Talk:Explorer 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Related projects: | ||
 |
WikiProject Astronomy | |
 |
WikiProject Physics | |
 |
WikiProject Solar System | |
 |
WikiProject Spaceflight | Importance to Spaceflight: High |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
Explorer 1 is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs. |
Contents |
[edit] Norwegian article
I was reading this and translating this to the norwegian article no:Explorer I and while looking for some more info I found a lot of the text here. How is this to the GFDL?
- Usually writting from the US. governement are public domain. See Wikipedia:Public_domain_resources#US_Government. WARNING: there are exception! -- Cate 10:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Names are contradictory
Names are contradictory. Sometimes it's "Explorer-I" while other NASA sites such as JPL or Goddard call it "Explorer 1" (with an arabic numeral). Short of finding the cover of the NY Times on Feb. 1, 1958 (and comparing it to later coverage that month), it would be hard to pick between these two credible sources. JoelWest 23:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest renaming this article to Explorer 1. Currently all other spacecraft that have double names (e.g. Pioneer V vs. Pioneer 5, Sputnik I vs. Sputnik 1, Mariner II vs. Mariner 2), all use Arabic numerals. For consistency reasons I recommend naming this one Explorer 1. Let me know what you think. Van der Hoorn (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] spinning around the wrong axis
I am suprised there isnt more mentioned about the fact it was designed to rotate about the centreline axis, but instead rotated end over end. I came to this page expecting to find a comment (even a small one) about the design flaw that caused this.
- I've attempted to address this well known fact about the spacecraft. It's mentioned in every advanced classical mechanics course! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Long Island Expressway (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] PBS Nova tv-show
Last night's PBS Nova program Sputnik Declassified offered some interesting perspectives on the early satellite programs. It made such claims as Explorer could have launched a year before Spudnik, von Braun's team worked in secret (building things at home, hiding satellite parts from IG investigators) after they were ordered not to work on satellites, they kept a rocket in storage just in case but claimed it was there for military rocket research, and that Eisenhower may have been glad Spudnik launched first (his real agenda was to establish a principle for free international outer-space to clear the way for his spy satellite program). Once a transcript of the Nova show is posted (a few weeks from now) I shall try to remember to add content to the article. — Eoghanacht talk 14:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nova also claims that Explorer 1 is still in orbit today? 142.167.64.101 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Actually, the statement in the show was about Vanguard 1, the second U.S. satellite launched by the Naval Lab. Explorer is no longer in orbit, but Vanguard is -- although it has not sent any signals since 1964. — Eoghanacht talk 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] possible plagiarism
Large portions of this page appear to be lifted from http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/expinfo.html (or vice-versa... that page says it was last modified on 1/27/05 and the history shows that the identical content was here in 2004, but the way back machine says some was there in 2000: http://web.archive.org/web/20000706222547/http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/expinfo.html )
Maybe most of the sections are short and direct enough that this isn't quite at the level of plagiarism, and is just convergent co-editing, but it's not clear who owns the words. And some is a bit specific and sort of a digression, e.g.
The discovery of the Van Allen Belts by the Explorer satellites was considered to be one of the outstanding discoveries of the International Geophysical Year.
and
was designed and built by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) of the California Institute of Technology under the direction of Dr. William H. Pickering. The satellite instrumentation of Explorer-I was designed and built by Dr. James Van Allen of the State University of Iowa.
were pretty clearly cut-and-pasted.
also, I second the above comment that the failed spin stabilization should be included both here and at the NASA history page.
Montyy0 18:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Todo list
In my opinion the following things need to be done to improve the quality of this article:
Rename the article to 'Explorer 1' for consistency with other satellite articles. I believe this is the only article on spacecraft left using roman numerals.Remove the EST time from the introduction. Launch times always use UTC.Create a proper template for the Explorer program (see other programs for proper templates).Improve the structure of the article (there are for example some sentences in 'Mission results' that definitely belong in 'Spacecraft design' and the other way around).- Include more references and/or rewrite external links so that the information from that link is referenced properly.
Rewrite sentences so they are not just random sentences, but actually follow up on each other.Add more images (there are lots of NASA and USAF images that we can use).- Try to find the data somewhere that Explorer 1 returned. This is probably not an easy one, but is most definitely necessary to get an A rating or higher. Manring (1959) and Dubin (1960) have data from the micrometeorite experiments. [1] is a PDF file with observations of the cosmic ray detector (although it is only volume 4 out of 5).
- Say something more about the backup in the museum (and preferably add a picture)
- Say something about the 50 years anniversary.
Let me know your thoughts. Van der Hoorn (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rename to Explorer 1 poll
- Support - Per reasons provided User:Van der Hoorn above, and because NASA is reasonably consistent regarding this: both JPL and Solar System Exploration websites use the Arabic numeral "1" rather than the Roman "I". (sdsds - talk) 22:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Renamed. Van der Hoorn (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Text from current Mission section
Here is a sentence from the "Mission" section of the current revision of the article:
The Jupiter-C used for the launch had already been flight-tested in nose cone reentry tests for the Jupiter IRBM and was modified into Juno I.
This seems to imply the launch vehicle used for Explorer 1 had flown before, and was being reused for this flight. Is there a reliable source supporting a claim that the Juno I was in any way reusable? Else, perhaps the wording should be:
The Jupiter-C design used for the launch had already been flight-tested....
(sdsds - talk) 05:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct. There were actually 12 Jupiter-Cs built and some of them were used for nose cone reentry tests. See [2] for more details. I put your suggested fix into practice, although the part may be rewritten with the information of the reference. Van der Hoorn (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
