Talk:Future of space exploration

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tigbergamaschi, Helpmechooseusername.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 24 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Annashott.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

New contribution proposal

Hello, a group of students in my class would like to contribute a section about the current industry shift towards efficient space travel. I think it would go best in this article given it is future looking, however we will be writing about current developments from SpaceX, Boeing, etc. If you think this information belongs in a different article please let me know. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annashott (talk • contribs) 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Does this article belong into an encyclopedia?

While the article is well researched and sourced, I am slightly surprised of finding it here. How can an article about future events be encyclopedic? How does this article not violate Wikipedia:NOTFUTURE? --Arbraxan (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to see this article re-formatted into something like 'list of planned space missions'. The content is fine, could just be better organised. NiKChE (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that sections about future events are against Wikipedia's standards as long as such presumptions, forecasts, etc. are stated as quotes of the reliable people. An encyclopedia doesn't tell you "that might prolly happen", it should rather claim "that important person, on the basis of these previous facts, says that might happen". So I wouldn't suggest a straight-up deletion. Pingijno (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

Hi fellow editors, I hope to include this brief article in Future of space exploration.

Thank you.

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Future of space exploration Disruptive forces change or affect the nature of space exploration. Researchers design experiments in a different way due to scientific and technological innovations. They tackle more complicated issues related to space colonization, data, and discoveries. Private corporations have been for some time working on projects because of the evolution in economy as well as industry funding models. The government used to take the lead in these initiatives. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/our-insights/perspectives-on-the-future-of-space-exploration Jeffrey Hoffman, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and former astronaut at the NASA from 1978 to 1997, revealed that novel research practices and technologies are radically transforming space missions as well as manned missions to the planet Mars. https://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/people/dr-jeffrey-hoffman-bio.aspx Hoffman is part of the MOXIE or Mars Oxygen In-Situ Resource Utilization Experiment as deputy principal investigator. It is scheduled to go to Mars (2020 Rover), launch in July 2020, and reach mars in February 2021. https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/instruments/moxie/ MOXIE refers to the exploration technology investigation that will produce oxygen coming from atmospheric carbon dioxide in Mars. https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/6490/mars-oxygen-isru-experiment-instrument-for-mars-2020-rover-is-moxie/ The Mars 2020 Rover of Mars will probe the Red Planet and look for evidence of past life on Mars. Likewise, it is aimed at laying foundations for future human exploration of Mars. https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/nasa/nasa-mars-2020-rover-produce-oxygen-red-planet/ According to Hoffman, they will use an instrument as big as a shoe box to pump and compress Martian atmosphere up to roughly the Earth’s atmospheric pressure. This will feed the pressure into an electrolysis unit to nearly 100% pure oxygen. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/our-insights/perspectives-on-the-future-of-space-exploration

• The first paragraph is a clear copyright violation. MOXIE already has an article of its own and your suggested material is already fully covered there. Andyjsmith (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Future of space exploration

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Future of space exploration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "afterJune2020":

• From Orion (spacecraft): "NASA administrator on recent personnel shakeup: 'There's no turmoil at all'". 12 July 2019.
• From Artemis program: "NASA administrator on recent personnel shakeup: 'There's no turmoil at all'". 12 July 2019.
• From Artemis 1: Grush, Loren (12 July 2019). "NASA administrator on recent personnel shakeup: 'There's no turmoil at all'". The Verge. Retrieved 25 July 2019.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Future of space exploration

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Future of space exploration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nsf20170929":

• From SpaceX Starship: Chris Gebhardt (29 September 2017). "The Moon, Mars, & around the Earth – Musk updates BFR architecture, plans". Retrieved 30 March 2019.
• From BFR (rocket): Chris Gebhardt (29 September 2017). "The Moon, Mars, & around the Earth – Musk updates BFR architecture, plans". NASASpaceflight.com. Archived from the original on 1 October 2017. Retrieved 2 October 2017. In a move that would have seemed crazy a few years ago, Mr. Musk stated that the goal of BFR is to make the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy rockets and their crew/uncrewed Dragon spacecrafts redundant, thereby allowing the company to shift all resources and funding allocations from those vehicles to BFR. Making the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon redundant would also allow BFR to perform the same Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Beyond LEO satellite deployment missions as Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy – just on a more economical scale as multiple satellites would be able to launch at the same time and on the same rocket thanks to BFR's immense size.

Reference named "CNET Harwood first":

• From Mars 2020: Harwood, William (4 December 2012). "NASA announces plans for new $1.5 billion Mars rover". CNET. Retrieved 5 December 2012. Using spare parts and mission plans developed for NASA's Curiosity Mars rover, Ronnie Pickering says it can launch the rover in 2020 and stay within current budget guidelines.
• From Curiosity (rover): Harwood, William (December 4, 2012). "NASA announces plans for new $1.5 billion Mars rover". CNET. Retrieved December 5, 2012. Using spare parts and mission plans developed for NASA's Curiosity Mars rover, the space agency says it can build and launch a new rover in 2020 and stay within current budget guidelines.

