Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Manned Orbiting Laboratory

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Manned Orbiting Laboratory

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Manned Orbiting Laboratory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Secret US Air Force project to develop a manned spy satellite. Article has been around sine 2004, but the release of documents in 2015, including an official history, allows its story to be told. Has recently passed a GA review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images appear to be free and correctly licensed. However, I do wonder if the article could be improved by reducing the galleries a bit by removing a few images. For instance, it's not obvious to me whether the reader's understanding is improved by the picture of the heat shield. (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The major difference between the Gemini and its Air Force twin Gemini B is the hatch in the heat shield. Its mentioned five times in the article. Testing it was the reason for the test flight. I thought the readers might be curious as to what it looked like. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine

[edit]

Looks very interesting, will read and comment here over the following days. Constantine ✍ 20:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • but concerns were raised as to whether permission to land in Brazil would be forthcoming why is this relevant here?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity, how plausible was to expect anyone to overlook the project's military purpose when the POTUS announces an orbital facility run by USAF instead of NASA? Put another way, what was the public justification (including to Congress) for a parallel space programme, given the already enormous costs of NASA? This is sort-of mentioned in the article when dealing with its delays and eventual cancellation, and the "concerns about how the MOL was viewed by the international community" are hinted at, but perhaps it should be explicitly stated.
    In the early days of the space program, the distinction between military and civil uses of space were uncertain and unclear: communications, weather, geodesy and global positioning all had military as well as civil uses, and the military had all the resources in terms of rockets, development and launch facilities, and trained scientific and technical personnel. That NASA picked up the manned space program was something of a quirk of fate. Debate in Congress is discussed in the Launch complex section. I have added a couple of extra paragraphs to the "Public responses" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gen. Schriever's photo is the first image in the main article, but he is first mentioned in the text further down. I'd recommend adding to the caption an explanation that informs the reader at a glance of his connection/importance to the MOL program. Ditto for Bleymaier.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this is really an outstanding article, that deals with the subject in a comprehensive way. Given its length and complexity, I will do another couple of read-throughs, but I don't think there are any major obstacles to supporting. Constantine ✍ 09:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed a re-read, and these are my final concerns:

  • Mayo argued that the resolution provided by Gambit 3, and proposed something is missing here
    Added "was adequate". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • advice to fly the first mission manned was a mistake but the first mission was flown unmanned? The gist in this section seems to be that they should have flown manned, which then would have prevented cancellation, but this doesn't fit. Is something missing?
    Good point. I think by "empty can" he still meant a crewed mission, but without the optics. reworded this paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still the "Although" which doesn't quite make sense. Constantine ✍ 11:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The file with the caption "The MOL program used state-of-the-art computers for design and simulation" appears somewhat unconnected to the section it is placed in. I'd also suggest adding a reference to the caption itself, since this is an assertion that requires attribution.

Otherwise I really cannot find anything to complain about... Constantine ✍ 19:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No further comments, switching to support. Constantine ✍ 19:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ykraps

[edit]

Not my area of expertise but looks like it's in danger of being overlooked, which would be a shame. Here goes...--Ykraps (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "Astronauts selected for the program were later told of the secret reconnaissance mission". I feel I'm missing something here. What secret reconnaissance mission?
    checkY Mission is used in a different sense here. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nicely done. Much clearer.

Infobox:

  • Infers it spent 40 days in orbit but from what I can gather from the lead, it was cancelled before it went into space. Am I missing something?
    checkY refers to how long it was designed to spend. removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • "In July 1957.... .....telescopes and other observation devices". I'm having trouble understanding this sentence. Can you check for typos, omissions etc?
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I think I understand now. It looks like 'the employment of space vehicles' was the title of the paper. I think it's much better to leave it out altogether, as you have done, but if you really wanted to keep it, you could capitalise the initials and put in quotation marks or italics. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. Assuming it is a title of course.

