Jump to content

Talk:Manned Orbiting Laboratory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleManned Orbiting Laboratory is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2021.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 17, 2020Good article nomineeListed
September 22, 2020WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
November 30, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 20, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a 1966 test flight (pictured) of a Gemini B spacecraft for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory was the first time an American space capsule intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice?
Current status: Featured article

Russian vs Soviet

[edit]

I corrected this article's incorrect use of the term 'Russian' when 'Soviet [Union]' was clearly meant. It amazes me that people who obsess about minute technical details continue to get this wrong over and over and over and over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.223.44 (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helium/Oxygen Atmosphere

[edit]

I don't know if the Air Force guys were nuts? Isn't helium/oxygen gas mixtures used in deep-sea diving? I wonder if it was chosen delibertaly so that the MOL astronaut sound like "Alvin and the Chipmunks" (watch the diving crews for the U.S.S. Monitor programs on the Discovery Channel). At least the Soviet Almaz military space station and the Skylab space station used oxygen/nitrogen, with the former at sea-level pressure and Skylab at a 3:1 ratio (3 parts oxygen to 1 part nitrogen). Rwboa22 01:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secret aspects?

[edit]

This article doesn't even mention that aspects of this program were closely guarded secrets at the time. All I know about this subject is what I saw on Nova, so I'm reluctant to write much about this myself. ike9898 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of th 14 astronauts

[edit]

You have the names of the astronauts listed but were wrong on one of them. The bottom row left, first person is Col. Lachlan Macleay, USAF and not Lt Commander John Finley. If nothing else you can tell the difference in the uniform. Col. Macleay is in the USAF. Also Finley left in 1968, and could not be in this picture if the replacement 1968 class in this picture (other than Robert Lawrence who had already died in a plane crash.) Check PBS program Astrospies for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieAF (talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

intended orbit

[edit]

The article claims that the intended orbit was to be polar (which makes sense for a reconnaissance mission), however it also claims that the intended launch site was to be Cape Canaveral. Is there a reference that supports this? Cape Canaveral is normally not used for launches with polar inclinations. That is normally done at Vandenburg due to the increased risk of overflight over populated areas of the east coast at Canaveral. Was the editor here making the assumption that since the one and only test launch of MOL was done at Cape Canaveral that missions would be launched from there as well? --RadioFan (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Manned Orbital Laboratory

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Manned Orbital Laboratory's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "astrospies":

  • From Lachlan Macleay: "Astrospies". NOVA. PBS. 2007. Retrieved 2008-10-10. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • From Almaz: "Astrospies". NOVA.
  • From Richard E. Lawyer: "Astrospies web site". NOVA. PBS. 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted bot. They are essentially identical. Title differences are in significant.--RadioFan (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification in lead

[edit]

The "NASA Archives on MOL" PDF document that was used in two places as the first citation reference, says nothing at all about the X-20 DynaSoar, the Air Force, reconnaissance, or any other military use of the stations described. Therefore, I don't see how it can be used to verify the two statements to which it was linked. The phrase "manned orbital laboratory" does not seem to be used in context of an official program name, so the statement of that being the original name is suspect as well. All this document proves, is that NASA studied some space station concepts in 1963, mentioning the use of Gemini as a shuttle vehicle. I kept it as an external link, because it's of related interest, of course.

We really need some authoritative, Air Force documentation for verification (though this is understandably hard to come by, given its military nature.) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manned Orbiting Laboratory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manned Orbiting Laboratory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination successful following suggested improvements.

The following discussion 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.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Manned Orbiting Laboratory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Scope creep (talk · contribs) 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Review

[edit]
  1. Copyvio check. That's fine. Its a 21% but it is common terms, e.g. names of things. Fine.  Done

Prose

[edit]

I have read the article 8 times now, the spelling is good, layout is good and coverage of content, having read up on it, seems fairly comprehensive at the moment. scope_creepTalk 20:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • never-flown part. Can that re-clarified with a better description, as you have launched on 3 November 1966 at the bottom. Apart from that, it is really decent. Possibly re-craft it. It could best it is at the moment. I don't know. It sound a wee bit odd, but it might be me. "It was a never flown part"??
    Tweaked the wording to indicate that the OPS 0855 was an uncrewed test flight of Gemini B, and that it was the Titan IIIM rocket that never flew. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still not right. It doesn't read correctly as your saying something in the first para, and then saying the reverse in the third para. You will need to clarify it by rewording it slightly.
    Removed text to avoid giving this impression. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That reads much better and flows better along with new layout. I mean it was pretty decent at the beginning, but it is better now.  Done

