Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Untitled

Props for creating this already historic page! --Quyxz (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Payload: a car

1) The spacecraft carries a payload, which is a Tesla car. The car is Not the spacecraft or "a" spacecraft.
2) It is unclear if the spacecraft will perform an orbit insertion burn which needs a lot of fuel, or aerobreaking. Musk stated the spacecraft will be drifting in space for ever, which may mean a Mars flyby, and heliocentric orbit, etc. Let's wait for the stunt plans to be refined and ran by the SpaceX engineers.
3) It may be a joke: Elon Musk told us he was sending a car to space, then said he totally made it up.

In my opinion, he will not risk launching such a heavy payload that has not been tested for integrity by vibration testing and G forces. He will not risk a Heavy Falcon with a space oddity payload. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • This is your opinion. But you have no source about that. Do you think the French cheese which was launched on the first Dragon capsule was tested for vibration or G forces ? Hektor (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ask that to the FAA, who has to approve the payload. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The payload is an inert mass. It is not a spacecraft. If you throw a hammer to the ocean, it does not become a submarine. Throw a bicycle to the sky, it does not become an aircraft. Push a fridge down the road, it does not become a car, etc. The mission, if any, is to test the launcher. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

By the way, maybe you want to create an article about that cheese and also call it a "spacecraft". -BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The cheese didn't have cameras. Get over it. --mfb (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand you want to drive a car that could "look" like Elon's so that you can feel like Skywalker. I get it. The car has no function other than being a dummy payload (emphasis in DUMMY), Elon said it, everyone gets it, so don't make it more than that. I will keep on deleting your insinuation is a spacecraft. Your spacebourne cheese might be, though. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Where exactly did Musk say that?
You can't delete what I never wrote in the article. That is logically impossible. --mfb (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hoax or not? (delete or keep?)

So far, only The Verge has published that the payload is a joke. All other news outlets sustain it is real. As weird as it sounds to launch a car, Musk is very excentric, so we should wait a few more days before deleting this article. In the case it is for real, I think it will be a very popular subject (it is already), making it notable to Wikipedia standards, so it will be a keep. Stand-by for a few days. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, we should keep this around for more time until more information is known about the mission. There is conflicting information but this will absolutely need its own article soon if it does launch, so I agree that keeping this article for the time being should be the proper course of action. Keavon (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd be willing to move it to my personal sandbox area as a draft space, or to some other community location (preferable) that is outside of the main article space until some substantial details about this vehicle are forthcoming. I don't know who put the VIN number down (that is likely some vehicle owned by Elon Musk... but no confirmation that is the actual vehicle in the tweet), but there is a whole lot of conjecture and speculation going on that is completely unfounded. BTW, Bloomberg just said it is the real deal and not a joke, so take everything including if it is a joke with a grain of salt.
At the very least, something like this article does eventually need to be written when the actual payload of the Falcon Heavy demo is finally confirmed along with substantive details. This whole incident about the Roadster certainly deserves a paragraph or section in whatever article eventually gets written about that payload. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Whether or not Musk was joking, the article is silly and should be deleted. If the FH demo flight deserves an article, it is under a title relating to the flight, not the car. -- PaulxSA (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I do not agree that the demo flight itself is more worthy an article than this car in the long term, which is is the term that an encyclopedia is used for IMO. Say; in 2025 this car is orbiting Mars, then people are more interested in the car itself than in the flight that brought it there. The flight would be part of the article, but all the (MY SPECULATION...) marketing campaigns and cultural references in the coming years will also be part of this car article. (This is all with the optimistic assumption of the car reaching its Mars orbit, which for now might be jumping to conclusions.) --Quyxz (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
A car drifting in space around the Sun is —to say the least— weird, unique, extremely expensive, and the mass media considers it notorious. If the rocket and car blow up during launch, I reckon a one-liner somewhere will suffice. Having said that, I agree to take this article into an invisible "draft state" until more information is released. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
We should know more information within a month, two at max. I don't see any compelling reason it must be made into an invisible state until that short time from now. Doing that may risk that multiple separate attempts at creating "invisible" draft articles begin and then we would have wasted effort and more work to merge the multiple competing articles. What harm does a low-profile article's existence cause on the public Wikipedia? It isn't disbursing false information in the meantime, it is just not that notable right now (but will be extremely notable very soon).Keavon (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
In this article from today by ABS-CBN news stated that SpaceX (the company itself) confirmed yesterday (Wednesday, December 6) that the payload is indeed planned for the launch of Falcon Heavy. That means this is most certainly not a hoax, and this is a huge deal. The article should be expanded with all known information as it becomes available, which should ramp up over the next month leading up to launch. The payload is real, and its launch is imminent, so deleting or moving it to a private sandbox would be a foolish choice. Keavon (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like the payload is real, but lets keep it real: that does not make the car a spacecraft. The mission -if any- is to test the launch vehicle, so the car is only a dummy inert mass. Please, no "spacecraft" templates, or enhancing its objective to the level of a "Mars mission". Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
How can you claim that it is not "real" to consider the car a spacecraft? Ratsat was another SpaceX demonstration payload, and it was an inert mass simulator without any electronics or communication capabilities. This car is already more sophisticated than that block of metal, and it has also been confirmed that the Roadster will have cameras, which means it must have a source of electrical power (likely solar panels) and antennas for communications. That makes it far exceed the capabilities of early satellites like Sputnik 1 and Explorer 1. How can you say, just because it's a car, it isn't a real spacecraft? In what way is that being real? All the aforementioned spacecraft, even the block of metal that is Ratsat, have spaceflight sidebars. What makes this far more sophisticated payload that is nearing its launch not worthy of a sidebar? That makes no sense. Keavon (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Throw a hammer in the ocean and call it a submarine. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure, if you hollow out the inside of the hammer and fill it with a miniature crew that can pilot the hammer around the sea and fire tiny torpedos. But that analogy doesn't address the various points I raised. Throw a block of metal into space and call it a spacecraft: that's what Ratsat and likely many other articles does. This will have cameras and communication equipment onboard, which is more than can be said about early satellites. That means it is not just an inert mass simulator— it is, in fact, a spacecraft. The spacecraft article defines a spacecraft as "vehicle or machine designed to fly in outer space." Is a car a vehicle or machine? Yes. Is it designed to fly in outer space? Not originally, but I imagine at this very moment SpaceX is modifying its design in order to fly in outer space. (And for comparison, "A submarine … is a watercraft capable of independent operation underwater." A hammer is not a watercraft and it is not capable of independent operation underwater.) Will this Roadster have a COSPAR ID and SATCAT number? You bet it will. I would like to restore the existence of a sidebar for this spacecraft, but if you have any objectionable points about particular entries within the sidebar, feel free to edit or discuss those independently. Before re-adding the sidebar, I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to these points more strongly than an inequivalent analogy. Keavon (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
It is a car. Not a spacecraft. Get over it. Besides, none of the instruments/payload sent to space have an infobox calling them a spacecraft. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Mass simulator

Mass simulators do not come with a lithium ion battery pack, cameras and communication equipment. Therefore this not a proper choice of words. Hektor (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Good point, but it is serving the same purpose that mass simulators are designed to fulfill. For rockets that are initially tested with an operational payload, what is the term used? Keavon (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
If you perform a functional analysis of the object, it has other functions than mass simulator: communicating with Earth, taking pictures and transmitting them to Earth as long as possible, broadcasting music, etc. Since its battery has a large capacity and will not be used to power the wheels, it could be in function for weeks. So definitely not a mass simulator. Hektor (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Very good point. I would suggest calling it a "demonstration spacecraft", although BatteryIncluded would immediately revert such an edit because he refuses to accept that this fits the definition of spacecraft just because it happens to look like a car. Keavon (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I have no desire to contain fanatics and warriors in Wikipedia. Not my job. In time you will be subdued by the community consensus. I'm out. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
well I have not reverted any of your edits in main space I think, so being called a fanatic or a warrior is not very nice. Hektor (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if "demonstration" fits - what is it supposed to demonstrate? There is no follow-up car mission. "Experimental spacecraft"? Something that has cameras and a communication system in space is a spacecraft, the shape doesn't matter. As long as BatteryIncluded objects I don't think we reach a full consensus, but "everyone apart from BatteryIncluded agrees" is reached. --mfb (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I called it "experimental payload" now. I think that is uncontroversial. It is experimental, and it is a payload. --mfb (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Move back to article space?

We have another confirmation that it will fly to space. The object is a payload planned for an interplanetary mission. That should be notable enough. The article needs a better title, however. --mfb (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Same opinion here. The roadster has been installed on the payload adapter, images have been posted on Instagram. This is for real. Hektor (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that makes the previous discussion and decision obsolete. Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster? --mfb (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support: We now have official photos and this is launching next month. We should get some of those pictures on this page, too, but we can't upload them while this is a draft. What is the process for a consensus being generated and the move taking place? Keavon (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The previous discussion happened based on a single tweet, I don’t think it is relevant any more. I would simply move it if no objections come in. —mfb (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks! — JFG talk 03:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability

I strongly question the notability of a separate article for this. It should probably be a section within a mission page for the FH maiden flight, but I can't currently see one. When such a page exists, I'll propose a merge. AtomCrusher (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I strongly question the notability of this stunt hijacking the actually valuable information in the FH article. If the car has some pop value, it is best kept in its own separate page. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep it separate for another month or so, at which it should be easier to make a proper evaluation about the notability of the fastest car in the universe vs. the car blown up by the second most powerful rocket in history. —Sladen (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Things prepared to be launched to interplanetary space are generally notable. If it blows up, the launch attempt will be more notable and we can move it, but in general missions should be discussed at the payload page, not vice versa. --mfb (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hohmann transfer orbit

OK, I opened this section since we just had (17 January 2018‎) an edit from an anonymous user who changed "Hohmann transfer orbit" to "elliptical orbit", arguing that "it's not a transfer orbit if it doesn't transfer to anything". Previously, N2e had flagged the "Hohmann transfer" part with "citation needed", which I removed because one of the refs, a reliable one, explicitly says the orbit is of that kind. But in light of this new edit I think we could perhaps discuss whether stating it's a Hohmann transfer is correct before we have an edit war. My view is that the Roadster's orbit will be a Hohmann transfer orbit (to Mars' orbit):

  • The syfy article, authored by Phil Plait, explicitly states it's a Hohmann transfer. This is admittedly Plait's interpretation after asking Musk about it, but he's a reputable and knowledgeable space and spaceflight enthusiast.
  • Wikipedia's own article on Hohmann transfers states that they are "elliptical orbit[s] used to transfer between two circular orbits of different radii in the same plane" (and I agree with this definition). Whether the spacecraft following one encounters or enters orbit around the body in the target orbit is irrelevant; an elliptical orbit that is tangent to two circular orbits is enough. This is precisely what the Roadster's orbit will be. (And to symbolically reply to the last editor's comment: it is transferring between to things: two orbits, those of Earth and Mars.)