Planning:

  • What's a shirt-sleeve environment?
    A shirt-sleeve environment is one where you don't need to wear a spacesuit. Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Missed that too. Although I could probably have worked it out if I'd thought about it a bit more.
  • The flight schedule at the end of this section; is it a proposed flight schedule or did some of it actually occur? I notice that bullet point 3 says, "would have". Can we make it equally clear which bits did not happen? Or, if none of it went ahead, you could just label it "proposed schedule", or similar.
    checkY "Schedule" doesn't mean anything happened; but added "planned". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    wikt:schedule: "A procedural plan, usually but not necessarily tabular in nature, indicating a sequence of operations and the planned times at which those operations are to occur." I considered adding "planned", but another Wikipedian would likely remove it as a tautology. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modules:

Gallery:

Spacesuits:

Astronauts:

  • "When it came to selecting astronauts for MOL, the commandant of the ARPS, Schriever took the advice of Colonel Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager, the commandant of the ARPS, and restricted selection to ARPS graduates". I'm a little bit confused here by the apparent repetition of "the commandant of the ARPS". Is this sentence correct?
    checkY Ack! Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To prevent their return to the Navy, Finley and Truly stayed at ARPS as instructors until the announcement". I Don't quite understand why they would be required to return to the Navy. Also, would this sentence be better after the list, when Finley and Truly have been introduced as MOL pilots and linked to their articles.
    checkY because they were Navy officers. The navy expects its officers to sail ships and fly airplanes and the other stuff sailors do. They were at ARPS on a training course.
    I assumed they had been released from their normal duties.

More to come.--Ykraps (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Training:


Cancellation:

Legacy:

That's all folks! --Ykraps (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

This one's been waiting over a month, so I'll get to this later today. Hog Farm Bacon 17:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to discuss any and all of these points.

Experienced nominator, so no source checks done. Hog Farm Bacon 19:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll give this one a look, although it may take me a bit because of the article's length. Hog Farm Bacon 02:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm! It only needs one more review and can then be closed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comparing these to JennyOz's, so there may be some duplicate comments.

Lead
Background
  • "(equivalent to $367 million in 2018)" - Are the proper inflation tables for 2019 out there to give the updated number? This applies throughout the article.
    checkY Well, yes. Did you know how to update it? Me neither, but I have done it. Note that the economics wonks insist that the GDP be used as the deflator for military research projects rather than CPI. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "followed by its first piloted orbital flight in April 1966,[15][16] In a 22 February memorandum to the Secretary of the Air Force," - Looks like the comma after 1966 should be a period
    checkY Yup. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and the initiation the MOL program." - Something is off here
    checkY Added "of". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Planning
Astronauts

Through the astronauts section. More to come later. Hog Farm Bacon 14:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Launch complex
Easter Island
  • "Like the NASA Gemini, the Gemini B spacecraft would splashdown in the Atlantic or Pacific oceans. In the event of an abort, it could have come down in the eastern Pacific Ocean" - The use of have in the second sentence changes the tense a bit. Unless it changes your meaning, I'd say remove the word.
    checkY Tweaked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and cost increases
Cancellation
  • "They thought the meeting went well, but Nixon accepted the Bureau of the Budget's recommendation to cancel the MOL and proceed with Hexagon instead" - But I thought Hexagon had been cancelled the month before?
    checkY Yes. Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy

I do think that's it. Good work on a complex subject. Hog Farm Bacon 20:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Mztourist

[edit]

Perhaps I'm missing it but its unclear to me what happened to the Laboratory Module after the Gemini B left it? Did it reenter the atmosphere or did it remain in orbit? The lede describes the MOL as "a single-use laboratory" but doesn't seem to given any further explanation. Mztourist (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The MOL mockup went into a 305 x 209 km orbit. It released three OV4 satellites into low Earth orbit, and conducted some experiments. It reentered the atmosphere on 9 January 1967. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page should explain how the Laboratory Modules would be disposed of. I initially thought that the Laboratory Module could be revisited, like Skylab. Mztourist (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Added a bit more about this, explicitly stating that this was not so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye, was going to make a couple of tweaks yesterday but saw was under review so .... two birds, one stone.

That's it. Pls let me know if you need any clarifications of my short notes. JennyOz (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • for the MOL Contracts that were terminated - now decap Contracts?

Nothing more, I am happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory&oldid=979684944"