Talk:OTV-1

Image Update

I've updated the image to a larger, more detailed, and more recent photo as taken by the USAF. Spacegizmo (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is the image black and white —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.105.153.129 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

USA 212

Should that actually be used as the name? As this is a reusable spaceship, the next time it is launched, would it still be USA-212, or some other number? Perhaps it should be used in the mission section instead, for this particular spaceflight? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This article only covers the first X-37B orbital mission, so the next mission does not matter. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've discovered that it might be the other way around. I think OTV-1 might be the name of the spacecraft, and USA-212 the name of the flight. Hence, next time it is launched it will still be OTV-1, but with a higher USA designation (or USA-163, which for some reason is still unassigned). The "OTV-2" mission in between will use the second OTV. I was going to delay moving until it is off the main page, to avoid sending everyone through a redirect. The reference I used for the USA-212 name explains it more clearly. --GW… 07:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The next mission is supposed to use the 2nd X-37B not long after the first one comes back and they inspect it. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I meant the next time this spacecraft is launched (which will probably be the third mission, assuming the programme gets that far, and this one makes it back to Earth in one piece) --GW… 13:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Right, I missed that you mentioned that. Guess I was rushed. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If the mission is USA-212, that would imply that an article about this particular mission should have the same name. OTV-1 appears to be the name of the spacecraft itself. For the Space Shuttle, the analogy would the Program = Space Shuttle, Vehicle = Discovery OV-103, Mission = STS-131, so for this program, Program = X-37B, Vehicle = OTV-1, Mission = USA-212? Rillian (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, so this article should be titled USA-212. It should be an uncontroversial move, but I'm just waiting until it is off the main page. --GW… 12:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It'd be good to have a better source for "US 212" to prevent questions of the move. So far the best I have found are: [1], & [2] -Fnlayson (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

JSR meets the requirements for self-published sources, and is freely available, so it should be used as the primary reference. That said, I suppose the sat-nd reference could be used to back it up. The satcom website seems to be reproducing the sat-nd content. --GW… 13:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The USA series has been used for expendable satellites. It seems a little out of the ordinary to use it for a re-usable vehicle. Are we certain that each X-37B mission will get a USA designation? Of course, if they change the numbering for future X-37B missions, we can always tweak the article names. Isn't Wikipedia great? Cheers Rillian (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, I propose this article stay named X-37B OTV-1 and be about the OTV-1 vehicle and its missions (a la Discovery OV-103). We then create a new article named USA-212 that is about this specific mission (same as an STS mission article) and split the content of this current article between the two. Rillian (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• The vehicle is already covered at Boeing X-37. This article was/is intended to cover its first mission. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, this is about the mission not the spacecraft. If a split occurs, it should be the other way. I doubt if there is currently enough information available about the individual spacecraft to produce articles on them, so I would suggest redirecting OTV-1 (and OTV-2) to the X-37 article for now, and splitting from there when enough information is available. --GW… 19:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's worth merging as well. 71.191.141.192 (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't proposed merging anything. I'm simply saying that there isn't enough information to create a new article, so the existing article should be used for now. --GW… 21:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is no longer on the main page, and there have been no objections to the move in principle, so I'm going to go ahead and implement it. If a split should be required, the relocation of the article shouldn't affect its implementation, merely its direction, which given that the current content of this article relates primarily to the mission not the spacecraft shouldn't be an issue. --GW… 21:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This article could be renamed to something like "X-37 mission 1" if an official name for this mission can not be determined. Just a thought... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already moved it now. USA-212 is definitely the official name, its just a question of finding better references if possible. That said, the ones we have are okay - there's just plenty of room for improvement. The only reason I can see to move it elsewhere would be if next time it is launched, the designation is reused, which I consider unlikely. It should be fine here for now. --GW… 21:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant if the reuse of "US-212" were to happen, a name with "mission 1" is an option. But like you say, it's not a problem now. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Militarization of space link

I am having trouble seeing how a wikilink to militarization of space constitutes a POV problem. This is a military space vehicle whether or not it is itself a weapons system. Jminthorne (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In accordance. It seems apparent there are POV-pushers around here who wish to revert obvious enough facts. Oversight may be needed to prevent any possible edit war if these people are incapable of engaging in discussion, per my request. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just be glad they aren't deleting your posts here. Talk page censorship is a big part of why I stopped contributing to Wikipedia. Too elitist, you know? 71.233.230.223 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Biased Tag

Thought I'd open up communication on this here. After reading the article, I don't see how it is biased. After reading all the articles, it seems quite balanced. --Hourick (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• There isn't a biased tag. The only cleanup tag present is for weasel words — "Some speculators believe", "which is considered", etc. --GW… 22:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is better to point to which sources are saying which things, such as John Public from NASA said that blah blah...

Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the article as biased as the entire article seems to support the idea that this is the beginning of militarization of space or that the X-37 will be used as a weapon.--Craigboy (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Altitude history?

Firstly, have we established that the SeeSat mailing list is a reliable source? The amateur satellite watcher Ted Molczan may be well respected, but this source nevertheless seems questionable..

Secondly, the altitude history seems fishy. It implies that the altitude "jumped" a few times, and was constant at other times. In reality, I'd guess there was a slow decay of the orbit, and these values are the averages? This should be made more clear. It would be better to say the orbit was observed to have certain parameters on a specific date, rather than claiming it over the entire range.. because how accurate are these measurements, really? For good measure, I've added a disputed tag to the table, until these concerns are addressed. thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The table data are stated to be from amateur observations and that is likely all the information that would be available. The source is cited clearly and implies the possibility of inaccuracy. On the second topic, why would the orbit be decaying continuously rather than by intended changes in velocity? Regardless, unless you have a cited reason to tag this as disputed, I do not believe your 'guess' is sufficient justification for the tag. I recommend it be pulled in a day or so without additional posted justification. Jascal (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The changes in altitude are caused by the satellite's orbital maneuvering system. This is typical for later generation reconnaissance satellites. In order to take "a close look", they occasionaly dip quite deep into Earth's atmospheres. The orbit was monitored by a range of observers, and the times & dates of changes in orbital parameters should be quite accurate. Enemenemu (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

An object that small has limited drag at these altitudes and therefore the orbital decay is small. This is not the ISS. As a first approximation, the altitude can be considered as constant between two orbital transfers. At these altitudes, the Hohmann transfers take 45 minutes, a boost and then a second boost after a half-orbit. So nearly instantaneous. Hektor (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand now that the orbit could be constant. But now I'm worried about the two weeks when these amateur skywatchers lost sight of the spaceplane (now referenced in the article).. this gap isn't reflected in the table. In any case, this mailing list isn't a reliable source (unless someone proves otherwise?).. so under Wikipedia's policies this table probably shouldn't be in the article at all. I think we have to stick with reliable sources, especially in cases like this one, where information is scarce. Mlm42 (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you define what constitutes in your eyes a "reliable source"? Do you think that information only gets "reliable" once it has been reported by MSM? Enemenemu (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather than taking my personal opinion, we should be using the generally accepted definition of what a reliable source is. This mailing list falls under the "self-published sources" category, and it says they are "largely not acceptable"; I don't see an immediate reason why this specific mailing list should be an exception. Mlm42 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That guideline also states that "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". I believe that Molczan meets that criteria. --GW… 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm; he might meet criterion, I'm not sure. There is nevertheless reason to doubt the accuracy of the table because of the two-week period when it "disappeared". How can they conclusively know the orbit during this period? Maybe Molczan's table is only his best guess? Maybe there was some intermediate orbit achieved during this two-week period? Maybe it took more than a day to reach the new orbit? These concerns raise serious doubts about the accuracy of this table. Mlm42 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think he's assuming that it didn't manoeuvre during that time, and since it only had a limited amount of fuel and most of the manoeuvres happened some time apart, this seems like a logical assumption, so the rest of the data can still be considered credible. I agree that his assumption has not place in this article, however, so we should find references for time periods when the observers lost track of the spacecraft, and include the gaps in the table. --GW… 19:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've now removed the tag, and added a sentence before the table stating that it was compile by a single amateur skywatcher (Molczan), based on other amateurs' observations. The sources cited (like msnbc's article) use phrases like "[the] space plane apparently boosted itself into a new orbit Aug. 9"; their use of the word "apparently" makes me think we should be careful about reporting these data as facts. But I think my concerns have been addressed, for example with msnbc's article where they report on Molczan explaining a bit about his conclusions; so I've removed the disputed tag.. thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:USSF-52 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)