So if nobody objects to this, I'll undo the last edit and put "Hohmann transfer orbit" back into the article. Meithan (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection; but I'd wait a day or three to get comments from other editors. N2e (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
All elliptical orbits are "tangent to two circular orbits", so that isn't really enough to call it "Hohmann". All (two-body) orbits are also elliptical, so by that definition it would follow that all (two-body) orbits are "Hohmann transfer orbits", which would be silly. (A "transfer orbit" is "Hohman" because it's most efficient in terms of delta-v. There are other types of transfer orbits too.)
The key idea in a "transfer" orbit is the intent to use it to -- dare I say it? -- transfer to another orbit! :-). The Mars-level-apoapsis elliptical orbit is the intended final disposition of the mission, right? So, what's it "transferring" to? Nothing else. So, it can't be considered a "transfer" orbit.
The Hohmann transfer orbit page says so in its first sentence "... an elliptical orbit used to transfer between two circular orbits..." (emphasis added). There's no basis for declaring where it intends to go to be "irrelevant". It's very relevant. "Hohmann" is a subset of "elliptical". Highly elliptical orbits that don't transfer to a circular-ish orbit at apoapsis aren't special (Molniya, Tundra, etc). They're not so uncommon that it's okay to muddle them in with a very special kind (the HTO) just because one can't conceive of highly elliptical orbits that aren't HTOs.
It's "elliptical", but not "transfer". Even if it were to be making small maneuvers to "new" orbits, it's not xferring to a circular orbit, so it's not "Hohmann".
Any reference that calls an orbit a "Hohmann transfer" that isn't actually used to transfer (from one circular-ish to another) is not reliable in that regard. The author/journalist probably looked up some terms to sound smart without knowing their subtleties, or simply made a mistake. Editors have only their knowledgeable judgement to determine reliability, which we got, and that ain't reliable! :-)
98.216.245.29 (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I made a try at a fix that I think will satisfy! The Syfy ref had the best detail, but it misused the "Hohmann" term. I paraphrased its good detail while leaving out the "Hohmann" error. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The payload is starting off ~1AU from the The Sun, with a trajectory and velocity that will allow it to reach ~1.5AU from the Sun, and no further. Without any further action (either self-initiated delta-V manoeuvre, or getting seriously perturbed by a passing planetary body's gravity field) the payload will merrily continue back to ~1AU, then back to ~1.5AU, then back to ~1AU. Perhaps it would be best to find a wording that links to both articles, with wording as succinct as the description on the Hohmann transfer orbit article as "one half of an elliptic orbit". ie. rather than get into arguing "six of one, half a dozen of the other", the greatest service to our readers to likely to be to link to both and explain the relationship. —Sladen (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I apologize, I left out an important bit in my initial comment that caused some confusion here. Perhaps we're getting too far into semantics, but there's a difference between a Hohmann transfer and a Hohmann transfer orbit. The former is a maneuver used in orbital mechanics to transfer between two circular orbits that minimizes delta-v while using only two impulsive burns. The latter is the auxiliary bi-tangent elliptical orbit (the transfer orbit of the maneuver) that is used to achieve the transfer between the two circular orbits.
So while it's true that the Roadster will not perform a Hohmann transfer to Mars (that would require an engine burn at aphelion, plus launching during the launch window), I'd argue that it's correct to say that it will be put into a Hohmann transfer orbit -- emphasis on the inclusion of the last word. It's just like when a space launch provider puts a satellite into geostationary transfer orbit, or GTO. There's the same distinction between between the geostationary transfer and the auxiliary orbit to do that transfer. In other words, the Hohmann transfer orbit is the elliptical orbit that you would use to execute a Hohmann transfer. The Roadster is going into that orbit.
In the syfy article, Phil Plait (who is a very knowledgeable person, I wouldn't say he just "looked up some terms to sound smart without knowing their subtleties") uses the complete term Hohmann transfer orbit. I still think that's correct.
However I think Sladen's recommendation is sound, as this sounds like a semantic debate over technicalities and does no real service to the general reader. How about going for something like:

"The car will be launched into an elliptical orbit around the Sun that goes as far as the orbit of Mars, like the one that would be used in a Hohmann transfer to that planet."

Lastly, the "precessing" part currently in the article is interesting in terms of astrodynamics, but I feel there has been no confirmation of this (and I don't quite understand what mechanism would make such heliocentric orbit precess -- perturbations from Jupiter?) to make it worth including in the article; we just have no further details or explanations to provide about that. It'd be best to leave it out, I think.
Meithan (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"The car will be launched into an elliptical orbit around the Sun that goes out as far as the orbit of Mars and at the same orbital inclination. The same orbital trajectory would be used to perform a Hohmann transfer on subsequent missions, but the difference being that subsequent missions would launched with greater delta-v budget for orbital maneuvers on approach to Mars.

? —Sladen (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
SpaceX wants to use the atmosphere for capture, and fuel only for landing, but I think that is off-topic. "The car will be launched into an elliptical orbit around the Sun that goes out as far as the orbit of Mars, similar to a Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars." That has all the necessary information. --mfb (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I like something simple like that. Perhaps also clarify that it is not going to orbit around Mars?

"The car will be launched into an elliptical orbit around the Sun that goes out as far as the orbit of Mars, similar to a Hohmann transfer orbit to that planet. However, it is not going to encounter Mars nor enter orbit around it."

What do you think? Meithan (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
"However, it is not going to encounter Mars nor enter orbit around it." Yes, we need to specify that in the description of its trajectory. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I see Sladen already implemented the change. I think it's clear, concise and correct in its current form. "Mars" is perhaps repeated too much, but I see Sladen preferred to err on the side of clarity. Meithan (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Guys, it looks like were agreed that were not going to say it is an HT/HTO, which is great! Thanks! I would add also that there's no reason to mention "HTO" at all because it's off topic, especially for the lede section of an article about a car. Educating the public about the fact that a HTO is semi-elliptical in shape is digression and wholly off topic even for the main text. (I tried to nip this in the bud days ago when it first reared its head, but there was a weird WP error then that put me inside a range block when I wasn't even in the range it said it was blocking -- looks like it's fixed now) 98.216.245.29 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

98.216.245.29. Constructive suggestions on improvements to wording are always welcome (please propose here on the Talk page). At the moment the wording has been refined by the consensus above, to include a link to allow for comparison and contrasting. —Sladen (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with the current wording (as long as it doesn't say it is a HT/HTO), but it's wrong (and offensive) for you to say that any wording is ever finished and ossified, or that any edit ever first needs discussion on a talk page. I didn't make the talk page entry above as a "constructive suggestion" like a meek little IP sitting properly in his place.
Mentioning HTO and educating about orbits is off topic digression in the lede of an small article about a frrkin car. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
98.216.245.29, appreciations for the confirmation of being "fine with the current wording". —Sladen (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The article title may be the name of a frrkin car but it is actually about the payload of a rocket launch, as per the WP convention that space mission pages are named for the payload. My preference would have been to entitle the article "Falcon Heavy demo mission dummy payload" or similar, but that's a separate issue. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
This is not the proper place to discuss the title of the article; it would be better located in one of the above sections. Meithan (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
98.216.245.29, could you leave the wording regarding the orbit in the form that was agreed upon previously, or propose changes here before applying them? I never agreed with you that it is not a Hohmann transfer orbit (I still sustain that it is, and there is a reliable source supporting that, but whatever). I simply agreed not to place importance on that issue and instead focus on conveying the basic facts to the general reader (i.e., that it is an elliptical orbit around the Sun; whether it constitutes an HTO or not is not important). Meithan (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The "basic facts" are all well and good unless they're wrong. If you really really want to mention "HTO" (for whatever your reasons), then get the "basic facts" right or don't mention it. The Plait source is wrong on that point and even self contradictory. There are pervasive sources specifying 1) a transfer, and 2) between two circular(ish) orbits, which the subject trajectory is not. To say or imply otherwise is wrong and unsupported and unsupportable. On top of that, it's pedantic digression off-topic. I rolled over on that last point, but it's irresponsible to insist that an eternal ellipse is the same as a half-ellipse terminating with a circularizing burn. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Did you not read my comment above about distinguishing between the Hohmann transfer and the Hohmann transfer orbit? A geosynchronous transfer orbit is an elliptical orbit that goes up to geosynchronous altitude. Launching a satellite into GTO is precisely launching it into that elliptical orbit. Similarly, the Roadster's orbit will be the same orbit one would use to execute a Mars transfer. Again, the key point is distinguishing between the transfer (the two-burn maneuver itself) and the orbit used to execute that maneuver.
Anyway, as long as others here don't disagree with calling it a Hohmann transfer orbit, I'd urge you to leave the wording as you previously agreed. Meithan (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Trajectory

