Talk:OV2-1/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 05:48, 14 March 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

Balon Greyjoy Comments

Thanks for lending your eyes! --Neopeius (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase the first section to say the the Air Force's effort was to standardize satellites in an effort to reduce overall costs, as opposed to the other way around.

Good call.

Rephrase "piggybacking" as that's a colloquialism

Piggybacking actually seems to be the term of art. I see it in newspaper articles, AvWeekly, and official Air Force documents.

Put that the satellites would use space on test vehicles after the announcement of the program. It doesn't logically flow that the satellites would be standardized and then roll right into that they fly on test vehicles, as those two things seem unrelated.

I think that's fixed in the new structure of the sentence.

Is there more info on the production of the satellite vehicle itself, not just the family of satellites?

I'm afraid not, but OV-2 was closely common.

Rephrase "backed up" when explaining the NiCd batteries, as that makes it sound like an emergency backup instead of what the satellite relied upon whenever it was in darkness.

Good call.

"Four small solid rocket motors spun, one on each paddle, were designed to spin the OV2 satellites, for stability, upon reaching orbit." What does this mean? I'm assuming it means that rockets fired to spin the entire satellite to preserve angular momentum. This makes it seem like the rocket motors themselves spun. I would shorten this sentence and remove some of the commas.

"Stability would be maintained by a precession damper as we well as cold-gas jets aided by a solar aspect sensor and two fluxgate magnetometers." This requires more explanation, as everything but the cold-gas jets are pretty obscure. Especially for the sensors, how did they play a role in stability?

Fixed this section, thanks.

Make the discussion of the scientific payloads tell more about the goals of the mission. There is some explanation on the types of research that the satellite would do, but the list of sensors isn't too informative on what the satellite would be studying.

I think I've made that clearer now, thanks.

"Rocket Research Corporation, in Seattle, developed a new spin subsystem, of a low-thrust, subliming solid rocket type, to be tested on the satellite" Did this fly on the satellite? It's not explicit here.

Fixed, thanks.

"As of February 1965, two follow-on satellites (OV2-2 and -3) were contemplated, for different missions" Starting a date with "As of" makes it seem like this information in continuously or expecting to be updated. Also, what does contemplated mean in this context? Was there some production and design that occurred, or was it more of a "We should build another satellite" way?

I put it at the end with clarification. It's a little clunky and maybe belongs on the general OV page instead, but I also like to include all details on ever page without assuming people will go for information elsewhere.

Are there any additional pictures? Maybe something of the Titan launching?

Yup, there was. Added.

Unaddressed comments

Regarding our disagreement on some edits I made: 1). I think that we don't need to list of common satellite control elements, like the receiver, telemetry, and recording devices. This is not an all-encompassing list of satellite systems, so why have a list of some of them? 2). What does it mean "of common design?" That's not qualified in any way and doesn't really paint the picture of the satellite itself, only that its design is common. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw these, thanks. I think it's useful to list them as not all satellites share common elements. In addition, many satellites of the era did not carry tape recorders. Regarding common design, the reference article itself is not particularly specific, but the suggestion is that where possible, the bus was identically composed. In other words, they could build a bunch of parts for the hull; they weren't all one-off, bespoke designs.

Is this a common bus for all OV2 satellites, or a larger family of satellites? I don't think it's a problem to say that it's a common design, but it should be qualified what it was in common with. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see what your issue is. Tell me if you like my current phrasing better. --Neopeius (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "Also included was a low-thrust, subliming solid rocket type, developed by Rocket Research Corporation in Seattle[4], to manage OV2-1's rate of spin" from the Experiments section, as this is a satellite control system (I'm assuming it's the same as the cold-gas jets mentioned in the previous section). Maybe some of this info can be combined in the previous section?

From the article, it appears they are different systems. One was common to all designs and one specific to this one.

Regardless of if they are separate systems or not (having not read the source material, those seem like they would be the same thing), shouldn't it still go under the spacecraft design, as a thruster isn't an experiment? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing -- the experimental thruster was an engineering experiment. :) It was not the same as the standard cold-gas jet. Also, both the article I'm citing and the NSSDC entry refer to them as experiments and not as part of the spacecraft design (even if the experiment was potentially useful to the operation of the satellite). I've added verbiage to clarify, thanks. --Neopeius (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expand "Thermal control was passive." Were there dedicated radiators or other hardware to vent excess heat? This is just an abrupt sentence to end the paragraph, and it doesn't tell a whole lot.

I'm afraid that's literally all the article says. Historically, passive thermal control referred to a paint scheme and no dedicated equipment for dumping heat. I recognize radiators can be passive, but they also can be massive (he rhymed :) ). So I suspect it was all paint scheme like Pioneer 0-2, but I can't be certain. --Neopeius (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove it then. Everything passively radiates heat, so that's not providing amplifying information about the satellite. If it must be included, I would work it into another sentence, as the paragraph still ends abruptly with it.Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased it to be less abrupt. It's important to note when one knows if thermal control was passive because that tells something about the design of the system. Sure, everything passively loses heat. OV2-1 was specifically designed to not need active thermal control. --Neopeius (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC) @Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence

Done with my first pass. Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All excellent points. It is definitely an improved article now. Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: Hey, just a reminder that I have some comments for you to review/reply to. Nothing urgent (not like I'm going anywhere with all of this COVID-19), but I didn't want you to think I haven't come back to this article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused -- where are the comments? I responded to all of them from your initial run. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put a sub-header above them; hope it helps! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: Hey, did you seem my new comments? No worries if you're delayed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Short article, but it seems like the available resources are pretty sparse. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy:Thanks very much for the review! You had great comments, and I appreciate the time you took. Let me know when I can return the favor. --Neopeius (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]