Background

[edit]
  • The launch of Sputnik 1, the first satellite, by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957, came as a profound shock to the American public, which had complacently assumed American technical superiority, and sparked a search for initiatives to counter its psychological impact Its a long sentence. Is it possible to take out one American and reorder. Give an ownership, e.g in their technical superiority, and sparked a...
    checkY Reduced the sentence size by removing the second clause, which lost its relevance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • most forms of human space flight I'm left wondering what was left out?
    Dyna-Soar is mentioned later in the paragraph. There was a lot of negotiation about what was meant, as it involved transferring funds to NASA, the demarcation between civil and military uses of space was unclear, and just what NASA wanted to do was undefined. In the end, major transfers included MISS, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, but this took place over a period of several years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • transferred $53.8 million (equivalent to $367 million in 2018) Somebody mentioned inflation template, might be worth using. I don't know what nick its in. Surprising to say the least.
    You're looking at it. This text is generated by the inflation template. Note that for defence and R&D projected, we use the GDP rather than CPI as deflator. The year will automatically go up from 2018 when someone gets around to uploading more data. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planning

[edit]
  • "white" experiments What are these? Can it be linked somehow, or clarified?
    checkY Added "i.e. unclassified and publicly acknowledged, as opposed to "black" secret and unacknowledged". As there were 59 of them, I decided not to list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be a know thing with military. It is black money, black funds, black projects and on and on.  Done

 Done

That's fine.  Done
 Done As long as the reader understands what it is.
That's cool. Seems to be two article with slightly different domain, but almost identical.  Done
 Done
 Done
It has been linked to another sentence. Coolio.  Done
This is the one has been linked. Forget that.  Done

Modules

[edit]

Laboratory module

[edit]
  •  Done

Spacecraft

[edit]

Spacesuits

[edit]
  • Hamilton Standard Is that the right company? According to the article it a manufacturer of propellers. Parts supplier. Unlike the other three, there is no mention of material design, or suit design.
    Seems to be, but terrible article. No mention of suit design, spacecraft design going on for decades.
    Yes, it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ":Thats ok. More a comment.  Done

Astronauts

[edit]

Selection

[edit]
  •  Done

Training

[edit]
  •  Done

Facilities

[edit]

Launch complex

[edit]
  • segment receipt inspection building and ready building What are these? Kind of make sense, but odd sounding?
    The different components of the spacecraft (segments) arrived from different manufacturers and had to be assembled. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at the second time.  Done

Easter Island

[edit]

 Done

Rochester

[edit]

 Done

Test flight

[edit]

 Done

Soviet responses

[edit]

 Done

Delays and cost increases

[edit]

 Done

Cancellation

[edit]
Better reading.  Done
Thats ok. Close.  Done

Legacy

[edit]

 Done

Mos

[edit]

I've had a good look through this. I can't see anything that immediately stands out. I spent some time over the weekend comparing the article to the WP:MOS, on line by line basis and think it is OK. There is nothing glaring. I think is done.  Done

Ref layout

[edit]

This is fine.  Done

RS Refs

[edit]

Hi @Hawkeye7: This seems to be bloggish, work of one person? [1] The military documents, memo's and so on are fine.

It's the online Encyclopedia Astronautica. The site has won multiple awards, and Mark Wade is generally considered an expert. He has published articles on space exploration. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coolio.  Done

OR

[edit]

Not a chance.  Done

Pics

[edit]
  • The vertical MOL diagram for the configuration image. The colouring, design, resolution and size are pretty poor. The [2] has a breakdown. Would it be worth creating a new image?
Yes, but we cannot use that one, which is copyrighted. It could be omitted from the infobox entirely. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if that is for the best. You already have the Integral launch dual compartment laboratory image, which clearly shows the compartmental breakdown and in much better detail, to be honest. You know, combined with that second image, it might not be too bad. The second image more than enough info. Yip, keep it. It is in-focus.  Done
  • The image of General Bernard Adolph Schriever. It quite small image and when it opened its quite blurry. It seems there is three public domain images available. There is one on the main article, at 257k, which is in perfect focus. What is your thoughts?
That's cool. I can see him.  Done

Broadness

[edit]

I found a couple of extra papers. One paper interesting, Manned Orbiting Laboratory-for War or Peace? at [3]. Another at [4] Both of seem to be outside the archive.