Could we have a nice trajectory image like this one by someone who is proficient at graphic design ? here Hektor (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Trajectory details after the third-burn:
  • Musk, Elon [@elonmusk] (February 7, 2018). "Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt" (Tweet) – via Twitter. Apohelion (AU): 2.61; Perihelion (AU): 0.98; C3 Earth (km2/s2): 12.0 "Apohelion (AU): 2.61; Perihelion (AU): 0.98; C3 Earth (km2/s2): 12.0"
—Sladen (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing [1] is incorrect? Jonathan Williams (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

According to Jonathan McDowell (Harvard-Smithsonian astronomer), the aphelion reported by Musk is wrong, the correct one being 1.71 AU [2]. The C3 shown in Musk's diagram is indeed inconsistent with an aphelion in the asteroid belt. But I think we should wait a bit until the issue clarifies before doing the correction (specially since it goes against what Musk has tweeted). Meithan (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

McDowell later tweeted [3] detailed orbital elements computed by Bill Gray using 31 observations of the Roadster [4]. I think it's fair to say that these are the correct elements, not what Musk tweeted? Meithan (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
And JPL has it on its Horizons database[5] as Target Body -143205. From those elements the aphelion is 1.76 AU. I'd say it's confirmed that the orbit goes just slightly above that of Mars, not into the asteroid belt. Meithan (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX Youtube account is wrong, but XLINKBOT doesn't accept the correction

Currently, the EL is linking to a namesquatter account on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/user/SpaceX ; this is not the SpaceX account. The SpaceX account is located at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtI0Hodo5o5dUb67FeUjDeA and https://www.youtube.com/user/spacexchannel ; However, XLINKBOT says that link is blacklisted. So I cannot fix the error in the External Links section. The link to the StarMan feed should be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBr2kKAHN6M if someone wants to fix that.

-- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

70.52.11.217, thank you.  Done in Special:Diff/824412382. —Sladen (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There was a consensus not to merge. Many supported the proposal on the grounds that the roadster is not independently notable, but this is successfully refuted by oppose !voters who have provided sources demonstrating compliance with the general notability guideline. While the material in this article could conceivably be covered as a section in the launch article as an editorial choice, there is clearly no consensus to do so with a nearly 2 to 1 majority against the merger. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, for the record, many who supported the merge did not refute that the subject of this article is notable, they were asserting that being notable (independently or otherwise) is not a valid reason for having a separate article where there will inevitably be duplication of content. nagualdesign 23:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Pageviews graph for Elon Musk vs. SpaceX vs. Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster vs. Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission vs. Tesla, Inc.

