Talk:Spaceworthiness

2010[edit]

Even if the Answers.com would really have low general credibility, the word spaceworthy is very well defined, with reliable references, in its Science Fiction Dictionary at www.answers.com/topic/spaceworthy: (n.) "Fit to travel safely in outer space. 1931 E. E. Smith Spacehounds of IPC Amazing Stories (Aug.) № 411/1: Slowly but steadily, under Stevens' terrific welding projector, the stubborn steel flowed together, once more to become a seamless, space-worthy structure. 1958 Parade Oakland (Cal.) Tribune (Jan. 5) № 6/2: The Russian suit is bulkier than ours, with pleated arms and legs. The helmet is a metal dome with a glass eye-slit. The ensemble is less efficient than ours — but, overall, no less spaceworthy. 1959 J. Wyndham & L. Parkes Outward Urge № 156: She reclaimed the damaged Satellites, and made three of them spaceworthy again. 1991 M. Weiss King's Test № 28: Fly off all planes, including those that are damaged if they're at all spaceworthy. 2002 A. Reynolds Redemption Ark (2004) № 24: Your ship is outwardly unremarkable, but betrays all the signs of being mechanically sound and spaceworthy."

This is the reason why I used it as a reference on the definition of the term spaceworthiness. And I still think that at least this page deserves our credibility, being worthy to be cited in the wikipedia. Thanks. Sethemanuel (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Spaceflight[edit]

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.

The result of this discussion was No merge.

This page is pretty much a definition of the word "spaceworthiness"; I think any content should be moved to either spaceflight or spacecraft. Mlm42 (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the very specialized and complex technical concepts defined by terms like spaceworthiness, airworthiness, seaworthiness and crashworthiness, I have the opinion that each of them deserve to have their own entry in Wikipedia, as is now. So, my proposal is against the mere merge of the "spaceworthiness" entry with the "spacecraft" one, but just to include some reference to "spaceworthiness" in the entry for "spacecraft". Sethemanuel (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the merge. Spaceworthiness is certainly a topic that, with support from reliable sources is worthy of its own article. More importantly, the existing Spacecraft article is in such bad shape that it has little prose describing the character and nature of spacecraft, and spaceworthiness hardly seems like the first subtopic to address until the more important items are addressed first. Once Spacecraft is cleaned up, I would be happy to reconsider and see if this might perhaps fit into a section of the spacecraft article. N2e (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Gallery[edit]

On what basis were the pictures chosen? Do they explain the topic in ways that other pictures don't? Jim.henderson (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Human-rating certification[edit]

I have proposed this merger; please join the discussion at the target article's talk page. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]