Jump to content

Talk:Inspiration4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inspiration4.png has also been tagged for deletion. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like it will get deleted. The original source gdrive [1] contains a graphic logo, a photo of the fabric mission patch, a textlogo version. The fabric patch and graphic logo would need fair-use rationales to be reuploaded here on English Wikipedia. The textlogo version [2] can be directly uploaded to commons as PD-textlogo. The symbolic logo [3] can also be uploaded to commons after conversion to an acceptable format (ie. SVG, PNG) as PD-text. Someone will need to upload one of the four versions, two of which can only exist on English Wikipedia, while two other could be uploaded on Commons. Whomever wishes to do the upload can pick and choose, but be aware the mission patch and graphic logo need to have fair use rationales attached. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Krampot: can you upload the replacement images to Commons? [4][5] As your upload seems like it will be deleted off commons soon. Also, you can reupload the image you initially uploaded to commons here on English wikipedia, using a WP:NFUR (just fill out {{non-free use rationale logo}} and have {{non-free logo}} on the file information page as well. Uploading to commons the first two would allow other language wikipedias that don't allow fair use imagery to have the mission wordmark logo, while on English Wikipedia, we can use the full patch. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two public domain images have been uploaded as File:Inspiration4 Logo.png and File:Inspiration4 icon.png
And have been logged onto WikiData, as the PD-simple free images that can be used across WMF project pages, in lieu of the mission patch image/fabric picture, as those require uploading to ENglish Wikipedia with the non-free use rationale attached. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text-only logo is available for use when the mission patch gets deleted at Commons, as it seems like it would be, per the deletion discussion at Commons. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Unsinkable Molly Brown:, since you know the solution, why don't you just go ahead and reupload the image with a FUR onto English Wikipedia? -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
image:Shift4-Payments-Official-Logo.png

The mission sponsor, Shift4 has a logo up on Commons now. file:Shift4-Payments-Official-Logo.png -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark wordmark

[edit]

The wordmark Inspirati④n is missing a redirection here, as does it's ASCII format Inspirati(4)n redirect form. This stylization is as can be seen from the mission patch, website logo. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirati(4)n should also so be redirected.

Requested move 16 March 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


SpaceX Inspiration4 → Inspiration4 – Seeing as "Inspiration4" already redirects to this page, and there are no other topics on Wikipedia that have a similar name, is it necessary to disambiguate the title with "SpaceX"? (WP:DAB) All participants in the mission – Shift4 Payments, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, and SpaceX – refer to the mission as simply "Inspiration4", as well as a number of reliable sources in the field of spaceflight (WP:RS) such as NASA Spaceflight, Space.com, SpaceNews, and Spaceflight Now. So, there isn't really a case to be made for any name other than simply "Inspiration4" being the most commonly recognised name for the mission, either. (WP:UCRN) We don't disambiguate "dearMoon project" with "SpaceX" too, so why should be do that for this article's name? (WP:TITLECON) — Molly Brown (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. I chose the current title to follow the precedent of previous SpaceX commercial crew missions, but those benefit from the disambiguation (SpaceX Crew-2) where Inspiration4 does not. Crew Dragon Demo-2 also does not have 'SpaceX' in the title, nor does dearMoon project, as you said. You are correct; SpaceX Inspiration4 should be moved to Inspiration4. – Jodapop (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request Edits March 2021

[edit]

I work for Shift4 Payments. The CEO of the company is part of this mission. Following instructions on the Contact Us page[6], I’d request that independent editors please review these suggested changes, which I believe improve the article consistent with Wikipedia Policy. I won’t edit myself because of the conflict of interest policy

1. Please insert the following new paragraph at the end of the section marked “Crew”:

Isaacman and all crew members will undergo commercial astronaut training by SpaceX[1], including orbital mechanics, operating in microgravity and zero gravity environments, stress testing, emergency preparedness training, mission simulations, and learning about the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft.[2]

Why? Adding important information about the mission and preparation backed by reliable secondary references.

Thank you for your consideration. Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chang, Kenneth (1 February 2021). "To Get on This SpaceX Flight, You Don't Have to Be Rich, Just Lucky". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 1 February 2021. Retrieved 1 February 2021.
  2. ^ Stimac, Valerie (1 February 2021). "SpaceX Announces First All-Civilian Mission To Space, Inspiration4". Forbes. Retrieved 21 March 2021.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page list the slots of the astronauts per the contest?