Merge to Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission? We gain a clearer article in one place. There's nothing in this article that doesn't belong there. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The proposal is indicated in both articles, but the discussion has to take place at a single Talk page. BatteryIncluded (talk)
  • Support merging, though the project guidelines WP:SPACENAME and WP:LAUNCHES (stating that mission articles should be named for payloads, and that a launch article should generally only be created if a payload article doesn't exist) suggest that the merge ought to be the other way round. Some input from the WP:WikiProject Spaceflight team, regarding which way to merge and what title to give the merged article, will probably be useful here. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep in mind the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk's midnight cherry Tesla Roadster. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    The notability should be obvious by now. --mfb (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support merge to Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission. WP:SPACENAME doesn't apply because the primary mission objective was to test the launch system itself, not to deliver the payload. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 16:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is a unique enough satellite/payload that it deserves an article to itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimograph5 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – the car wouldn't be notable per se; it's only notable because it has become part of the mission, and it's not even the purpose of the mission itself (testing the Falcon Heavy is), so the car can be adequately covered in the mission article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - the car is the first consumer vehicle launched into space making it a unique artifact in its own right. It will be in the solar system indefinitely and continue to be a source of societal interest long after the launch itself ceases to be a topic of interest. The article will continue to grow and is already long enough to make merger difficult without loosing information (WP:PRESERVE). -- GreenC 17:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission is the mission, this article is about the payload. Rillian (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The car itself will definitely receive further attention in the future. For one, it takes it six months to reach Mars when it will again get significant coverage independent from the test launch of Falcon Heavy. One can expect it to receive further attention in the future as the interest in space missions to Mars is expected to grow. Physicsch (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. A subject isn't notable because it may recieve coverage in the future. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Both are notable concepts of the same event, therefore the merge proposal. By the way, read the article: It will go nowhere near Mars. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The article topic is a sports car. The launch article is an event. Different base topics. -- GreenC 18:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Well true notability is a general guideline not a hard rule, in this particular case the Notability guideline doesn't address sports cars in space so we have to discuss if Note is a good fit, not merely cite the guideline. It really is an unusual artifact that will continue to be a source of interest like some other items in space (IMO). There is high enough confidence for it the article could stand until there is evidence to the contrary ie. years go by with no long term coverage. Otherwise it could create a problem in the launch article due to WEIGHT and hold back development during these early days. -- GreenC 18:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Notability for the test and the car have already been established. The topic of discussion is a merge due to duplicated content. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Nice job making predictions, but it isn't even going to Mars, just past its orbit. The two topics are intertwined. Reywas92Talk 20:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The dummy payload is part of the mission. nagualdesign 18:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Nobody is denying that. The question is if the car is notable enough outside of the mission, or if that so much can be written that it would be best to have its own article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I wasn't implying that anyone was denying it. The point is to write Support or Oppose followed by your reasons. Well, there you have it. If you want to use independent notability as your reasoning then be my guest (although I disagree that the car has any independent notability, since I haven't read any articles about the car that don't mention the test flight). nagualdesign 18:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Stop editing things that I'm trying to edit, BatteryIncluded![FBDB]
The battery is dead, and it is already in an orbit unlikely to change in billions of years. The car article is not going grow on new developments. As it is, both articles cover the exact same test flight. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The launch mission and the payload are two different items and should each have their own articles. The payload will be observed as a highly reflective NEO for decades. Hektor (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Inaccurate, it has an elliptical heliocentric orbit that cannot be predicted to have future coverage apart from the rocket. Being different things does not mean we can comprehensively cover both together. Reywas92Talk 20:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:Spacename says missions are named after the payload, so the car was the payload therefore this article about the car must remain. I would support a merger the other way, such that the Falcon Heavy demo mission redirects to this Roadster article. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
So you actually support the merge, but under a different name? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk)
Now I think keeping the two seperate is for the best due to both being important things. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - I believe it should stay separated because this page talks about the payload which included historic firsts in space including Musk's car and Starman. If it were merged it would not be organized properly. At the most I think the page's name should be changed to better represent the article. ChaseF (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I fail to understand how Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission#Payload would be so disorganized and unable to discuss these firsts if expanded. Reywas92Talk 20:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - article is about rocket, not about car. Instead of car Elon Mask could have decide to put there anything else. User:Abune (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The only reason this car is notable is because it became the dummy payload of an important test. The car itself is mundane; the rocket test is the relevant event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BatteryIncluded (talk • contribs)
  • Support The car has no notability independent of the Falcon Heavy rocket launch, and much of the information on this page is redundant to the main article. Reywas92Talk 20:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Its really more convenient to keep these separate. Fotaun (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no "convenient" aspect at maintaining the vast duplication in 2 articles. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - An article about this car would NEVER have survived in Wikipedia on the basis of notoriety. The only reason it became notable is because it became a humorous mass simulator (dummy payload) for a very high profile test, so an article about this car while excluding the facts of the rocket test makes no sense. Those who oppose the merge are actually proposing duplication of an existing article dealing with the primary and relevant event. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"Notoriety"! I think you mean notability. nagualdesign 23:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The car and its pictures from space got widespread attention. Of course these articles covered the FH maiden flight together with the car, but the car had a non-trivial role in it. --mfb (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You do know that the car was (and I think still is) attached to the second stage rocket, and 3 of the 4 5 of the 6 cameras, and all the transmission systems, are part of the rocket? The car didn't take any pictures – it's a car – it was the subject of the pictures. nagualdesign 13:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
nagualdesign, during the broadcast six camera angles were seen:
  1. Engine left (second stage)
  2. engine right (second stage)
  3. Roadster front (payload adaptor external boom)
  4. Roadster side (payload adaptor external boom)
  5. Roadster forward (rollcage/B pillar)
  6. Green-channel/sensor (inside suit?)
The available news reports do not yet agree about the location of the power source for the transmission. —Sladen (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it. I've amended that. All SpaceX's rockets are fitted with cameras and transmission systems. Roadsters are not. Surmise. nagualdesign 19:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
6 wasn't inside the suit, it was inside the fuel tank. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This payload purely served as test demonstrator for the Falcon Heavy. While I think it is an interesting story, and certainly merits its own section in the final page, I don't think the Tesla Roadster itself is significant enought to merit its own page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The state of the car is likely going to be an ongoing article about its status / position and there is likely going to be people interested in just the vehicle due to the novelty of the entire situation. The launch is done and dusted. — IVORK Discuss 23:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The battery is dead, and it is already in an orbit unlikely to change in billions of years. The car article is not going grow on new developments. As it is, both articles cover the exact same test flight. As for its position, it will remain in orbit around the Sun. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
the car has a period of 1.57 years and will therefore be in the vicinity of Earth at the end of the 2020s. 2001:983:2ED1:1:1091:3196:AEBC:F175 (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The car's trajectory will cross Earth's orbit path, not Earth itself. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Scott Manley reckons to have crunched the numbers published by Musk and says that the car will indeed return to the vicinity of the Earth in February 2030, though I'm not sure what sort of distance that implies. nagualdesign 16:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
nagualdesign, the video is using (wrong) out-of-date orbital estimates. SpaceX supplied updated ECEF/GPS-derived position and velocity, which can now be found via Seesat-L and JPL Horizons database (linked in WP:EL). —Sladen (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay. So when will the next close encounter be? nagualdesign 19:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The car and its "driver" have acquired independent notability in RS coverage, therefore a separate article passes WP:GNG. — JFG talk 23:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a link for that? nagualdesign 00:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Notability is not the issue being discussed, but the duplication and their merger. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm just interested to know where JFG has read about this car where the launch wasn't also mentioned. Assuming by "it's driver" he meant "Starman" I find it hard to believe. nagualdesign 12:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
? Sladen has not stated their preference. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed BatteryIncluded, the sladen has not (yet) formed/expressed an opinion, but is very happy to read the range of viewpoints being expressed! —Sladen (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is basically notable for being a payload. It exists because it also happened to be a car driven by its manufacturer's CEO. Although, to be fair, we don't have an article on Elon Musk's McLaren F1 that he crashed while driving recklessly. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This roadster is now an object in orbit around the Sun, and it should now be treated like an asteroid. The mission is notable at a different level, as is the rocket, and so should all be separate articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm with GreenC in that this payload holds enough cultural significance to deserve its own article. Meithan (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support merger into Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission. The vehicle is not presently notable apart from being related to the mission, while the mission is notable in its own right. Should the vehicle become notable in its own right, then it can have a stand-alone article. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 07:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- That it's "notable" is not an argument in support of its own article. Notability is a requirement for inclusion in general -- as in being included in any article. That it's notable supports its inclusion in the other article as equally as in this article. While it is indeed quite notable, it's notable for being the payload on the Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission, not for being a frrkin car.  :-) Also, merge would moot (solve!) debates over the renaming of this article. Heh Heh. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The car will inevitably hold enough interest as an artifact of its own. Merging it would be useless when it will surely warrant its own page at some point anyway. Luke Beall (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The car is an artifact for ages. Please let the article be. Naj'entus (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
So are the pictures! I wouldn't be surprised if they win awards and become iconic, reproduced and reused (they are PD). -- GreenC 19:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The car itself clearly passes WP:GNG, as has been demonstrated by several editors. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The payload is notable enough on its own, and the two articles wouldn't merge together well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArniDagur (talk • contribs) 20:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The Tesla Roadster page includes some background information that wouldn't fit into the maiden flight article. WolreChris (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
LOL! Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission is not a very long article! Two short sections and a table, did you even look at it? Reywas92Talk 01:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Two articles being relatively short doesn't automatically mean they would merge well. Much of the background information about the vehicle isn't directly related to the launch and thus wouldn't really fit into the maiden launch article. WolreChris (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the payload is extremely well known and notable. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The car wasn't made to fly on a rocket and was used as a regular car before it was decided to send it to space. So the car has it's own history aside from it ending up in space so it should have it's own article. Ittiz (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The car is now a spacecraft in its own right, sending telemetry and fulfilling its original mission. It is in both technicality and reality the first payload of the Falcon Heavy Jheld6557(Jheld6557) —Preceding undated comment added 09:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support merge. The car is now space junk, independently orbiting the Sun in deep space. Everything that will ever be known about it, at least in the lifetime of everyone reading this, is already known. There will be no subsequent mission updates. There are no additional sources pending publication. And if it were a lump of concrete like other dummy payloads, nobody would be claiming it had standalone notability. All I can say about the number of opposes is that this marketing stunt was extremely successful. Geogene (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
All I can say about the number of opposes is that this marketing stunt was extremely successful. Spot on! I've never seen so much editing focussed on a space-related article, especially while the actual launch article receives comparatively few edits. nagualdesign 13:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It isn't 'junk' because the suit is producing telemetry. So it's still in use and even if the launch produced a few specs of debris on its way up the spacecraft itself doesn't fit the definition of debris. Jheld6557(Jheld6557) —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
No further update? Ever heard of a discipline called astronomy ? 2001:983:2ED1:1:1091:3196:AEBC:F175 (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Are you aware that observing time (on professional telescopes) is limited? Do you know anything about astronomy? Geogene (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Enough to know that if the car was a NEO it would be an Apollo asteroid, and the Apollos are monitored. 2001:983:2ED1:1:1091:3196:AEBC:F175 (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
In low orbit, flecks of paint are monitored. And very few of the Apollo asteroids have standalone articles. Not all naturally occurring space rocks are of encyclopedic interest. On the other hand, they're a lot more interesting than Musk's Roadster, which was mass produced in a factory approximately 10 years ago, and is therefore identical to thousands of others that could be obtained for whatever research you might want to do on one. Geogene (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Try not to change topic in the course of the discussion. I was challenging your « no subsequent mission updates » statement. This subthread is not about notability. Hektor (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Geogene: Even though, unlike most concrete blobs that may or may not be launched into space, this particular car has massive media coverage, and has already garnered the notability needed to pass WP:N. Also unlike most concrete blobs that may or may not be launched into space, people have been mostly talking about the car itself, rather than the rocket that launched it. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 13:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"Massive media coverage" is a canard. It's just thousands of small online outlets jostling with each other for clicks, by posting the same pretty screen grabs. There is no depth to the coverage, because there is nothing of any substance to cover, and nobody will remember this in a year. The "oppose" voters will all be shouting "KEEP" at the Next Big Thing that distracts them, and pestering those of us that know better. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not clickbait news. Geogene (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The car meets notability for me. On every news site I visit. Stevo1000 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per the many arguments above. Disregard this point if predicting a subject's future notability is invalid in merger/deletion proposals such as this one, but I'm almost certain that it'll be an incredibly notable artifact of space in the future. It's the first consumer vehicle sent into space, and it will absolutely be a fascinating point of trivia in many circles for years to come. The articles for the Falcon Heavy flight and the Roadster itself should be kept separate. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 05:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Coverage like
shows that the car itself and its flight through space are considered worthy of coverage regardless of how the car got there in the first place, so individual notability exists and a merge would be incorrect. Regards SoWhy 14:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge So much fancruft, speculation, hyperbole. Merge it and root out all the redundancy and original research, and rando opinions. It's appalling this has existed for so long. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge There doesn't appear to be anything here that shouldn't be covered in, or is already redundant to, the test flight article. Most of the categories here could be preserved through WP:RCAT. FallingGravity 17:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose first object launched out of Earth's Sphere of Influence by a non-governmental agency can be seen as noteworthy in and of itself. If individual Falcon 9 first stages can have articles, why not this?Metropod (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose– the mission and the payload are two distinct topics, each of which are notable. The mission is notable as a test flight to demonstrate the Falcon Heavy infrastructure. The Tesla payload is notable for being a dummy payload which received lots of media coverage due to its unique nature, and the first object launched into interplanetary space by a corporation (rather than a government). Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is about an object in space, that will stay there for a long time. The mission is a historical event, so I think this shouldn't be merged with the mission Therealviklo (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Assessment of consensus

Moving forward, I'm opening this section to briefly discuss if the points made above merit a merger or not, and proceed accordingly. Please be aware that unanimity is not a requirement, and that notability has been established; the issue is the duplication. Since I am involved, I will not be the editor making the final call. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Although I am in favor of the merger in principle, it is evident the car is a gigantic popular hit. As such, I expect the article to grow —not in meaningful astronomical or technological developments— but in the popular culture. Such growth might dilute the information of the original rocket test and will eventually require a split. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    Considering the links I posted above, this seems already to be the case. Regards SoWhy 17:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that the Oppose voters have won the day. I suggest the discussion be closed. We can revisit this if necessary, once all the hype and fancruftery has died down. When the next fidget spinner or whatever is released people will move on and stop caring so much about whether a car 'deserves' its own article. nagualdesign 17:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems so...when it's linked from the main page like a number of other past merge and AFD discussions, there are a lot more votes from random people who are just following the news and don't seem to comprehend that something can be undeniably notable yet also fit comfortably in another article, reducing duplication and keeping everything conveniently together for readers. Yes, perhaps try again later when people's stilly assumptions of perpetual news presence (and misunderstanding of what it will do itself, seeing as it'll be far away with no contact ever again) have subsided. Reywas92Talk 22:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Roadster image removed

Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster
Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster outside SpaceX in 2010, California licence plate TSLA 10
Overview
ManufacturerTesla Motors

The image of Musk's Roadster (the subject of the article) parked outside SpaceX in 2010 has been repeatedly removed in Special:Diff/824532422, Special:Diff/824534643, Special:Diff/824535227 with various assertions in the accompanying edit summaries that do not appear to have been tested here on the Talk page. BatteryIncluded and Nagualdesign, please try to gain consensus here first. Per WP:BRD, please restore the content as it was whilst discussion takes place. —Sladen (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

