Talk:6Q0B44E

Untitled

The deletion consideration is a joke, isn't it? This article appeared on the main page, has plenty of sources and therefore isn't in any way a candidate for deletion, I think. The fact, that the deletion-discussion page doesn't exist contributes to my guess that it is a joke. --DocBrown 01:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Appearing on the main page isn't relevant, we can't use Wikipedia as a source. It has 4 sources, 1 of which is a Yahoo group, one is a Harvard page which I agree is reliable, but doesn't seem to source anything other than the trajectory, 1 is a mention in the Guardian, which I assume isn't significant because it's not online and 1 is basically a copy of the Harvard page. As for the deletion discussion not existing, that's because it takes more than 10 seconds to write an AfD, sorry. --Rory096 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No offense. Sure we can't use wikipedia as a source. I thought that it was a sort of vandalism or so, but it isn't(to say that clear!), so I apologize for my harsh words, hope you didn't feel insulted. --DocBrown 02:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please specify the Guardian reference better. Was it an online item or print edition? I don't find it searching http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/ Skylab made an S-IVB booster into a manned orbital lab. What kind of equipment might this object be? Any possibility of making something out of it?Edison 02:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies to all for the lack of Guardian linkage - I did search their website but it appears the Spacewatch columns aren't placed online for some reason. I originally read the article in print form on the date specified. The article itself appeared on the inside back cover, under the weather report, as usual. B44E occupied around 6-8 column inches (not the one line mention posited), and was the sole subject of that issue's Spacewatch. I may still have the article on my desk (or I may have chucked it in the recycling), but unfortunately I'm around 200 miles away from it and won't be going back for another 2 weeks. I wasnt sure about including the Yahoo page, but thought it added an interesting human angle, since its the personal account of one of the discoverers (if that's even a word?). I'll agree it isnt massively reliable, but presumably the MPC will publish some better info and I imagine there will be a journal publication over the coming months.

I was somewhat surprised to see this AFDed though, thanks to all who voted against it. Modest Genius ^talk 18:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

S-IVB adapter panel?

Based on the small size and variable brightness of this object, one candidate would be an adapter panel from an Apollo lunar mission. Four panels joined the Saturn S-IVB upper stage to the Apollo Service Module, enclosing the Lunar Module. The four panels are shown here [[1]] attached to the S-IVB on Apollo 7. This was an earth orbital mission without a lunar module. On lunar missions the panels were were jettisoned to allow access to the lunar module inside.

After panel jettison and the extraction of the lunar module from the S-IVB, the remaining S-IVB propellants put it into solar orbit (Apollos 8,10-12) or on a lunar impact course (Apollos 13-17). Therefore the panels followed trajectories closer to that of the spacecraft than the S-IVB. Although the Saturn Vs put the early Apollo missions on "free return" trajectories back to earth, these were not exact and required small course corrections. So it is quite possible that the adapter panels would swing around the moon, miss the earth and go into either a high earth orbit or solar orbit. Like the Apollo 12 S-IVB it is possible that one of these panels has been recaptured into earth orbit.

There were nine Saturn-V launches to the moon (Apollos 8,10-17) and four panels per launch so there are 36 panels out there if none have hit the earth or the moon.

Another outside possibility is the lunar module ascent stage from Apollo 10. The other lunar module ascent stages either burned up in the earth's atmosphere or crashed into the moon, but Apollo 10 was ejected into a solar orbit. Spectrographic data from this object might distinguish between an adapter panel and a lunar module. Karn (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All very interesting, but unless someone publishes something on this we can't put it in the article. Modest Genius ^talk 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 6Q0B44E. 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/20070927183923/http://home.gwi.net/~pluto/mpecs/6q0b44e.htm to http://home.gwi.net/~pluto/mpecs/6q0b44e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 22:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems fine. Modest Genius ^talk 12:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

XL8D89E

6Q0B44E seems to have been lost in 2007, but recovered in 2018 as XL8D89E. See [2], which unfortunately isn't a WP:RS so I won't incorporate it into the article. Modest Genius ^talk 11:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems to have been confirmed by an ESA source, though it's only a conference proceeding. Nevertheless I've added both sources to the article and adjusted the text accordingly. Modest Genius ^talk 14:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)