (Gemini spacecraft No. 2) was the one used by the Gemini 2 mission. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- The article says: The flight consisted of an MOL mockup built from a Titan II propellant tank, and the refurbished capsule from the Gemini 2 mission as a prototype Gemini B spacecraft. This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice, albeit without a crew.
- It may be me but I'm struggling to understand what this means. Are we saying that previously a different spacecraft intended for humans, flew in space once and then MOL came along and flew in space twice? Also, if 3 November 1966 was its second flight, when was its first? Sorry if I'm being a bit dense.--Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, this was the second time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Down to Public response.--Ykraps (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Down to Legacy. Hope to finish off tomorrow.--Ykraps (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Legacy
"MOL might have been the world's first space station" - This sentence is very short and isolated, and I'm not sure it's at all remarkable. Is there an interesting reason or is it simply that it never went into space?"...remained open in June 1973" - Do you mean until June 1973 or do you mean they were still open in June 1973 and may or may not have remained open after? If the latter, I would be inclined to say, were still open in June 1973.
Might be worth adding a link to Franchise tax.
What are acceptance demonstration tests?
"No Space Shuttle was ever launched into a polar orbit". - If none ever flew from SLC 6, doesn't it go without saying that none ever went into polar orbit? Or is this sentence not relating to SLC 6?- No it doesn't go without saying. As mentioned earlier in the article, it is possible to launch from Cape Canaveral and fly a dog leg over the Atlantic. But this would dramatically reduce the payload. After the Challenger disaster, the USAF switched to using Titan IV. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
In the test flight section, refurbished capsule and Gemini spacecraft are duplicate links. In the Legacy section, low earth orbit is a duplicate link. If you don't have the tool, get it. It's really useful for long articles.
I think that about wraps it up for me.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie edit
I'll copyedit as I read; please revert anything you disagree with.
The first couple of paragraphs of the "Background" section aren't quite in chronological order; any reason not to move the Wright Air Development Center paper down below WS-117L and the U-2 flights?You mention Corona in the first paragraph, then say "Discoverer (also known as Corona)" a couple of paragraphs later. If Discoverer is the main name by which we're going to refer to it I'd make this "Discoverer (then known as Corona)" on first mention, or "also known" on first mention if the two names are really interchangeable.Dyna-Soar would be launched into orbit by a Titan III booster.
Suggest rephrasing to make it clear this is about the plan, not about what would actually happen -- perhaps "Under the revised plan, Dyna-Soar would be launched into orbit by a Titan III booster." Though do we really need to know what kind of rockets never got used for a different project? It might be OK to cut both mentions of the Titan boosters from this paragraph.- Changed to "was to be"; the reason for this comes later, when it is revealed that MOL would use Titan III. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Reworded slightly because of the parallelism with the start of that paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Changed to "was to be"; the reason for this comes later, when it is revealed that MOL would use Titan III. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
an agreement on cooperation on Project Gemini
: I'm not sure what "Project Gemini" refers to here. Is this just the Blue Gemini project name? Or does it refer to Blue Gemini's incorporation into a larger overall Gemini project?- Linked. Expanded this a bit. Project Gemini refers to NASA's project. In this article is always prefixed with "NASA" to make this clear. The idea was not to incorporate Blue Gemini into NASA Gemini but the reverse: McNamara sought to take over NASA Gemini. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, clearer. Tweaked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Linked. Expanded this a bit. Project Gemini refers to NASA's project. In this article is always prefixed with "NASA" to make this clear. The idea was not to incorporate Blue Gemini into NASA Gemini but the reverse: McNamara sought to take over NASA Gemini. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
MOL therefore became a semi-secret project, with a public face but a covert reconnaissance mission, similar to that of the Discoverer/Corona spy satellite program.
If I understand the sequence of events correctly, this might be better as "MOL was therefore a semi-secret project..." since security would have been tightened before the very first press release on 10 December 1963.Can we get a date for the Soviet decision to develop Almaz?
More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not something I'd oppose over, but the constant parenthetical inflation-adjusted amounts are distracting. This sort of thing is very helpful for a handful of numbers in an article, but I count 58 instances of "equivalent to $". What would you say to a sidebar, probably a table -- or perhaps even some inline text with an associated table -- that gives the inflation-adjusted equivalents of $1M, $10M, $100M, and $1B, so the reader can refer to it when curious without having the flow interrupted? As I say, I know this is unorthodox so I'm not going to withhold support, but this is an awful lot of parenthetical interjections.
It was decided to complete the construction and tests, but not install AGE
: as far as I can see you only use this abbreviation twice, once a long way further up the article. I had to go hunting for it. I'd suggest just making it "aerospace ground equipment" in both cases.
Support. As usual, a detailed, well-written, and fascinating article. A couple more minor points above that don't impact my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Support Comments from JennyOz
edit
Hi Hawkeye, very minor comments on such a comprehensive article...
- it made it much harder for the Soviets to object to one - object to any / another nation's / one from any other country?