What I removed was the car infobox, the said picture was placed below the instrument infobox. The car is notable only because it was used as an instrument (dummy payload) so that is the relevant infobox used, Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The car is notable because it is in space and took pictures of Earth. We include pre-launch pictures of satellites as well. --mfb (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
{{infobox automobile}} is used in articles about cars (and other vehicles) and contains information about the manufacturer, transmission, wheelbase, etc. Despite the title this is not an article about a car, it's an article about one particular car's use as a dummy payload. As you say, it's notable for having been launched into space. There's still an image in the article, just not an infobox, since nobody's interested in the BHP of a car with no engine. (And if you are interested, it's 0 BHP). nagualdesign 12:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I didn't remove the image, I moved it. The infobox is inappropriate for an article about this car's use as a dummy payload, not about the car itself, so I replaced it with a simple thumbnail below the infobox proper. nagualdesign 23:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
SNAP! nagualdesign 23:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded and Nagualdesign, thank you both for the (very!) speedy replies overnight, and the confirmation that the intention was simply to re-position of the image. (The three diffs found and linked above showed only deletion.) Reviewing the subsequent state, this appears to be:
  1. Repositioning of image from WP:LEADIMAGE to a location further down the article.
  2. Description shortened from "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster outside SpaceX in 2010, California licence plate TSLA 10" to "Elon Musk's Tesla" then "Elon Musk's Tesla on Earth"
  3. Tight cropping of the image (trimming shadow and parking space context)
  4. Changing from {{infobox automobile}} framing to plain image
  5. Repositioned from right-hand side, to left-hand side
Is this an accurate (factual), description of the proposed changes? (There appear to be a huge number of intermediate changes, so apologies if something was missed). —Sladen (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it escaped your attention that I'd placed a thumbnail image below the infobox, since you were the one that removed it just a minute after you reverted my removal of the infobox. You could explain why you neglected to include that fact in your diffs, but I can probably guess. As to the rest:
  1. The infobox takes precedence in an article.
  2. I actually changed the caption to "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster outside SpaceX headquarters in 2010, California licence plate TSLA 10".
  3. I cropped the whitespace, which shows nothing of interest. The context of the parking space can be seen in the sign above (in front of) the car.
  4. Yes, the infobox was removed. That was the point.
  5. Somebody else has since moved the image to the left. I'm guessing that the reason was because the layout was broken at certain resolutions. It's a common problem.
These aren't so much proposed changes as simply changes. There are a lot of people editing this article at the moment. Changes like this should be expected to continue. At some point the article will settle down. Asking other editors to gain consensus, when you yourself had made a unilateral edit that was reverted by more than one editor, comes across as a little disingenuous. Also, prepending your edit summaries with the word "Politely" does not make it so, but it should go without saying that we're all being polite here, unless or until you encounter rudeness or incivility. nagualdesign 19:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
...@Sladen: Are you not going to reply? Unless you make some sort of case for keeping the infobox this section seems like a waste of time. Or worse, WP:GAMING. nagualdesign 23:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: He has a tendency to do that...and then will blame you. I didn't now that WP:GAMING existing, but know that I do, yes, he likes to game the system.--Dom497 (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, the infobox isn't needed. The article already says that the vehicle was built by Tesla Inc. That's literally the only other thing in this infobox besides the picture, which we can just include as a normal thumbnail. epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The infobox is one of the perks for space-related articles and launches. It offers key information at a glance without having to read the whole article. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sound transmitting in space

This got added, added-to, removed, and re-added. I suggest not include because sound does transmit in space: "space is not a perfect vacuum and the vibrations would impact any solar wind or cosmic dust near the speaker when operating". It is going down a rabbit hole to try and teach readers about the nature of sound in space in this article - there's no sourcing discussing the nature of sound in space in relation to the Roadster's speakers. It's not even necessary to mention because there is no one there to hear it. -- GreenC 15:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, context matters more than shock value. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
In space no one hears you scream. I bet there are instruments that can pick up a scream if loud and close enough. Not a perfect vacuum. To be accurate it would have to say "sound is not recognized by the human ear in space" (is that true?) but then you'd also need to qualify "there are no humans in the Roadster in any case so it doesn't matter". Then someone will say true, but sound can effect cosmic particles that float by and why should we be concerned about human ears (only). I'd like to see sourcing that discusses it in relation to the Roadster before re-adding, similar to the source that discusses the disintegration of the car over time. It could be an interesting topic with the right source. -- GreenC 15:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree, let's better not go there. Plus, if there's no one to hear it, does it really make any sound? ;) Meithan (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It is pedantic to demand a source that sound does not travel in space. Well you have two references now specific to the Tesla. I know such reality-check sucks but this is an encyclopedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Neither source you added discusses sound in space, other than one flippant comment "Doesn't this dork know there's no sound in space?!" But sound does travel in space. Please read what I wrote above as to the complications and dealing with this in this article. If you can't respond in a meaningful way I'll have no other option that start an RfC - unless someone else does the favor of reverting it first. -- GreenC 15:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It also factually wrong. Sound Can Travel Through Space After All. -- GreenC 15:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Quote: "the car will be playing Bowie's "Space Oddity," even though sound can't be heard in outer space." Now you are just trolling. Be careful. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article discuss sound in space?

Sources documenting 1. There is sound in space and 2. The human ear is unable to hear sound in space.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed by nom, no other !voters. GreenC 18:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Should "its sound does not travel in space" be included in Elon_Musk's_Tesla_Roadster#Roadster_payload (last sentence second paragraph)? See discussion above for background. -- GreenC 16:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose This isn't the right article to unambiguously state there is no sound in space - which is complex and factually incorrect - there can be sound in space, sound is also not limited to the human ear particularly in LOE which has higher molecular density. There is no human ear nearby that could hear it anyway. Space is not a perfect vacuum and the vibrations would impact any solar wind or cosmic dust near the speaker. The best thing is just not bring it up unless there is a good scientific source about the Roadster and sound. The sources currently given don't look reliable for this subject which contradict reliable scientific sources stating there can be sound in space. -- GreenC 16:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The scientific sources cited disagree with your interpretation of the physics. But the symbolism is the issue. Further, I contend you are just WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The symbolism can be stated without going down the rabbit hole of sound in low earth orbit. The sources in the article are not scientific - one looks like for grade-school children the other is a music magazine. Compare against this scientific source. RfC is the best given bad faith accusations you made ("troll", "gaming"), it's not gaming the system it's how the system works (civil conflict resolution). -- GreenC 17:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You may want to contact the Northwestern University and the Cornell University (cited) and tell the dean that you disagree with their physics. The only conflict there is is your WP:CHEESE. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You've added a third source to Cornell ("for beginners") but it deals with human hearing in space, plainly there are no humans on-board the Tesla and "sound" and "human hearing" are not the same thing. A more comprehensive explanation There Actually Is Sound in Outer Space -- I could dig up scientific papers but your Cornell source supports it anyway saying "it's not strictly true that no sound vibrations can travel through space". You seem confused between sound and human hearing. -- GreenC 17:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Technically there are electromagnetic vibrations generated from big objects like a sun or black hole. However, no human can hear this noise since it would be millions of times below 20 Hertz that can be perceived by our brains. Therefore, there is no sound in space according to human physiology but there are vibrations that could be called sound according to Physics. Note the car's speakers cannot generate enough of a vibration to make a sound in the solar wind floating around space. It would be accurate to say the car's sound does not travel in space. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Someone else brought up cosmic dust near the speaker. I think it would be safe and accurate to say no human on-board would be able to hear it through the vacuum of space. -- GreenC 18:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
A human onboard wouldn't have to hear it though the vacuum of space. If there were someone in the starman suit, they likely would hear music played by the speakers, since the sound would travel through the body of the car to the seat and through the suit. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Compromise I've made a compromise wording. If this is acceptable, I'll close out this RfC. -- GreenC 18:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Too verbose, but at least educates the reader. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Car is not in Earth orbit but in heliocentric orbit

Note on "space junk". As much as I want to call it and catalogue it -again- as space junk, the term is reserved for objects in Earth orbit. According to experts [6] since the car was shipped out, it does not contribute to Earth orbital congestion. That is the reason I deleted the entry. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying a Wikipedia article should summarize all significant viewpoints (per WP:WEIGHT), minus those opinions that you think are in error? I don't feel it's our role to do that; rather if an opinion is so wrong, then we wait for other significant experts to say so, and we cite them, or we acknowledge that the debunked viewpoint has shrunk to obscurity. Right now it appears that the "space junk bad" point of view, while not dominant, is significant enough to at least mention. My objection would be that the non-whimsical alternative, Boilerplate (spaceflight), is just as likely to become space junk, so substituting a car doesn't really change anything. But it's not my place to say that in the article namespace. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The car is not in Earth orbit. Space junk applies to objects most notably in Earth orbit. Again, here is the link, not my POV: [7] . Quote: "But does shooting a Roadster into space constitute a frivolous addition to orbital debris? "He is shipping it out of Earth orbit, so I do not think that there is any risk here," said orbital-debris expert Darren McKnight, technical director for Integrity Applications in Chantilly, Virginia. "The enthusiasm and interest that he generates more than offsets the infinitesimally small 'littering' of the cosmos."
Useless to quote complaints of the car littering Earth orbit when the car is NOT in Earth orbit. That is my point. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Anything launched into space contributes to space junk. Millimeter flecks of paint that come off during stage transitions etc.. I saw small bits floating off the car in the videos. The gravity well is large it doesn't shoot straight it circles outward any detritus gets caught in the well. Not to say they are big or worrisome amounts, but it's not zero space junk it would be impossible. -- GreenC 04:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Third time: Add complains about junk in the cosmos, not in Earth orbit. The car is NOT in Earth orbit. I can't be clearer that that. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Have you ever read WP:TRUTH? You just keep repeatedly bleating that someone's opinion is wrong, therefore we should delete it. I can only imagine if I were allowed to delete every single opinion I wanted on Wikipedia on the grounds that is merely wrong. Newsflash: many opinions are wrong. That's kind of how it is with opinions. It's one of the reasons people disagree about things, because some people are wrong. The fact is that many people dislike Musk's publicity stunt because they see it as space junk. We absolutely can cite others who explain why it isn't hazardous, but being wrong doesn't make significant points of view cease to exist. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I also deleted statements that the car is an actual spacecraft, that it was on a mission to Mars, and statements that it would enter orbit around Mars. It is called competency as an editor. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Did you read your own reference? The author is panicking that the car will cause a Kessler event in Earth orbit while the car is not even in Earth orbit. Can't contaminate Earth orbit because it is not there.. I am all in favor you adding a congruent article/complaint about junk in the cosmos. Your additions are only as good as your references. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, yes. Some person is wrong. Why do you keep telling me they're wrong? I have said to you, what, four times now, that this isn't about someone having a wrong opinion. I get it: they think the car could be a hazard and they're wrong about that. Fine. Great. We can agree. But Wikipedia articles are not just a bunch of facts that you and I think are TRUTH. Other people exist. They have ideas in their heads that are not the same as the ideas in your head. It's called theory of mind. You do not need to keep telling me that this opinion is wrong.