[edit]

It makes sense to post what their roles are on the mission, but the "Hope" and "Leadership" monikers don't seem appropriate for the table - they belong in the article. Thoughts? --\/\/slack (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with User:Wslack that these marketing-derived attributes assigned to the four crew should not be in the table. I've made a couple edits to tone down the advert-like language; but will await other editors, or a bit more time, for a consensus to form before removing the terms completely. N2e (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should stay in the text at least. Isaacman highlighted how important these roles are for him, and he is the funding source. It doesn't take up space in the table and it's easier to compare with the text that way I think. --mfb (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information duplication in the infobox

[edit]

@Mfb: I feel that it's redundant to dedicate an entire infobox cell to writing out the number of crew aboard, when in the cell directly below it, readers can clearly discern that there are four crewmembers. Infoboxes these days are already incredibly long as they are, and it seems that duplicating information such as this doesn't help the issue, I feel. The "Crew size" field is most certainly useful when the complete crew hasn't been announced yet, so that the "Members" field isn't just a bunch of "TBA"s, but when the crew is complete and listed in the "Members" cell – as in the case for Inspiration4 and Axiom-1 – there no longer seems to be a point to use it. It's just duplicating information already discernible and is needlessly padding the infobox length that tiny bit more. — Molly Brown (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove it again, I don't really mind either way. "4" is faster to see than checking the crew size. --mfb (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comma in lead sentence

[edit]

Is this edit right? "whose primary objective is not to visit an orbital space station" is part of "first ... spaceflight". It is not describing the Hubble mission. Ping: User:Archolman. --mfb (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest the edit to be? Are you asking for the comma to be removed or another suggested edit? Jurisdicta (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glass ?

[edit]

I seriously doubt that the cupola is made of glass. I heard Elon Musk talk of Perspex during a press conference. Hektor (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes of 3 layers Chinakpradhan (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
three layers of Perspex or three layers of glass ? Hektor (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three layers of Perspex (I think). A bit strange it has no multi-faced structure like the cupola of the I.S.S. (one would think such a half-globe perspex sphere is much more vulnerable than a multi-faced structure). Pretty amazing, the Inspiration4's cupola reminds me the dome of the miniaturized submarine Proteus in the movie Fantastic Voyage (1966). Wish I was onboard Inspiration4's orbital mission, to observe the sun's reflection on earth's oceans, as seen through a quickly rotated linear polarizer! (optical experiments!) DannyCaes (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

crew image

[edit]

hey please understand the reason for this image to one fitting for use in this article. have you seen any image in their flikcr photostream like this File:SpaceX Crew-2 crew.jpg one, but the image i posted is though not with the creative background, the thing i concentrated is the depiction of patch that is seen in nasa crew images, other than this no group image of crew concentrated on logo with crew so this why i kept this image in priority above the other images so please dont remove this image Chinakpradhan (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

like this crew 2 image cannot replace the crew 2 image mentioned above. treat the inspiration4 image I uploaded like that only. even this image cannot match my image. Chinakpradhan (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chinakpradhan: Please keep in mind that WP:IMAGERES defines a maximum limit of 100,000 pixels for non-free images. This is why your changes to files such as File:Inspiration4 mission crew.jpg are being reverted by me and a bot that automatically reduces non-free image files to 100,000 pixels in size. Also keep in mind the legibility of the image at a thumbnail size; a better crop of the image that is focused on their faces will allow readers to better recognize the identities of the crew. In wider crops, such as the ones performed by you, the faces are barely a few pixels wide at a thumbnail resolution. — Molly Brown (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the logo needed in crew potrait then sir. See I had the main motive of including logo clearly in the imageChinakpradhan (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chinakpradhan: It's madam. I don't see why it's necessary to include the entire logo in the background, seeing an image of the insignia itself (File:Inspiration4.png) is already in the infobox. We would then effectively be having the insignia in the infobox twice, which is quite the unnecessary waste of space. — Molly Brown (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry maam for the wrong honorary address maam. The thing for adding the logo is that the spacex iss missions have crew images where logo is also shown that's why I gave preference for logo in this crew image. I think that both must have the similar kind of background. The thing that is different that the crew image in iss missions have small logo compared to this Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chinakpradhan: I would be willing to discuss cropping those images too, since most of them are free-use images, but for now, let's keep the focus on the particular non-free image being used in this article and not turn this into an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. — Molly Brown (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so I think the best will be bring the Wikimedia one in place of this and treat this image like the one for demo 2 mission crew Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is turned out to ve best if no need of image in logo Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fundraising