- On 15 August, General Electric, Lockheed Aircraft, Martin, McDonnell Aircraft, and General Dynamics were awarded $574,999 (equivalent to $3.84 million in 2019) for a study of the MTSS - each awarded or jointly awarded?
- In a 22 February memorandum - needs year
- communications, and radar. - Oxford comma intentional?
- In the wake of the President's announcement - p (or Johnson's)?
- The President had announced - as above
- Captain Henry W. Hartsfield, USAF - should he have Jr. (per Crews)?
- was more like 4,200 feet (1,300 m). - flip to metric first?
- decide target priority for filming - filming sounds like video but they only taking stills? photographing?
- The Air Force expected that Block II - nothing mentioned as Block I?
- I haven't seen any references to Block I in the document dump. Obviously the first version, and the project plan talks about a block change in 1970. Several documents on proposals for Block II. All the details on the camera are still heavily redacted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Astronauts would perform infared - typo infrared
- during a general war.[67][66] - ref order
- Flight schedule table last item - add mission
- Flight schedule table ref col [71][68][69][72] - ref order
- rear hatch for the crew to enter MOL - the MOL
- were designed for long term orbital storage - hyphen long-term
- caption: Mockup of the MOL laboratory module interior and transfer tuinnel - typo tunnel
- The Gemini capsule had little room inside - add B?
- MOL Program x2 - p
- estimated to be $31 million (equivalent to 190 million in 2019) - missing $ sign
- another $79 million (equivalent to $485008197 million in 2019) - tweak
- caption: MOL test launch OPS 0855, 3 November 1966, Cape Canaveral, FL - Florida
- Chelomey on 12 Ocrtober 1964 - typo
- Almaz program was cancelled in 1978. - canceled
- MOL Program x4 - p
- Within weeks of the President's announcement - p (or Johnson)?
- requested in the President's budget - p?
- Congress appropriated $515 million for fiscal year 1969 - inflate?
- However, on 7 January, the Office of the Secretary - add new year
- Richard Nixon was sworn in as President - p
- MOL Program x 2 - p
- meant that first MOL missions had to be manned. Later ones could be manned or unmanned as needed - sounds odd with MOL meaning manned, drop MOL? ie just have first missions? or first orbiting laboratory missions?
- On 20 January 1969, Richard Nixon was sworn in as President - p
- Laird, who as a Congressman - c?
- "Looking back on it now", he said, - add year he said that 2014? Actually quote needs tweak, remove "on it"?
- Fourteen of the seventeen MOL astronauts remained in the program - readers might wonder what program seeing it was cancelled? and sorry, can't see that in ref p87, though p90 mentions fourteen?
- Finlay returned to the US Navy in April 1968 - typo Finley (and maybe Finley had left ie because it was before the cancellation? this, and the 2 below, helps explain the fourteen of seventeen
- and Adams left in July 1966 to join the X-15 Program - had left?
- Lawrence was killed in an - had been
- to NASA eventualy flew in space - typo eventually
- the MOL Contracts that were terminated - decap contracts?
- The group flew 17 missions in total. - Members of the group?
- could not engage in combat for three years because of the risk of capture. - because of what they knew (or is that obvious?)
- The prototype IMLSS is also in the National Museum - also? nothing yet mentioned?
- In 1972, the USAF decided to refurbish SLC 6 for use with the Space Shuttle. This cost more than anticipated, some $2.5 billion (equiv 1984), and the date of the first launch had to be postponed from June 1984 to July 1986. - Is this saying that the 1972 decision was for a projected use 12 yrs later ie 1984? No 1972 figure?
- USAF Headquarters v USAF headquarters
- MOL Test flight OPS 0855 was launched v MOL test launch OPS 0855, - ie cap T intentional?
- NO. Decapped.
- U.S. Navy v US Navy
- kilometre/s x3 v centimeters - ie US spelling kilometer?
- black funds x3 - maybe insert budget ie black budget funds (in case someone adds wlink to black funds ie corrupt money)?
- crewed v manned - there's a few manned and unmanned in there (not when part of the name) though hard to be consistent with crewed as some are in quotations
- suborbital x3 v sub-orbital x 1
- Key Hole v Keyhole
- note 20 Zuckert National Reconnaisance Office - typo Reconnaisance, double s
- note 24 Air Force to Develop Manned Orbiting Laboratory" ... Department of Defence. - Defense
- note 68 United States Air Force (8 May 1968). MOL Flight ... Department of the Air Force, Maimed Orbiting Laboratory - Maimed is an OCR glitch?
- note 82 Brown "Memorandum for Chairman Revers - typo Rivers (L. Mendel Rivers)
- Ref Corcoran, William ... Staus and Future of large Solid Rockets - typo Status?
I've been looking at this for a few days and lots of changes have already been made. I have tried to remove those ffom my list but sorry if I've missed any. That's it from me. Thanks for yet another amazing article. JennyOz (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for yet another fabulous review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have 2 new minor suggestions...
- the basic equipment of a satellite reconnaissance equipment - remove "a" or make possessive?
- aerodynamically similar test article - wlink Test article (aerospace)?
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.