Talk:Space architecture

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Etymology

The section on etymology seems out-of-place and unnecessary, though some of the points such as the discussion of the distinction between "Space Architecture" as the more general or as the more specific form of architecture seem warranted. Can anyone give a good reason not to get rid of most of this section?129.92.250.45 (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I came here to say just this. Let's give it another week to see if anyone responds. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

Completely unsourced. I'm thinking of downgrading this from C to Start-class. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Looks like it still meets the C-Class criteria. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Verne interior.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Verne interior.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Verne interior.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brushes and vacuum

"These dust particles can't be brushed away in a vacuum". Why not? Midgley (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Galactic Ad?

As Much as I'm excited to see Virgin Galactic's private space tourism project take off, the section on this article seems like an ad. 12.203.226.194 (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source/Notability of images

The structural diagrams in the gallery aren't particular, specific designs or approaches - rather they appear to be hobbyist designs by a single person. Are they at all useful for the discussion? 58.6.253.196 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Space architecture. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Space architecture. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

Sorry for using the default (& offputting?) heading from the section's box template but that's about all I can do for now.

From my edit summary:

Removed *blatant* advertising copy (but the section states things as fact that need verifying): "The spaceflight experience offered by Virgin Galactic promises to transform access to space and indeed the very idea of an astronaut."

From the hidden comment of my edit to Space architecture § Virgin Galactic:

This section contains statements phrased as future facts ("SS2 will...") that need rephrasing ("As of [date], SS2 is designed to..." "has been tested to have..." See also Template:As of.) and verification of accuracy. Please consider further condensing this section, especially concerning SS2. If relevant, some Virgin Galactic-centric material directly about space architecture can be added, or the header could be changed. Thank you, Geekdiva (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion under Varieties in Suborbital

Add a paragraph in Suborbital section on architecture that defy gravity and completely liberate itself from the ground. This type can float in the air without crossing the boundary of space and reach orbital speed; a work done by researcher Dr. Georges Kachaamy.

Suggested wording :

For Gravity Defiant Architecture Dr. Georges Kachaamy has been conducting ongoing research and exhibitions of airborne architecture known by Rising Oases that are completely detached from the ground and float in the air.

-Josy-(TM) (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done That is out of scope for this article: Space architecture is the theory and practice of designing and building inhabited environments in outer space.
"Architecture" in this context means the structure of spacecraft, not of buildings, even ones that futuristically float in the air like science fiction. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Space_architecture"