Jump to content

Talk:Peter Siebold

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

Astronaut

[edit]

An editor has provided some fairly reliable sources making claims that Peter Siebold is an astronaut. They are as follows.

  • [1] claims, "The astronauts to fly Scaled Composites' SpaceShipOne and its carrier craft the White Knight are (from left) Doug Shane, Mike Melvill, Peter Siebold and Brian Binnie."
  • [2] claims, "The chosen pilot - picked from among a small cadre of previously announced Scaled Composites astronauts - is to be revealed at a press conference to be held this Sunday, the day before the slated June 21st flight of the rocket plane. The flight-worthy four are: Brian Binnie, Mike Melvill, Doug Shane, and Pete Siebold."
  • List of American Astronauts lists him as an astronaut but I am usnure of how reliable a source this is. I am tempted to belive that they do qualify as astronauts per external sources. Are there any rebuttals to this (based either on policy or another source that shows otherwise?) -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:Chrislk02)

I've seen the sources from Space.com, problem with them and astronautix, is the date: they are from when the four were announced as the ones to become the astronauts. In the end, Shane and Siebold didn't. Shane didn't even fly SS1, as he became the project manager instead. Akradecki 21:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good counter argument. Rillian, what do you have to say? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Akradecki is incorrect. The space.com article is from the late in the program, just before the first flight over 100 km, not from when the four were chosen to train as SS1 astronauts. The Astronautix profile is updated through the end of the program and includes data from all SS1 flights. While Shane and Siebold did not fly over 100 km, they are/were part of the SS1 astronaut team and qualifed to pilot the spacecraft per the citations. Rillian 02:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While waiting for Rillian's response, I'd like to add another thought. If you decide that the refs are valid, I'd strongly suggest that, in the interest of providing clear, accurate information to our readers, a short para that reads like: "While Doug Shane was originally named as one of the four test pilots where were to become astronauts through the Tier One program, Shane never actually flew SpaceShipOne during the test program. Though informally referred to in some sources as an astronaut, he did not receive the official designation as a Commercial Astronaut by the FAA office that regulates civilian space issues." As similar statement would be applicable to Siebold, who did fly SS1 during atmospheric test missions, but not into space, and he, too, is not officially recognized as an astronaut. Akradecki 21:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article already includes that statement that "Although he was one of four qualified pilots for SpaceShipOne, Siebold did not pliot the craft during the flights later in 2004 to meet the requirements of the Ansari X Prize." The article does not claim he was awarded FAA Commercial Astronaut Wings and it seems rather excessive to list things he has not been awarded. Rillian 02:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Someone who isn't that familiar with the program and who was reading the article to actually learn something could easily assume by the way it is presented that Siebold (and Shane) that there is official sanction for the term. It's not that I'm listing things that he wasn't awarded, it's that it notes he doesn't have an official sanction as an astronaut. Akradecki 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no official body that regulates the use of the term astronaut. I've provided multiple citations from non-wiki sources that use the label "astronaut" for both Shane and Siebold. I've also provided citations showing that they professionally trained to pilot a spacecraft as part of a full-fledged human spaceflight program, the common definition of an astronaunt. As an example, how is Siebold any less of an astronaut than Christopher Loria? Rillian 03:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While akradecki provides a good argument, the fact is, reliable sources trump how we feel. Akradecki, do you have sources claiming that they are not astronauts or that there is an official body that regulates the term astronaut? I would be interested in them. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an official body that regulates any term? For instance, the term pilot isn't regulated, but unless you are licensed by the FAA (or other official body, depending on where you are), is it proper to call someone that? My mom knows how to fly a plane, but she's never been a licensed pilot. Is she a pilot? I think not. It's not the term that gets regulated, it's the assigning of the term that matters. NASA has a definition for their people, which is described here. For someone not in NASA or the military, ie a U.S. civilian, FAA/AST licensing would be the official body, and they've so far licensed only 2. It would be improper for us on Wikipedia to call someone a pilot, doctor, lawyer, etc unless they were duly recognized in that capacity by an official sanctioning body. Why would it be any other way for astronaut? Since there's no source that says I am not an astronaut, can I claim that too? No, that would be absurd. Wikipedia should have high academic standards, which means that if there are sanctioning bodies for a designation like astronaut, then we ought to recognize them and not call someone that unless they are sanctioned. I've given you links to the two U.S. bodies that offically sanction people as astronauts. Siebold and Shane have not been recognized by either. Why would wikipedia recognize that status based on references like this blog? If there weren't any sanctioning bodies, ok then I could understand the vagueness of the term, but there are such bodies, and Wikipedia should recognize the standards they set. Akradecki 19:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to be confusing three things - the term/profession of astronaut (a person professionally trained to fly a spacecraft), the title/rank of Astronaut (a title awarded by certain organizations) and the award/rating/certification Astronaut Wings. NASA (among other organizations) gives the title Astronaut to members of its Astronaut Corps, but the article does not claim that Siebold is a NASA Astronaut. The FAA issues an award called "FAA Commericial Astronaut Wings" to people who fly a privately-funded spacecraft above a certain altitude, but the article does not claim that Siebold has earned FAA Commercial Astronaut Wings. The article provides reliable sources to show that Siebold professionally trained to fly a spacecraft as part of a viable human spaceflight program. The article also provides sources that show people other than the editors of the article consider him an astronaut. He is not a NASA Astronaut, he has not earned FAA Commercial Astronaut Wings, but he is an astronaut. If the FAA stopped issuing commercial astronaut wings (perhaps as a cost savings measure), would that mean future privately-funded spacecraft pilots would not be astronauts? No, they would. When Virgin Glactic opens its second spaceport in Kiruna, Sweden, will people who pilot spacecraft from it (and wouldn't be eligible for U.S. FAA wings) not be astronauts? Of course they would. Rillian 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your mother knows how to fly example. If your mother was able to fly a plane professionally, even without FAA certification, then, yes, she would be "an airplane pilot", but she would not be "an FAA certified Pilot". Rillian 03:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use of blogs - this Siebold article does not use any blogs as citations. In addition to his Scaled Composites bio, it has two from space.com, one from the x-prize web site, and links to his Biography on Encyclopedia Astronautica and his entry on the List of American Astronauts. In any case, a blog per se is not automatically an invalid citation. It depends on who is writing the blog. Me blogging about my cat and saying that he is an astronaut would not be a particularly good citation. A citation from a promenient blog about space issues sponsored by FloridayToday.com would potentially be a strong citation for space-related issues. Rillian 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you thought I was going too deep by my recommended text addition on Chris' page to clarify things? You're scheme of who's who is quite complex. As for the blog comment, I should clarify...I was referring to the use of that blog as a ref on Shane's article. Akradecki 05:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are rules to say who's an astronaut and who's not. Today, it looks a bit like "The FAI defines spaceflight as any flight over 100 kilometres (62 mi) of altitude. In the United States, professional, military, and commercial astronauts who travel above an altitude of 80 kilometres (50 mi) are eligible to purchase astronaut wings." and "Two Commercial Astronaut awards have been made. They are SpaceShipOne pilots Mike Melvill and Brian Binnie."... saying Peter Siebold is an astronaut is like saying all the people who flew the X-15 are astronauts.. please remove this from his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed68 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Peter Siebold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Siebold. 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) 09:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Siebold&oldid=1210371295"