Contents

Talk:2011 in spaceflight

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2011 in spaceflight 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

	2011 in spaceflight is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 2, 2012 Featured list candidate Not promoted

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight: Timeline of spaceflight High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the timeline of spaceflight working group.

Since sts-133 was delayed to 2011, this paragraph no longer has place in 2010 in spaceflight. I'm copying it here in case somebody wants to add an introduction in 2011 similar to the one existing in 2010. RubenGarciaHernandez (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle Discovery will launch on 17 December to begin STS-133, its final mission. It will deliver the Leonardo module, a former MPLM, which was converted to become the Permanent Multipurpose Module, and an EXPRESS Logistics Carrier to the ISS. STS-133 was to be followed by Endeavour flying STS-134, which will be the final flight of the Space Shuttle, but due to schedule slips, that mission was delayed to February 2011 along with the retirement of the Space Shuttle.

Surely HIIB (15:29 JST) should be listed before Delta 4H (21:08 UT) on Thursday? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe you are correct, I've re-ordered the list. Don't be afraid to be bold and correct anything you think is a mistake. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with the Zenit version naming scheme, but there is some confusion with the names. The article says Zenit-3F, while:

• This source says the launcher was Zenit-2SB
• This says it was Zenit-3SB and
• This says it was Zenith-2SB/Fregat-SB.

My guess is that Zenit-2SB would be the best choice. I don't see Zenit-3F mentioned in any sources. Nanobear (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Zenit-2SB refers to the first two stages. Zenith-2SB/Fregat-SB is more accurate than the other two, but it is a mistranslation. Zenit-3SB is just plain wrong. This and this use 3F. If you look at any picture of the launch, Zenit-3F is written in very large Cyrillic letters (Зенит-3Ф) on the side of the rocket. --GW… 23:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the type and rocket family summary tables are more confusing than they are informative. They are also full of original research. For example, the type of Rokot is said to be UR-100, while "type" of Taurus XL is just Taurus. Rokot is very different from the UR-100 missile (only the 2 first stages have been derived from the SS-19.) By the same logic, why don't we list the "type" of Taurus XL as LGM-118 Peacekeeper, since the first stage is the same? Also, does the industry really consider both Rokot and Proton-M part of a (supposed) Universal Rocket "family"? What is the source this, or this just original research? In fact, where are the cites for any of these type/launch family associations? For example, in last year's table Shavit was listed as belonging to the Jericho "family", yet the Shavit article only says that it is based on the Jericho II, but says nothing about the existence of a presumed "Jericho rocket family". Also, what's the definition of a "family" or is just a term invented by Wikipedia editors? As you can see, these tables are full of pitfalls and I'd like to propose removing them unless refs are provided for each these "type" and "family" associations. Nanobear (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I did alter it to, IMO, make a bit more sense with regard to the types and their histories but it was mostly reverted. I couldn't be bothered to argue the point at the time. For a start the Energia "family" one sticks out like a sore thumb, I seriously don't think that represents a common viewpoint. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are available, I will endeavour to track some down. In the meantime, I would suggest that this discussion be moved to WT:TLS since this affects almost all pages within the scope of the working group. --GW… 20:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the payload fall back to earth after not reaching orbit? Why do the payloads have a status of "in orbit"? user:mnw2000 01:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears just a template parameter had been incorrectly typed, fixed. ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second Russian spacewalk of 2011 is listed as having done nothing. Both US spacewalks are listed as having done the same things. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, I just moved the 'next' Soyuz launch to its correct launch date of 7 May, and realised just how out of date the article already is; for instance, the Compass launches are still listed under February, and just compare the Russian launches with the latest list here. I don't want to fiddle around with the table too much for fear of breaking it, but it BADLY needs an update run. This is also making it difficult to keep Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch up to date. Colds7ream (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Kavoshgar-4 seems to be missing as well.^[1]RubenGarciaHernandez (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC) The TEXUS49 from 29 march is also missing.^[2]RubenGarciaHernandez (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC). Rassad 1 also missing. I'll try to add it when I have time^[3]RubenGarciaHernandez (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Iran's Rasad 1 to June. I did not found launch time nor confirmation of launch success from non irianian sources. I also didn't updated anything in Orbital launch summary. Tom Paine (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!. I think SJ-11-03 is missing^[4]RubenGarciaHernandez (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acutually, it is on a escape course to Jupiter, so should we have another category called "In Escape Trajectory"? user:mnw2000 21:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally it's called "en route". --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sounds accurate. How does one make this change? It is not an obvious edit. user:mnw2000 14:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is in heliocentric orbit at the moment, so "in orbit" is correct, as it is with other spacecraft orbiting the Sun but not a planet. --GW… 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should have an "in orbit" for spacecraft in orbit around Earth, "en route" for spacecraft that left Earth orbit en route to another planetary body, "in distant orbit" for spacecraft that is in orbit around a planetary body other than Earth and "Landed" for spacecraft that have landed on a planetary body other than Earth and still operational. Wouldn't this be more accurate? user:mnw2000 23:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The column only needs to indicate that it is still in space. The other fields take care of the spacecraft's location and current status. --GW… 06:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So "in orbit" really means "in space". Since any craft in space is basically in orbit around something, then it is accurate. Got it. Thanks. user:mnw2000 13:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Falcon HTV-2 launch of 8/11 not on this list. I know it is not an orbital flight, but it is using a rocket to deliver the payload (HTV-2). And we have had sub-orbital flights listed before. user:mnw2000 13:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should test flights such as that of the Blue Origin's New Shepard SSTO be cited in this article? It was a planned sub-orbital flight, but this article has included such flights before. Reference to these flight can be found here:

