Talk:Glory (satellite)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glory (satellite) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A news item involving Glory (satellite) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 March 2011.

Wikipedia

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge[edit]

I propose that Glory (spacecraft) be merged into this page since the content on that page is an earlier version of the exact same mission and satellite with just a different launch vehicle. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - however, given that this page has details of the mission which are accurate and up-to-date and Glory (spacecraft) contains only out-of-date, predictive information, I'd like to propose that it is deleted instead. Colds7ream (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

launch successes by category of mission?[edit]

A colleague remarks that "Satellites for monitoring climate change do seem to be extraordinarily accident prone." Is this statistically accurate? Midgley (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change of tense[edit]

In light of the destruction of this satellite, one imagines that the present-tense verbs in the equipment descriptions should be changed to past tense. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wp:be bold...go for it. --emerson7 17:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

planned/failed[edit]

The first sentence says this was a "planned" mission. It was more than planned, it was launched, it just failed to orbit (failed to orbit is from later in the paragraph.) Instead of saying "planned" should it says "failed"? Or we could just remove the word planned and call it a mission. What is the best way to word this? RJFJR (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we clarify how the material caused the failure[edit]

Can we clarify how the material caused the failure. Different quality aluminium caused the frangible bolt to fail - How : was it too strong to fragment ? What did the investigation of the first Taurus fairing failure in 2009 conclude ? and what did they do about it ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]