It is comprehensive and heavily sourced.  Done

Focus

[edit]

I have read six MOL type articles and they are all identical.  Done

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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Amkgp (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Launch of a Gemini B capsule and Manned Orbiting Laboratory mockup.
Launch of a Gemini B capsule and Manned Orbiting Laboratory mockup.
  • ... that the 3 November 1966 test flight of a Gemini B spacecraft for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory project (pictured) was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice? Source: "The only space launch in the MOL program occurred on Nov. 3, 1966, when a Titan-IIIC rocket took off from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station’s (CCAFS) Launch Complex 40. Atop the rocket was a MOL mockup, without the KH-10 imaging payload, and a Gemini-B capsule that was refurbished after it flew NASA’s uncrewed Gemini-2 suborbital mission in January 1965. This was the only time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight was reflown until the advent of the Space Shuttle." ([5])
    • ALT1:... that a test flight of a Gemini B spacecraft on 3 November 1996 (pictured) was the only space launch of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory project? Source: same

Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hello Hawkeye7 I'll be undertaking a review of this nomination. I would like to start with the reference, which appeared (at least at one time) to cite reference #118 (Berger) when it is actually your #92 (NASA - "50 years ago...). Perhaps I'm just reading that wrong, so set me straight if you would. Gulbenk (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you are asking... the quoted source covers the hooks, and is the same one used in the article [92] in the Test Flight section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous question had to do with a display issue, evidently originating on the nominations page since I see the same anomaly using separate computers. Whatever it is, it's not part of your original nomination, so it doesn't pertain to the quality of your submission. I have reviewed your nomination with the following findings: Recently upgraded to Good Article, long enough, well written, the first hook conforms to article text and reference, sufficiently interesting. I would go with the first hook. However, it appears that the QPQ is still open for additional discussion. We can approve this article once the QPQ situation is resolved. Gulbenk (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Swapped the QPQ for another one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go with substitute QPQ Olga Yurievskaya. Gulbenk (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 Gulbenk Should the article be using the dates as Month Day, Year per it being an American spacecraft? SL93 (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a military article, it uses military date format (WP:MILFORMAT). NASA also uses dates in this format. So all the sources do, which made it easier to write. The article dates were set to DMY back in 2014, six years before I began revising it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Restoring tick. SL93 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reopened this per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 1:Spaceflight. SL93 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this re-wording of ALT0 work?
    ALT2 ... that a 1966 test flight of a Gemini B spacecraft for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (pictured) was the first time an American space capsule intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice?
    As far as I can tell, the point of the hook is that the capsule in question had flown to space before, but as I said in the WT:DYK discussion the original wording seemed ambiguous since the "American spacecraft flew twice" wording didn't make it clear that it was only referring to that specific vessel (and the phrasing could have been misinterpreted to be referring to a spacecraft class in general). I'm not sure if ALT2 addresses my concern since coming up with a more precise wording seemed difficult, so additional ideas could be discussed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. I was asked to weigh on this one. First, congratulations on taking MOL to GA! It's an important part of American history. Second, I don't like this DYK hook at all. I'd rather see a DYK that focuses on MOL; the DYK as it is would be better suited for an article on Gemini B or OV 3-4. To that end, I propose:
    ALT3: ... that the Manned Orbiting Laboratory was the first American crewed space station project? --Neopeius (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That wouldn't be able to use the image. A bigger problem though is that it doesn't appear in the article anywhere. We would need a source for this hook. I think it's true, as MODS dated back to 1959, and planning for Skylab did not get under way until 1962. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the image would be fine -- it looks like a MOL launch (would have). :) You could do something like "...MOL was an early space station project that would have utilized the USAF's Titan 3 and NASA's Gemini spacecraft?" --Neopeius (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If ALT2 were to be used the hook could be written as "... that the Manned Orbital Laboratory (test flight pictured)" or something to that effect. Personally it feels like a better option to me than the Titan/Gemini proposal since the latter would assume readers are familiar with the Titan rocket an is also a more technical hook. A third option could be a hook about how the project was promoted with non-reconnaissance objectives but was in reality a glorified spy satellite. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From experience that's not the case. Several hooks in the past have been rejected or pulled due to concerns that they were too vague or inaccurate. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about

One final comment: If ALT2 or a variant is to be used, it should be made clear that the MOL capsule was the first orbital American spacecraft to fly to space more than once; an X-15 rocket plane had previously flown multiple suborbital flights prior to that. Perhaps the use of "space capsule" as opposed to "spacecraft" should help things, but this is still something to keep in mind. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've had enough discussion here and ALT2 appears to be both the nominator's choice and the best choice. Hawkeye7, please add an inline cite to this sentence in the article: This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice, albeit without a crew. and I'll approve this. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

[edit]

The article at KH-10 Dorian should be merged into Manned Orbiting Laboratory. They're clearly referring to the same spacecraft and the presence of the KH-10 Dorian article is confusing.

  1. ^ (Stewart, James T. (14 February 1968). "Designation of MOL as the KH-10 Photographic Reconnaissance Satellite System" (PDF). National Reconnaissance Office. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory&oldid=1208768724"