Talk:Paper planes launched from space

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paper planes launched from space article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Creation

If only this page had been created on April 1...missed it by five minutes. --- Taroaldo (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this page for deletion, as it's some sort of news article rather than an encyclopedia entry, and the tag was deleted (as is any editor's right) but the thing remains really out there -- do we have articles titled "Olympic torch nears top of Mount Everest" (CNN 5-7-08)? Can it be turned into something more suitable? I still think it's deletable. DavidOaks (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+1 vote for deletion, it's already noted in the Origami article linking to this article, which could be replaced with an external link--ApothThaeos (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote against deletion. Though it might need cleanup. This is a proposed science experiment which will be famous and unique if it goes ahead, and might have important implications if it works. If you want to delete it you need to find a reason in the rules.ANTIcarrot (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this thing, it's obvious advertising and has no place here -- WOEICS

Merge proposal

I'd like to suggest that this article is merged into the relevant section on the International Space Station article, as it is too small to survive as a stand-alone article, and the equivalent section on the ISS page is too short. Colds7ream (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep it separate. The ISS has too many experiments to list each with this level of detail. This article already has two solid paragraphs of information. It's already big enough to survive as a stand-alone article, and should double or triple when the experiment is completed and results analyzed. Even if the experiment is never completed, and so there's no additional information, it's still two paragraphs, and two paragraphs on each experiment conducted in or proposed for the ISS would overwhelm that article. It works fine as a stand-alone article. Fg2 (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I'll expand the ISS section slightly, and leave this article where it is. Colds7ream (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it will benefit from expansion Fg2 (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farenheight?

Why are all the measurements in Fahrenheit? Japan uses the metric system so the scientists involved would surely be working with Degrees Celsius? Generally speaking, does Wikipedia have a policy for one measurement or the other? I'd have thought it'd tend towards Celsius since it's the more practical measurement. Darien Shields (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the numbers seem to have been made up. The paper burning temperature is cited as 451, likely due to the book Fahrenheit 451. But as that article notes, that's not the actual burning point of paper. Additionally the article says 400°F not 446°F. I fixed this, but the rest of the article still reads like a newspaper clipping. And unless one of these planes actually makes it down to Earth, this is hardly a relevant article. One of the linked webpages even says: "The mission would follow a distinguished history of pointless experiments in space." I vote for delete, too. 77.135.95.207 (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote against deletion here. I agree it would have been better to create an article after the experiment was made, but it will be made sometime this year and whatever the result, this is a worthwhile entry. It is technologically significant as this is, to my knowledge, the slowest reentry attempt ever made. If successful it could have huge implications on spacecrafts designs.--Iv (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal

The current title "Origami airplane launched from space" sounds to me like a badly dubbed B-Grade horror movie (or maybe I just have a good imagination). Anyway, I'd like to suggest moving the page to something along the lines of "2009 Origami Plane Re-entry Experiment" which sounds equally bad I'll admit. If anyone else has a better suggestion for new name however, it'd be greatly appreciated. Iciac (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Space-launched origami airplane? Fg2 (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pls explain

and expand this if possible... "a prototype about 2.8 inches long and 2 inches wide survived Mach 7 speeds and temperatures reported to be 200°C in a hypersonic wind tunnel for 10 seconds". How can paper survive these temperatures/speeds, how will these paper airplanes be made, etc?

I agree how are the paper planes built? I mean I understand how it would be possible for paper to survive Mach 7, but a mere paper surviving 200°C? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpapi (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comment

I erased this comment at the beginning of the page: "Sooo this is an orphaned page about some proposal from several years ago that never ended up happening. How pointless." as this is not the place for personal appreciations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.235.148 (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan

I erased the "orphan" marker, as this article isn't orhpaned anymore. There is a link towards it in the "space flight" section on the "paper plane" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.235.148 (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]