User talk:Sdsds

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

(— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 21:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
108		Randolph, Massachusetts (talk)	Add sources
4		Zhen Luan (talk)	Add sources
10		J-I (talk)	Add sources
192		Fender Mustang (talk)	Add sources
97		Orbital maneuver (talk)	Add sources
64		Kosi Kalan (talk)	Add sources
123		Uncrewed spacecraft (talk)	Cleanup
8		Space Island Group (talk)	Cleanup
618		JAXA (talk)	Cleanup
2,458		Artemis program (talk)	Expand
57		Masten Space Systems (talk)	Expand
796		Artemis 1 (talk)	Expand
524		Atmospheric entry (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
313		Spaceflight (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
7,826		Starlink (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
22		Cotechino Modena (talk)	Merge
7		Mariage (talk)	Merge
18		Don Francisco Presenta (talk)	Merge
1,756		Lettergate (talk)	Wikify
45		Hakuto (talk)	Wikify
1,304		Scramjet (talk)	Wikify
6		Aziz Hamid Madni (talk)	Orphan
2		Bare Naked Beer (talk)	Orphan
3		Anatoly Shteiger (talk)	Orphan
7		Windycon (talk)	Stub
82		Ronnie O'Sullivan: The Edge of Everything (talk)	Stub
759		International cricket in 2024 (talk)	Stub
20		Surveyor 4 (talk)	Stub
20		Luna 4 (talk)	Stub
14		Prospector (spacecraft) (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: IM-1 Makes History by Igniting Cryogenic Engine in Deep Space, just in case you might be in need of any "light bedtime reading material." Thanks for putting up with all of my many shortcomings here. I may not be the best editor in Wikipedia but I do try! Good working with you my friend!!

Lighthumormonger (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Nice talk page.

Good find! this part in particular:

• "Nova-C is the first spacecraft in history to use cryogenic propellants for a multi-day flight, let alone an interplanetary mission. It therefore represents a major advance in the state of the art for cryofluid management, which is an enabling technology"

Thanks for mentioning the article here. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 07:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed that IM changed the wording of their claim significantly after we refused to "verify" their initial claim so to speak. I honestly think that they were so focused on their own development program that they completely overlooked the fact that the Chinese had used methalox in space last year! I honestly think that probably someone at IM read our article and realized that we (you) had retracted our endorsement of their claim and that they had better reword their claim so that it would not be in conflict with the legitimate Chinese claim. What do you think about that?
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I agree with you entirely that we certainly do not want to inadvertently foster another space-race with military undertones. A space race that is on its face a race between commercial entities and not between nations is an entirely different beastie, which is what I think we will do best to foster at Wikipedia. Thank you for your good insights and forethought on this point.

PPS: I agree also that the "reworded claim" as you have pointed out above, is now suitable to go into the article. If you could please add that in, or if you don't do it by the time of their landing, I will do it myself, if that's OK with you. Thanks again, Lighthumormonger (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sdsds!

• The
  New Pages Patrol
  is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read
  project talk page
  with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider
  applying here
  .

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it looks like IM decided they needed an extra two hours to crunch the numbers before they could properly set their lander down on the Moon, so they decided to take one extra spin around the "old cheeseball," to give themselves the extra time they needed just to make their calculations. They just bumped out their ETA on the Moon by exactly 2 hours. As a result of this, I just found out a very interesting factoid. Did you know that when orbiting any rocky planet, that the orbital period of a low orbit always averages out to about two hours, regardless of the planet's size? Any thoughts about IM's decision to give themselves two more hours?
Lighthumormonger (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until I at least know whether or not this mission has done anything more than just landed, I am not going to write a single word in the IM-1 article. Apparently the mission is currently having some fairly serious communication problems, as they have shut down their newsfeed now for 4 hours with no new news at all. I certainly hope that they figure this one out, but if they don't I think it might completely change the content and tone of both articles. Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good news. I just found this at Twitter/X from IM: "After troubleshooting communications, flight controllers have confirmed Odysseus is upright and starting to send data. Right now, we are working to downlink the first images from the lunar surface." Will put it in the article. Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there is some kind of a communication issue with Odysseus, or else we would've gotten an image back by now approximately six hours after the landing. The fact that Odysseus is upright may have been deduced only because of the fact that there is an antenna that can still reach back to earth, and no more qualified data than that simple deduction. It is quite possible that the IM staff is totally maxed out at this point after all of the tension that has been building up to the landing, and just needs a few hours to recuperate before they can tackle this next problem, who knows?
Lighthumormonger (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdsds,
There is an ongoing NASA/I am news conference going on right now on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwm_9OEL-68. Thought you might want to know. Now that the bulk of the stuff for the Odysseus lander is on a different page, I'm going to bow out for a while. Good working with you.
Lighthumormonger (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of good info in that news conference. Thanks for your efforts to date! (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:IM-1 spacecraft separation, Feb 2024.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]