What you need to do is demonstrate that the point of view represented by this factually-challenged opinions is not significant That's what WP:WEIGHT is about. Did you read the policy on due weight? Please go read it. Please go read verifiability not truth. Stop debating the truth with me and try to see this as a question of complying with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

I think we're done here. I'm not going to keep asking you to make an effort to understand what neutrality means. It's incumbent on you to make the effort to understand the policy and how it is implemented. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There are dozens of references stating that the car was sent in a heliocentric orbit. It is not my POV, belief or assessment. The car is not in Earth orbit, it will not cause a Kessler event. Your reference is dead wrong, even if you WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM, the car is gone from Earth orbit. Dozens of references say so. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Just going keep on repeating that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
How is the car going to cause a Kessler event? Seriously, you keep re-adding that!? Yes, the car is junk in the cosmos, not of Earth orbit because it is NOT in Earth orbit. Please take a look at WP:Identifying reliable sources. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe it circled (orbited) the earth for about 6 hours before a thrust sent it on its way. During that time (while in earth orbit) there was a video feed from the car where one can see small flakes float away into space, which are now also in Earth orbit. But, this is probably no worse than any other demo mission. -- GreenC 05:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Why are we citing not one but two experts who argue there is no risk, without making any mention of who ever was worried about risk in the first place? These reassurances lack any context, because BatteryIncluded deleted three times the fact that some people think the car is space junk. The fact that experts are lining up to "well, actually..." this is evidence that it is a significant point of view. Is it wrong to think the car is hanging around Earth orbit threatening satellites and space missions? Yes, it's wrong. But so what? Many significant points of view are wrong. We mention them because these significant points of view exist, not because we agree with all of them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
"The fact is that many people dislike Musk's publicity stunt because they see it as space junk." - there are also people disliking spaceflight because they think Earth is flat. As long as this is a minority opinion, and limited to people who have no idea what is going on, it is not worth mentioning this in the article. We currently have two people pointing out that it was not relevant space junk in the article, one of them with a very confusing long sentence. --mfb (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe if I use a drawing...with bright colors? Yes, it is junk, but not around Earth orbit, it is gone, you know. Please stop your disruptive editing and spurious tagging. BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think your recent edit is backed by the source. Deutsche Welle claims that some experts say that, but then cites one particular expert who does not say that. --mfb (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

-Yes, fixing that now. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm just celebrating that we have established that there is not universal agreement among significant points of view on this. I can't believe that had to be so difficult. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Simple: read WP:FRINGE to understand why your push to introduce your cheap reference on a Kessler event is unacceptable. BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
If it's fringe then why are you refuting it? Fringe lunatics fear space lizards invading us. Should this article quote experts saying we have no reason to fear the orbiting car will anger the space lizards? No. Because we don't bother refuting fringe points of view. You can't have it both ways. If the contingent who is worried about space debris collisions is worht refuting, then they are not fringe, they're significant. Also, your last edit copied the same text into the article twice. It's at the top of the paragraph, and you added it again to the bottom. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The car is not in Earth orbit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipshodd (talk • contribs) 08:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Not now, but it was in Earth orbit for about 6 hours after launch, before a final thrust sent it on its way out of earth's gravity well. -- GreenC 17:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Graphic of orbit

  • Tomruen's graphic
    Tomruen's graphic
  • Philip's graphic
    Philip's graphic
  • Sladen's graphic
    Sladen's graphic
  • Meithan's graphic
    Meithan's graphic
  • Nagualdesign's graphic
    Nagualdesign's graphic

Pinging Hektor, Frmorrison, BatteryIncluded, and Meithan as parties to the related discussion above, and Tomruen as the creator of the original graphic that triggered the discussion. Tomruen has addressed the concern of incorrect information in labelling, but since then a different graphic, created by me, has been uploaded. I feel that the text information that is conveyed in Tomruen's graphic can easily be described in the image caption. After all, the information is simply too small to be seen at a thumbnail level, as displayed to readers. I propose a much cleaner graphic, with information delegated to the on-page caption, as was my original intention when I created my orbit graphic. I believe my graphic to be more clean and easier to see at a thumbnail level. The orbit of the Roadster discernible from the orbit of Mars, and the orbits themselves are more defined without unnecessary fading effects. The minimal colour palette better conveys the planets as a class separate from the Roadster and the Sun, whereas the multi-colour palette may confuse readers. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 12:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's worth discussing what information to include in the diagram. I do think having Mars and the Roadster both red, and other color choices in my diagram can be improved as suggested. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I updated my image, now just labeling launch date and aphelion. I picked positions for May 1, 2018 to show the movement since launch. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tomruen: the orbits of Earth and Mars are still hardly visible due to the fading effects. On a 250px width thumbnail level, only three quarters of the orbit of Venus and the roadster are clearly visible while only half of the orbit of Mercury is visible. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 12:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Somewhere between the two images might be a good solution, think the yellow works quite well for the Roadster orbit, but having the "fade" on the Roadster orbit is a bit misleading since it only started at Earth. Might be better to have solid line for the orbit up to 2018-05-01, and dashed line after 2018-05-01, but not quite completing a full circle. Perhaps a colour that isn't green for Venus would be better, perhaps gray for both Venus and Mercury as per Philip's version. Roadster, Earth and Mars, Sun are the important bits… the rest is noise, particularly at thumbnail sizes. Either way, please use a vector drawing package (Inkscape) and upload as SVG so that it is easier to translate and maintain the diagram. Feature that is missing from both is a scale bar: eg. 1 AU. —Sladen (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sladen: I don't think a scale bar is necessary, since this is space, after all. The most important information to convey is the orbit itself in context of the solar system, not so much the size of the solar system itself. Plus, a scale bar would most likely not be visible at a thumbnail level while achieving the ultimate goal of not stuffing the graphic with information than needed to make it look clean and simple. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 12:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I brightened and added a horizonal line for 0.99 AU at launch on the left. You should expect people can click on image for more information at a larger size. I'm not sure how to show a full orbit for future when it also looks like a past as well. I can fade the intensity of the planet colors. I agree SVG is better, and can be traced if we settle on something, although its high resolution PNG. I am concerned if NASA gives updated Ephemeris that it can be regenerated as PNG, while a traced image would have to be redone by hand again. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tomruen: If a reader has to click through to the image just to see it better, then the image fails as an encyclopedic tool for the page. The multiple colours are still quite the eyesore. In addition, the new addition of that scale bar just only added more unnecessary things into a graphic that should be minimal and clean as possible. Also a note of criticism for me is the need to snapshot a particular point in time. You don't really need that either, especially when the image is a static image and not an animation, where dates would almost certainly be useful. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 13:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
SVG version incorporating ideas from both, based on the geometry of the first one, and simplicity of the second one optimised for thumbnailing viewing (oversize bodies). Text is minimal and grayscale (to avoid interference) and aid translation. —Sladen (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Its a nice compromise, and the solid lines for launch to May 1 seems clear. I might change the dashes for my aesthetics, but I see why you did them as-is. And I'd prefer object labels even if symbols nice. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sladen: This is quite awful, in my honest opinion. Not only does it preserve the cluttering, but it also adds more problems. Why are the lines dotted now, instead of clear, solid lines? Also, why are the orbits of Mercury and Venus so small that they are literally not visible from a thumbnail view? There's even more words and lines cluttering the image more still. Now the distances have dates? I'm assuming they're the dates for the Roadster's first apohelion and perihelions, but that's simply not clear to the reader. I don't see how this is a compromise at all. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 14:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) PhilipTerryGraham, I really like the simplicity of your graphic. Reading the feedback (and watching the reverts) it seems that not everyone shares this view, and it sounds like it can be improved upon. The SVG version is there, so that it is easier for anyone and everyone to easily tinker without having to start drawing from scratch each time. It is good that people are discussing and talking—it might be useful to suggest how the SVG version could be improved, either here in words, or through showing by uploading a modified copy of the SVG. For example, it now has IAU abbreviations per Tomruen's suggestion/request, even though adding these deviates from simplicity. —Sladen (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sladen: I challenge the idea that SVG files are "easier for anyone and everyone" to edit. I, for one, feel that even basic functionality in Inkscape is unnecessarily complicated. Tell you what, if I can provide my .xcf GIMP files to you, would you be able to somehow translate that into Inkscape? It would be greatly appreciated. Also, what feedback and reverts? Unless you're talking about a separate discussion that I'm completely unaware of, there's literally only two other people here (Tomruen and Nagualdesign), and only one of them is doing any image editing apart from us. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 14:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
PhilipTerryGraham, uploaded. Apologies in advance for any remaining delta: with details of the precise font, font-size, line-thickness, and line-colour these can be matched exactly—just CSS corrections in SVG. —Sladen (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've done a number of orbital diagrams, and normally I like to use specific colours for planetary orbits (example), but I actually like Philip's image out of these 3. It's very clean and uncluttered. If you'd like me to have a go at making one just ask, though I think you've got it covered. nagualdesign 14:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
PhilipTerryGraham, I prefer your graphic over the other ones. It is a clear picture of the various orbits but I do not like how the Sun is shown as "Sol". That name is not commonly used in English to refer to the Sun. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Frmorrison: It's ultimately a personal preference, really. I can change it to "Sun" if that pleases people, I have no real objections to it. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 14:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Philip, Please do change "Sol" to "Sun". Tom I was going to have a go at making an image, as I think it would be nice to see where all the planets were at time of launch, and I was about to use your diagram as a reference. However, I noticed that the Earth is in the wrong place! I also noticed that there's a discrepancy between yours and Philips orbit of Mars. Could you please update your image using accurate positions and orbits, then I'll rework it so see if we can come up with something that can rival Philip's image. nagualdesign 15:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
nagualdesign I used a May 1, 2018 diagram so you could see the motion since launch. The first SVG with dashes copied that plan. I can remake any date you like. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I see. Well, I added my own effort to the mix (above). I didn't label the orbit of the Roadster as I thought that would be made obvious in any caption. nagualdesign 16:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I like it! I think it's my favorite. The Roadster's orbit as compared to the inner solar system is very clear, even in the thumbnail version. I'd perhaps still add the aphelion distance, even if it's only readable in the larger image? Meithan (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It's always tempting to shove more meat into a sandwich but I've learned that less is usually more. The only labels that work better in a diagram rather than the caption are those where the position of the label conveys information. Since the aphelion is a flat fact I'd prefer to leave it for the caption. nagualdesign 17:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I appreciate everyone's diagrams; I know it takes time and thought. I think that Philip's diagram is the best one for this particular article and for public education. It is uncluttered, easy to see as a thumb size, and is clear. Also, I like very much that it does not suggest a Mars flyby. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur. Thanks for addressing my concern. Hektor (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Darn, I'm a bit late to the party. I just uploaded my own version. But reading the discussion just now I realize that it contains too much information and might be too cluttered, specially for the thumbnail version. I uploaded a PNG but I can make an SVG if the image is used. Anyway, tell me what you think. Meithan (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Meithan, think yours wins for scientific accuracy, and looks good at large sizes, just not in thumbnail. Please attach the plot code to the image, so there is some hope of tweaking, regenerating as required! —Sladen (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Certainly! I'll upload a minimalist version of the code later today. However now that the Roadster is listed in JPL Horizons perhaps it'd be better to generate heliocentric position ephemeris instead of plotting the orbit from elements (which is what I'm doing). As I understand it, the JPL calculations include orbit elements drift (from perturbations -- in this case the JPL elements for the next year seem to stabilize after a few weeks; I'd guess this is the residual gravitational attraction of the Earth?). Meithan (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I used the Ephemeris download and interpolate positions which makes me feel safer. I don't know how far it has to go to stabilize to a 2-body problem again, but agree a couple weeks should be plenty. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sladen: Although the issue is settled, for completeness here's the code to generate my diagram (Roadster_orbit.py creates the diagram). Meithan (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Nice! Is Ares symbol on +X an orientation standard? It looks like there's still uncertainty on the orbit, whether Q=1.67 or 1.71 AU. I got my positions from JPL Ephemeris, but they could still be changing. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It represents the direction of the J2000 vernal equinox (historically known as "first point of Aries", hence the symbol). It's what defines the +X axis in the standard frame of reference for planetary orbits (the ICRF).
As for the discrepancies in Q, it's because my diagram uses the instantaneous orbital elements for today (Feb 9) obtained from JPL Horizons. Here's a screenshot (heliocentric). QR is the perihelion distance and AD is the aphelion distance (both in AU). But I just realized that the orbital elements are probably still being perturbed by the Earth as the Roadster escapes. The elements reported for later this year seem to stabilize and show Q = 1.65-1.66 AU (measured from the solar system's barycenter). Will amend. Meithan (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks I'll look to standardizing my export orientations for other bodies. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I like both Tomruen's and Meithan's graphics. Can you guys combine them? It's nice to see all 4 inner planets, and to show exact dates of orbit crossings. Also, I hope you can agree on a set of orbital elements to nail the aphelion value. — JFG talk 17:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