[edit]

a MAJOR goal of this flight was the fundraising. it's very unusual for a flight, and apparently most media outlets didn't really talk about it much. it's a shame that due to technicalities, the fundraiser is hidden somewhere in the dense text of the other sections, making it look like this is just another crewed flight. shame. 2A02:2F0E:D31E:5B00:CDA1:9A50:3A1C:F745 (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capsule artist rendering

[edit]

File:Artist's Rendering Of The SpaceX Crew Dragon And Its Cupola To Be Flown On Inspiration4 Mission.jpg The new Sept 15 image seems worse than the Sept 3 image extracted from [7].. this NFCC file should be rolled back to the old NFCC image -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apogee

[edit]

User:Destrucules, could you explain your reason for not counting the Apollo Program as implemented in this diff? I don't see a reason why they should be discounted if not to artificially inflate Inspiration4's achievements. BeReasonabl (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this section as I believe it makes the article less clear to exclude the Apollo Program. I'm willing to be moved on this issue. BeReasonabl (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section says this flight had the highest apogee since the Apollo programme. We could delete the whole section, because without the qualification it isn't true. I've also heard that a Hubble servicing mission by the Shuttle went even higher. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's strange to exclude the Apollo missions. My edit was just to update the list based on the higher-than-expected apogee, though. I have no stake in whether this section is kept or removed from the page. It's just trivia as far as I'm concerned. Destrucules (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone with OTRS access is here, can they answer the query at the deletion discussion? -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Landing information removed

[edit]

All landing information including the location (Gulf of Mexico) and the recovery vessel (GO Navigator) has been removed from the infobox. While this may turn out to be correct, it is far too early to include this information as fact and the references dont back it up.

According to FAA NOTAMs, 4 locations in the Gulf and 3 in the Atlantic are candidates and a primary location wont even be selected until 24 hours before landing. The claim that GO Navigator will be the recovery ship is highly speculative and based solely on a tweeted photo of the vessel leave Port Canaveral. Its sister ship GO Searcher could be the one to recover this mission, we wont know until it happens.

GO Navigator left port over a week before GO Searcher because of the longer path around the tip of Florida to the locations in the Gulf. GO Searcher left ~36 hours before splashdown because all the points it might need to service are < 150 nautical miles away.

--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netflix series

[edit]

I have started to write (in my sandbox) an article for the Netflix series. RobP (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done and published! See Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space. RobP (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another mission patch

[edit]
USAF/USSF mission patch ((File:Inspiration4 Launch (210915-X-YM354-1013).jpg))
File:SpaceX Inspiration4 insignia.png
File:Inspiration4.png

File:Inspiration4 Launch (210915-X-YM354-1013).jpg This appears to be a mission patch for AFB Canaveral? Is there a clean (ie, perfect angle) version like our other two mission patches available? -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this patch is surely recognized as "official" patch for Inspiration4 (like the File:SpaceX Inspiration4 insignia.png and File:Inspiration4.png), then maybe someone could remake this patch and upload it on Commons. FarhanSyafiqF (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found it FarhanSyafiqF (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a link that is PD-US-GOV compatible? Since it is a USSF 1ROPS patch, we could upload under PD. Or do you have license information on that CollectSpace image? -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

birthplace of Jared Issacman

[edit]

can anyone please tell, where was jared issacman born in jersey. I want to add him on Astronaut birthplaces by US state. no site says where in jersey he was born and this site needs specific town of birth. I have added the others but jared is not there due to the birthplace being not known. Please tell if someone finds it. Chinakpradhan (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceflight participants

[edit]

CNN said that SpaceX registered all four of the crew as spaceflight participants at the FAA, and not FAA commercial astronauts. So they would not qualify for FAA astronaut wings.[1] -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ CNN Newsroom with Pamela Brown. 18 September 2021. CNN.

File:Spacex Dome.jpg

[edit]

FYI File:Spacex Dome.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inspiration4&oldid=1207720677"