Template talk:Orion spacecraft

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: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, leaning oppose. There's a difference between the program to develop the spacecraft and the spacecraft itself. I feel as though this would be a change in scope that I'm not sure I'm on-board with. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 08:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I've never gotten an impression that "Orion program" was a term used for an actual human spaceflight program, and that it was just a term used for the development of the Orion spacecraft, à la "Space Launch System program". It would be more appropriate to label this template as navbox of articles about the Orion spacecraft, rather than labeling it as some kind of program on the level of ambition and goals as Artemis, for example. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, leaning oppose. The entire program—the strange funding; the multi-decade life of the program; the political origins of the program to essentially re-allocate a bunch of US government annual funding for Space Shuttle to the Orion program; the fact that the funding stayed at US$1 billion+ a year even when the rocket it is supposed to fly on has changed a couple of times over this long period of time, whereas it seems the earlier billions should have got the capsule development project to many of its development milestones so the capsule design and manufacturing process would just be "on the shelf" and ready if the rocket ever flies; the fact that, even today, this capsule only hasfive putative flights in the entire next decade—all are indicative of a much wider scope than the mere Orion spacecraft. That wider scope, the Orion program should be explicated on wiki, and therefore seems the scope of the Orion template should be wider as well. N2e (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : re the OP comment "NASA no longer use the term "Orion program"" , I would just point out that NASA has a marketing arm, and like any entity, wants to reflect their work in a positive light, whether a company, government agency, or non-profit. Wikipedia attempts to be
    neutral and present all points of view. This space program started in the early 2000s, and is slated to continue, and fly only a few times, by the time before 2030. NASA would, rather naturally, want to redirect focus and help us follow their gaze: "see that shiny spacecraft" "it does (is projected to) do cool things" "let me tell you about those cool things" not the (somewhat tawdry) history of the entire program, which may look entirely less shiny. And could embarrass Congress or the various Administrations of the US government who have continued to support it. N2e (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

@N2e: Perhaps you're conflating an "Orion program" with the Journey to Mars program, now known as the Moon to Mars program, the latter of which the Artemis program is seemingly part of. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, Philip. I'm referring to the development program for Orion, a multi-billion dollar, multi-decade, program to (nominally) develop a new/revised space capsule that has been run by the US government to produce this space capsule, and to expend a great deal of money in many (and particular) states with suppliers who do large amounts of business with the US government. That program is so much more than the scope of the particular technology (a space capsule) as it exists at any point in time (like now, late 2010s), or any particular mission like the "Journey to Mars program" or "Artemis". Explication of topics in Wikipedia should not be about mainly the technology of spaceflight and space vehicles, but also about the economics, politics, and rationales for producing such technology, and the historical epochs in which it was/is developed. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

Orion program. If the program itself is not notable enough to be the topic of its own article, why should it be the main topic of a navbox of articles? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support - per PhilipTerryGraham's argument. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with nom and PhilipTerryGraham. While I was initially inclined to oppose on
  WP:CONSISTENT grounds, to agree with a majority (though not all – some use "Mission", etc.) related templates, it appears that the present name is basically a misnomer, or at best a fallacy of confusing "X Program" (a proper name of some program officially called that) with "Y program", a descriptive appellation that is not a proper name and just refers to a bunch of tenuously related development and operation, not a program in the same sense as the Apollo Program, etc. This confusion is likely the very reason that NASA stopped using "Orion program", which they did not consistently use formerly, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.