So far I only approve of nagualdesign's graphic. You went in with the intent to create a graphic that rivaled mine, and I believe you've succeeded. Alot of people on here have quite the twisted view of what images on a Wikipedia article should be. For Tomruen, Sladen, and Meithan's graphics, I have to click into them and take myself out of the article just to understand them, and that's wrong. The encouragement to make more complicated designs that force users to take themselves out of reading an article just to understand the supplement graphic is also pretty wrong. Nagualdesign's graphic is clear on a thumbnail level. The colour palette is muted enough that there is a clear distinction between the Roadster, the Sun, and the planets – the only three distinctions you need. I still think the exactism of having the planets in a particular arrangement is unnecessary, since the position of the planets is completely irrelevant, but it's a nice compromise with others in the conversation that want particularly unnecessary details that exceed simply plainly stating an orbit.

Nagualdesign's graphic is the only one (other than mine) that understands that you only need to state the orbit and nothing else. Every other detail can easily be conveyed by text in the article or in the image caption. If there's an approach by Mars, you can state it in the article. The perihelion and aphelion can also be explained through text. In fact, it's already explained in the image caption on the article currently. The one criticism I have about nagual's design, however, is that it borrows the fading effect on the orbits, which, once again, doesn't make the entire orbit clear. I'm not sure why we can't have the orbits clear, solid, complete, and wholly visible. /passiverant – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 02:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I agree with you PhilipTerryGraham. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor and the discussion here has taught me that graphics should be as simple as possible. While I enjoy clicking on a diagram full of details and reading every one of them, it's not something the general reader may do, and it doesn't help the article being clearer (in fact, it adds complication to it). So I would also vote for either your or Nagualdesign's diagram. I like the latter a little more: slanted text is harder to read, and I like Nagualdesign's Sun "glow effect" (it helps quickly identify the Sun even in the thumbnail); I'd also vouch for the orbit fade effect as it conveys visual information of the direction of orbits without cluttering the diagram any further. Planetary positions I like, as I also feel it adds a nice detail without adding clutter (and the caption could mention "Planetary positions shown at launch"). Meithan (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Meithan: I have yet to see anybody give a reason why it's important for a reader to know where the planets are at launch, though... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 03:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure, why indeed should anyone want to know anything? Why show the sun? Isn't it obvious that the sun is near the center? Why give a sense that time exists and things move? Why do anything? Why don't we just say "The orbit goes beyond Mars?" without any picture at all. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tomruen: You completely misread my argument. I was asking if there is any value to showing exact positions of planets, almost all except the Earth that don't have anything to do with the Roadster, in a diagram that ultimately is supposed to show the orbit of the Roadster. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 15:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, Philip. When I first saw the images on offer I didn't think it was worth adding to the mix, but I guess it was worth doing after all. In answer to your question, the reason for the positions of the planets and the fading orbital paths is exactly what Meithan and Tom wrote; They give a sense of it being a particular moment in time, giving our readers a proper 'lay of the land', and help to show the direction of motion. Without them it could just look like a bunch of circles to some people. It's probably obvious to us that the Roadster set off from the Earth, and so that's where the 2 orbits coincide, but for some of our readers seeing the position of the Earth will be helpful. It's easier to grok that a planet moving anticlockwise could launch an object into an elliptical orbit. And from a design point of view if you're going to label the orbits why not place the labels where the planets are? You get 2 for the price of 1. nagualdesign 15:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: Alright Nagual, you've convinced me on that point! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 15:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I am placing Nagual's version now in the article, as it seems you reached a consensus. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. And from a purely aesthetic point of view I think the red, black and grey work well with the other images. nagualdesign 16:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request (2)

To remove merge template for closed merge discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is the page locked?! I looked in the history expecting to see back-and-forth edit warring but saw none. nagualdesign 23:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I'm a bit confused by that as well. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the specific reason for the lock wasn't given and wasn't clear. I had to dig in a bit to form a fair guess as to what was up, and what was up wasn't that bad. I think Oshwah overstepped with the BIG protection, and should have explained better. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure it came about from this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive tagging, editing and insulting by Dennis Bratland. I have no comment on the protection itself. Nil Einne (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 Done I got the page unlocked, and removed the template. — JFG talk 08:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead

I don't see why we need to include "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster is a first generation Tesla Roadster owned by entrepreneur Elon Musk". It's not like the title of the article is ambiguous and this is called "Steven Spielberg's Tesla Model S". We just need to say that Elon Musk owned this Tesla Roadster. epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, per MOS:BOLDTITLE, we shouldn't bold "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster" if this isn't the natural title. As it is, we already need to explain who Elon Musk is, and clarify that this is a first generation Roadster (because the link isn't obvious). epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)​

Arc 5D disk info

Mentioned as part of load, but not much on it I could find. Found this: https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/16/11018018/5d-data-storage-glass Flightsoffancy (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There are some links there that can be followed which give more info. Currently the wikilink for Arc 5D disk redirects to an article on 3D disks which I believe in inaccurate as the 5D disk has additional properties. But we don't have an article on 5D technology or the Arch Foundation. -- GreenC 23:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I found this article: https://medium.com/arch-mission-foundation/arch-mission-foundation-announces-our-payload-on-spacex-falcon-heavy-c4c9908d5dd1 Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


Edit request

Please add: 

''[[Advertising Age]]'' agreed with ''[[Business Insider]]'' that the Roadster space launch was the "greatest ever car commercial without a dime spent on advertising", demonstrating that Musk is "miles ahead of the rest" in reaching young consumers, where "mere mortals scrabble about spending millions to fight each other over seconds of air time", Musk "just executes his vision."<ref name=Wnek2018>{{Citation |url= http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/advertising-marketing-elon-musk/312307/ |title= There's Advertising and Marketing, and Then There's Elon Musk |first=Mark |last= Wnek |magazine=[[Advertising Age]] |date= February 8, 2018 }}</ref><ref name=>{{Citation |title= Tesla created the world's best car commercial without spending a dime on advertising |first=Mark |last= Matousek |website=[[Business Insider]] |date=February 7, 2018 |url= http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-made-the-worlds-best-car-commercial-without-spending-money-2018-2  }}</ref>