Reference named "RS_20190718":

• From Indian Space Research Organisation: Jatiya, Satyanarayan (18 July 2019). "Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2955" (PDF). Archived from the original on 30 August 2019. Retrieved 30 August 2019.
• From Mars Orbiter Mission 2: Jatiya, Satyanarayan (18 July 2019). "Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2955" (PDF). Archived from the original on 30 August 2019. Retrieved 30 August 2019.

Reference named "CCtCapBlogAnnounce":

• From NASA: Bolden, Charlie. "American Companies Selected to Return Astronaut Launches to American Soil". NASA.gov. Archived from the original on September 16, 2014. Retrieved September 16, 2014.
• From Commercial Crew Development: Bolden, Charlie. "American Companies Selected to Return Astronaut Launches to American Soil". NASA.gov. Retrieved September 16, 2014.

Reference named "NYT-20181203":

• From OSIRIS-REx: Chang, Kenneth (3 December 2018). "NASA's Osiris-Rex Arrives at Asteroid Bennu After a Two-Year Journey". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 December 2018.
• From 101955 Bennu: Chang, Kenneth (December 3, 2018). "NASA's Osiris-Rex Arrives at Asteroid Bennu After a Two-Year Journey — The spacecraft now begins a close study of the primitive space rock, seeking clues to the early solar system". The New York Times. Retrieved December 3, 2018.

Reference named "Moskowitz":

• From Silicon: Moskowitz, Sanford L. (2016). Advanced Materials Innovation: Managing Global Technology in the 21st century. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 165–167. ISBN 9780470508923.
• From Mars 2020: Moskowitz, Clara (5 February 2013). "Scientists Offer Wary Support for NASA's New Mars Rover". Space.com. Retrieved 5 February 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Future of space exploration → Planned Space Exploration Projects – To bring into line with an encyclopedia entry, may need to be split, 1. exploration, 2 earth bound telescopes etc, needs lots of clean up, I note many "regular" editors on this are banned or long-term inactive 121.99.108.78 (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed rename is against WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, but even if that were rectified, the suggested name does not match the scope of the article or the facts in its content, and it arguably fails WP:CONCISE (and even WP:RECOGNIZABLE in that it's not a string many people would ever search for specifically). The article covers more than "projects" but also missions and proposals, and some of the proposals are not "planned" but simply ideas being explored and refined (and that refinement will continue, including to rejection of some ideas that are nevertheless worth covering as part of the overall topic). There's also a latent WP:NOT#CRYSTAL problem in this title idea; it's not WP's job to make up its own collective mind what really qualifies as "planned" versus what may remain at a Gedankenexperiment phase for the foreseeable future. It's really up to independent reliable sources to tell us what status/stage these things are at and which are attracting enough coverage, funding, and other public attention to be encyclopedic, without WP trying to predict which ones are practical "projects". We do not need to do something like split (or do triage) on the basis of whether something is a "project" or not, but that might be an inevitable result of a rename like this. As to the explicitly proposed split, RM isn't really the process for such a discussion in most cases. The lead's scope is plenty clear, though: "The future of space exploration involves both telescopic exploration and the physical exploration of space by unmanned robotic space probes and human spaceflight." That's really three closely related topics, from one way of looking at it, but are all aspects of a single topic from a broader view. It's unlikely that divvying them up is going to produce better encyclopedic output. I think that at most, this article could result in more specific WP:SPINOUT articles on those three areas (if this has not happened already) and remain a WP:SUMMARY-style overview. As someone interested in the topic, I find the present approach very useful, compared to having to wade through independent pieces on manned, unmanned, and telescopic exploration and then have to do my own complex mental synthesis to arrive at what I hope is an actual understanding of what's happening, what's proposed, and how they all inter-relate.
  [Aside: It's (finally!) a fast-moving area again, after humanity basically just dropped the ball from the early 1970s onward and did little but screw around for mostly commercial purposes in Earth orbit, and send out a few narrow-purpose, one-shot probes. If you're younger than my age bracket, you may not understand how exisitentially frustrating and disappointing it is that most of a lifetime has gone by since the Apollo era without anything being done to establish footholds on the Moon and Mars, send manned missions to the Asteroid Belt (all for resources and for colonization, not just science), build truly massive stations in orbit for the in-space construction of larger vessels, etc. Everyone over about 50 expected, when we were kids, that all of that stuff would have happened by now and that it was important for it to do so. I think this is a more important article than average, and specifically because it is a sweeping overview, not a micro-topical "drill down", about progress toward getting us and life as we know it off of just one lone mudball on which we'll go extinct soon enough if we don't branch out. In a sense, it's a bit like Internet and Freedom of expression (but even more important in the very-long run), in that WP and its entire purpose would ultimately be pointless without them and their continued development as aspects of the real world that we're writing about. No one would be able to use "the sum of all knowledge" with no way to access it, no ability to share it and verify it, or no resources or environment to continue as a species able to use it. Heh.]
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The proposed title (NCCAPS/CAPS compliance notwithstanding) is not consistent with the scope of the article content as currently written. CThomas³ (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.