• First test flight: 13 November 2006, 06:30 (Goddard)^[1]
• Second test flight: 22 March 2007 (Goddard)^[2]
• Third test flight: 19 April 2007 (Goddard)^[3]
• Fourth test flight: 06 May 2011 (New Shepard propulsion module (PM2))^[4]
• Fifth test flight: 24 August 2011 (PM2, failure, loss of vehicle)^[5]

user:mnw2000 13:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which Flag should be next to Airanespace in this article. Seems like it is the French Flag, but isn't this a pan European Agency? Shouldn't it be the EU flag? (The location of the launches is on French territory, but that is another section of the matrix.) user:mnw2000 16:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't confuse Arianespace, EADS and ESA. Arianespace, the company which conducts the launches, is French. --GW… 18:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some info about Fobos Grunt should be added to the intro paragraph. Even though it failed, it did mark the return of the Russians to interplanetary exploration after a long hiatus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.252.126 (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first year in which the number of Chinese launches exceeded those of the US (source: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1112/01longmarch/). This could be considered a significant development and IMO something about this should be added to the intro paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.252.126 (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right that these four flights hasn't took place? If so, when are they currently scheduled?

December[1]	Nike-Improved Orion			Esrange		EuroLaunch
		MAPHEUS-3	DLR	Suborbital	Microgravity
December	Terrier-Improved Malmute			WFF		NASA
			NASA	Planned: Suborbital	Test flight
TBD	VSB-30			Esrange		EuroLaunch
		MASER-12	SSC	Suborbital	Microgravity
TBD	VS-40			Andøya		Andøya
		SHEFEX II	DLR	Suborbital	Technology

Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of them have launched. The Terrier-Malmute is scheduled for launch this month,[1] MASER is now scheduled for February,[2] SHEFEX is scheduled for March.[3] MAPHEUS hasn't been rescheduled yet. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 18:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thank you! I have accidentally deleted several planned sub-orbital launches that slipped into various times in 2012 some time ago. They are now in the dump. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now nominated this article to be a Featured List. Any comments/suggestions would be most welcome. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like voyager 1 which already leave solar system...124.83.59.68 (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2011 in spaceflight. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130223651/http://www.russianspaceweb.com:80/elektro.htmltohttp://www.russianspaceweb.com/elektro.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rian.ru/defense_safety/20110201/329151467.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120602032208/http://www.vandenberg.af.mil:80/news/story.asp?id=123304066tohttp://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123304066
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/files/BlueBook.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/files/BlueBook.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2011 in spaceflight. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.russianspaceweb.com/elektro.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rian.ru/defense_safety/20110201/329151467.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526025425/http://www.russianspaceweb.com/meridian.htmltohttp://www.russianspaceweb.com/meridian.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/files/BlueBook.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/files/BlueBook.pdf

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) 13:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 in spaceflight. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330025610/http://www.mda.mil/news/11news0007.htmltohttp://www.mda.mil/news/11news0007.html

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) 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 in spaceflight. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219054151/http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123241482tohttp://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123241482
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015194731/http://roscosmos.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=12006tohttp://www.roscosmos.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=12006

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) 15:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]