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
OK, I fixed this link. This particular problem is not related to the NASA lockdown (see below). This link pointed to a copy kept by an enthusiast (in Australia), and he re-arranged his site. His copy is perfectly legal since the report is not copyrighted. I relocated the document on his site, and pointed the link to it. A more natural approach, and normally more stable, would be to point to a US Government copy, not a personal copy which could disappear at any time. But in this case it's the government copy that is subject to the knee-jerk whims of the site administrators. LouScheffer (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NASA potentially let some classified information get into their database of publicly available reports, and have taken the database down while they get it sorted out. See here. A permanent home for this report is likely at [1]; but not likely to be available for an unspecified time. TJRC (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an amazingly stupid mis-reaction. This stuff has been on-line for a decade; surely the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans, etc. already have copies. In fact now they are the *only* people with copies. I saw yesterday that the TESS mission has been approved to tune of $200M. When I went to find out where my taxpayer money was going, the only technical description is on NTRS, and shut down. So I can't find out where my money's going, but the Russians and Chinese can. LouScheffer (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia is looking at taking over or help support an existing project, WebCite, that makes permanent copies of things that are linked to. This would solve this particular problem. LouScheffer (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the current title violates the style guideline; I think it should be moved to Unified S-band. (Is it supposed to be an acronym for USB? In that case, should the hyphen be there?No, that doesn't make any sense at all; USB is something else entirely.) JustinTime55 (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
