Difference between revisions of "Talk:ISS into the Pacific"

From Lunarpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Might not yet be to expect much from controversial questions here)
(Oh, and this might be helpful)
Line 30: Line 30:
  
 
::It may be too early in Lunarpedia's development for the controversial question concept to take off.  Most of our contributors are too busy trying to create new content to make Lunarpedia a major attraction to stop and think of such subtleties at this time.  As it stands, Mike and I don't even really have time to even write many articles, as we're too busy with top level maintenance and administrative stuff -- and that was bad enough ''before'' the wiki project got multiplied by a factor of five... -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::It may be too early in Lunarpedia's development for the controversial question concept to take off.  Most of our contributors are too busy trying to create new content to make Lunarpedia a major attraction to stop and think of such subtleties at this time.  As it stands, Mike and I don't even really have time to even write many articles, as we're too busy with top level maintenance and administrative stuff -- and that was bad enough ''before'' the wiki project got multiplied by a factor of five... -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 +
 +
 +
::It could be helpful to create a tag template for your controversial question series to clarify the purpose of them so that people aren't looking at them hoping to get something from them that they aren't meant to provide. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:52, 30 April 2007

Not yet:

The great successes of the ISS, and there were many, were mostly about international politics and the dissolution of the USSR. We need to do a very large and public analysis of the contribution and weakness of the ISS program to generate the critical lessons learned we need for a large back to the Moon program.

Only after such a study is made, should we decide the fate of the ISS.

The ISS also shows us how a bad name can kill a program.

--Jriley 04:37, 10 March 2007 (PST)


This article yields no information about the moon, and from a technical standpoint, its assertion that the ISS is in the wrong orbit for access to the moon is just plain silly. It appears to be motivated by purely political intent, which again means it has no place in the Lunarpedia unless you want to open a section on Idiotic Political Smoke Screens.

Recommend deleting it.

-- Greg


The purpose of this article, and a number of simular entries, was to start a discussion to provide incite into what gets people hot about space. This approach is detailed in Show Stoppers and the Purposes List.
Had a technical person wished to defend the ISS, then they could provide technical information on the use of the ISS as a safety station on the way to the Moon and exactly what this would mean to launch windows. No such defender has come forth.
So far the input on nearly all of these articles has been extremely low. All these articles have demonstrated so far is how increasable low interest is in returning to the Moon and how much work we have ahead of us.
This type of article belongs on Lunarpedia if, and only if, one of Lunarpedia's purposes is to make returning to the Moon happen. That is to be an active tool.
--Jriley 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


It may be too early in Lunarpedia's development for the controversial question concept to take off. Most of our contributors are too busy trying to create new content to make Lunarpedia a major attraction to stop and think of such subtleties at this time. As it stands, Mike and I don't even really have time to even write many articles, as we're too busy with top level maintenance and administrative stuff -- and that was bad enough before the wiki project got multiplied by a factor of five... -- Strangelv 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


It could be helpful to create a tag template for your controversial question series to clarify the purpose of them so that people aren't looking at them hoping to get something from them that they aren't meant to provide. -- Strangelv 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)