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that "Reaction" section should be just removed because the selection of which particular "reactions" to mention is WP:OR (not just POV). The article is already a lot of fanboy whoo-ha, but that section makes it worse by reading like a gossip page. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Choosing which reactions to mention is what we call "editing Wikipedia". Somebody has to decide, because article content can't choose itself. The primary criterion is defined by due weight, as well as general content policy, and verifiability. If we're going to lead with quotes like "something fun and without irreplaceable sentimental value" or say it would carry the "silliest thing we can imagine", we've already levt behind simple facts and we're going to sound pretty gossipy no matter. So then we should at least try to balance everyone's expressions of feeling, jealousy, or irritation, and not just let Musk have the platform to himself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dennis Bratland: The page has been unlocked; feel free to add your proposed content yourself. — JFG talk 08:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Talking about space-junk implications is fine, but the section goes about the wrong way by turning it into an unencyclopedic gab-fest. Primary-sourced "reactions" (which is all the section really is) aren't notable. You choosing them and calling it "editing" doesn't make them notable. That's synthesis of a new idea, a POV, from primary sources, not "editing". The section is all "He says, and he says, and she says, and they say..." -- an unencyclopedic form. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Section is NPOV because it's a collection of negative criticism from obscure sources and no sense of weight what in balance the world is saying which is by and large positive. -- GreenC 17:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Article title

See also, #Change article title? thread above.

The title was always sort of an unknown. Now that we know more about the mission, should we consider renaming it? I assume Elon owns more than one Tesla Roadster, so it's probably not super accurate to say this is "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster" without further qualification. Something that was unknown until shortly before launch was the presence of Starman. Perhaps "Starman's Tesla Roadster" or "Starman and Tesla Roadster" or "Starman and his Tesla Roadster" would be better names? The Roadster belonged to Elon Musk, but now it more belongs to Starman than Elon, and Starman is a big hit so it's a shame to keep him from the title. Open to other article title suggestions as well! Keavon (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the current title places too much emphasis on Elon Musk, and is not descriptive enough of the article subject. I would suggest Tesla Roadster in orbit or Orbital Tesla Roadster, or simply Tesla Roadster (satellite). "Starman" does not necessarily need to be in the title, but this article should be mentioned in Starman (disambiguation). (Well, its already there as Starman (SpaceX).) — JFG talk 14:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not in Earth orbit so it would cause confusion. It's not a satellite in the way we generally think of satellite's so it would also cause confusion. The article is mainly about the car after launch but is also about the car prior to launch. The article topic is a car. -- GreenC 17:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Rename to Tesla Roadster (boilerplate) per Boilerplate (spaceflight). 178.92.148.243 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
How about Tesla Roadster in space. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Boilerplate is a specialized term most people won't recognize what it means, and it was only a boilerplate for a while, now it's something else (what not sure). Of all suggestions so far Tesla Roadster in space is best, but I think whatever is done it should go through an RM given the controversial nature of the article. -- GreenC 18:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd approve Tesla Roadster in space. Note that the COSPAR database lists this object as "TESLA ROADSTER" (look for International Designator 2018-017A at Celestrak). — JFG talk 19:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@GreenC: It's in orbit, just not in Earth orbit, I don't see much confusion possible here. I agree there would be more ambiguity if we called it a satellite. There was some discussion about calling it a "spacecraft" but that is also incorrect, as it lacks most features of a proper spacecraft (propulsion, attitude control, communications, thermal management, etc.) — JFG talk 19:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be a source of confusion for the non-space-aware(?) person. If you don't say orbit around what the natural conclusion is probably earth. Most things in the news (non-specialist) when speaking of orbit is about things in earth orbit. -- GreenC 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
One could go with Tesla Roadster in Heliocentric orbit (current state), but prior to that, it was Tesla Roadster in elliptical Earth orbit, and prior to that it was Tesla Roadster in a fairing, and Telsa Roadster stuck in an LA traffic jam, and sometime prior to that 38% of it started off in England. All of these types of titles have the disadvantage of only reflecting one particular state, and few are likely to meet WP:COMMONNAME (a quick WP:GTEST can help to sanity check proposals), as can writing the proposed phrase in the middle of a sentence to see if it works, or if every single use is going to require piping to make it work in natural language. —Sladen (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Tesla Roadster (spacecraft)? Per examples at Spacecraft#Unmanned_spacecraft is seems to classify as a spacecraft (it was instrumented, and transmitted data, even if that data's only purpose was images to build hype); Ratsat for example is another boilerplate that is considered a 'spacecraft' (at least in the loosest possible terms). Better name than any of the above and has a good ring to it too. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
One could argue that it may quality as an "artificial satellite" but a "spacecraft", no way. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded, Boilerplate_(spaceflight) refers to boilerplates as 'non-functional spacecraft'. It is a spacecraft, at least in the loosest definition of the word as used in spaceflight terminology. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Definition of spacecraft: spacecraft": "a vehicle designed for travel or operation in space beyond the earth's atmosphere or in orbit around the earth." Spin its wheels and see how much traction (delta V) it gets. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded Colloquially perhaps, but not per spaceflight definitions. If you want a reliable source: NASA JPL's Horizons database lists it as object -143205, "SpaceX Roadster (spacecraft) (Tesla)."[8] — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
A spacecraft is not defined by its location, but its design and function. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded; See [this source]. NASA described it “Tesla Roadster (spacecraft). Dummy payload from the first launch of SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch vehicle. Consists of a standard Tesla Roadster automobile and a spacesuit-wearing mannequin nicknamed Starman.". Sorry, but if NASA says it meets the definition of a spacecraft, you aren't going to convince me that the moniker is inappropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
You can check it yourself by going HERE and clicking 'change' next to the "target body" and typing in "roadster". — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Convince the other Wikipedia editors. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily saying it is the best possible title, but it is the best I can come up with (and apparently NASA too). All of the others up above are ad hoc descriptors that fail WP:CONCISE or are completely made up. Tesla Roadster (boilerplate) is probably the next-best proposal above, but even boilerplates can be considered spacecraft, and even our own article on boilerplates lists the SpaceX roadster among Commercial spacecraft boilerplates. Unless something better is proposed, I think NASA's title is good enough for me. I am keen to see others weigh in. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I think (spacecraft) is probably best. If someone's trying to find the article, most people wouldn't think of boilerplate. The term is a bit obscure. Anyway, the article on Boilerplate (spaceflight) does say "(spacecraft)" and phrases like, "full-scale, non-functional boilerplate spacecraft..." So I think it's technically correct to use Tesla Roadster (spacecraft). On a related note (which I'm probably going to regret), do we know the Tesla separated from the second stage? Or was it broadcasting through the second stage's telecommunications equipment? Fcrary (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
For many days I looked for any information on a possible car-booster separation. Never found any, so I assume they remained together because SpaceX made no noise about further "accomplishments". BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that no, it did not disconnect, though I'm not certain of this. The Horizons listing seems to imply the attachment fitting as part of the listing, and NASA JPL isn't tracking any other objects from this launch, which heavily implies that they are travelling attached. However, I don't think we have official confirmation of payload non-separation. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for volunteering the correct interpretation of the database display: The code "(Spacecraft) (Tesla)" means the third stage (spacecraft) is still attached to the car (Tesla). BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded. I'm not sure what you mean by that, the listing currently refers to several titles on the data sheet: "Tesla Roadster (spacecraft)" and " Tesla Roadster (AKA: Starman, 2018-017A)" and "Target body name: SpaceX Roadster (spacecraft) (-143205) {source: tesla_s5}". I really recommend checking the listing yourself with the instructions above. Interestingly, it gives a payload weight of "~1250 Kg", which would imply the car alone. The terminology "(Spacecraft) (Tesla)" seems to have been slightly changed since the CNN source that I linked above was published. Update: sorry this sin't true, the listing in the search still includes this wording. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fcrary, BatteryIncluded, and Insertcleverphrasehere: FYI, Jonathan McDowell has confirmed with a SpaceX source that the Roadster was not separated from the second stage.[1] The special PAF also includes a plaque with engraved names of SpaceX personnel. — JFG talk 04:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ McDowell, Jonathan [@planet4589] (February 8, 2018). "I now have confirmation that the Tesla remains attached to the Falcon 2nd stage, which is being observed by asteroid experts" (Tweet). Retrieved February 11, 2018 – via Twitter.

Given a modicum of support for Tesla Roadster (spacecraft), I have launched a move request below, to try and gather consensus. — JFG talk 05:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

DW article

@Nagualdesign: - I don't get this cite: [9] The source does not contain the quote nor the name "Hugh Lewis". Are we looking at the same source? It is a DW article with URL http://www.dw.com/en/what-you-need-to-know-about-spacexs-falcon-heavy-launch/a-42466661 - please confirm. -- GreenC 04:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. There's a 'tweet box' under "3. Where it's going". The quote was wrong though, which I amended. nagualdesign 05:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Got it, my browser's add blocker was making the box invisible. -- GreenC 05:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries. I'm taking it on trust that Dr Lewis is indeed an expert in space debris, which makes his tweet somewhat noteworthy. nagualdesign 05:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be in the UK https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~hglewis/ .. -- GreenC 16:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request; grammar error

Grammar fix: "deliberate control of both their timing and the content of his corporate public relations stunts was the envy" -> "deliberate control of both the timing and the content of his corporate public relations stunts was the envy" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: this is  Done — xaosflux Talk 19:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster/Archive_1&oldid=1142759700"