View source for Talk:VLS-1 V03

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Spaceflight |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Rocketry |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Brazil |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Disaster management |importance=low}}
}}
{{Annual readership}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(180d)
| archive=Talk:VLS-1 V03/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=3
| maxarchivesize=20T
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=6
| minthreadstoarchive=3
}}
{{Monthly archive list
| startyear           = 2004
| monthformat         = longname
| root                = VLS-1 V03/Archives
| search              = yes
| bot                 = Lowercase sigmabot III
| age                 = 180
}}

==SRB==
Perhaps it should be mentioned that the [[Space Shuttle]] also uses solid fuel booster rockets? [[User:Mat-C|Mat-C]] 12:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

==Engineering Failure??==

Is this really an "engineering failure".  None of the references I saw gave any indication of what the cause of the accident was.  -- [[User:Webgeer|Webgeer]] 23:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== rename? ==

[[2003 Brazilian rocket explosion]]? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Yuriybrisk|Yuriybrisk]] ([[User talk:Yuriybrisk|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yuriybrisk|contribs]]) 12:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== Requested move ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''no consensus to move'''. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 16:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

----

[[VLS-1 V03]] → {{no redirect|1=2003 Alcântara VLS accident}} – The information on this article deals exclusively with an event - the accident involving the VLS launcher, so according to WP naming conventions it should be renamed to 2003 Alcantara VLS accident - similar to [[Space Shuttle Columbia disaster]]. There is nothing on the article about the rocket itself. Therefore, I'm going to propose the article be moved back. Limongi (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)*'''Comment''' This isn't a reusable vehicle, it's a single use launcher, so whether or not it had an accident, it would still be the VLS-1 V03 mission. As other space mission articles are written like the current name, and some of them also document accidents, and this was an unmanned vehicle... either naming method works fine. 
[[Special:Contributions/70.24.251.71|70.24.251.71]] ([[User talk:70.24.251.71|talk]]) 14:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This article clearly falls under [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)|WP:NCE]] ("events and incidents, such as military conflicts, terrorist attacks, transportation accidents, natural disasters, and the like"). As for the "[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Launch articles|new naming convention]]" for individual launches, it is a suggestion and not a WP naming convention. In this specific case, there was a serious accident that occurred prior to launch killing 21 people, falling under [[Wikipedia:Notability (events)|WP:EVENT]]. [[User:Limongi|Limongi]] ([[User talk:Limongi|talk]]) 14:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The flight and incident are synonymous, and it would be a simple matter to expand details of the vehicle itself. That said, there are sufficient details available on the payloads to switch to the preferred content arrangement under [[WP:LAUNCHES]], thus eliminating the need for a launch article, so as a compromise we could rescope this article to deal solely with the accident, moving all but summary details on the flight to new articles on the payloads. For the record, [[WP:ONLYESSAY]] would seem to apply to Limongi's attempted counterargument to the quoted guideline. --'''''[[User:WDGraham|<span style="color:#115566;">W.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:WDGraham|<span style="color:#364966;">D.</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/WDGraham|<span style="color:#496636;">Graham</span>]]''''' 16:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
::WDGraham, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Launch articles|WP:LAUNCHES]] reads: 
::"Exceptions: Launches that resulted in the loss of life may be considered notable enough to warrant their own article under ''wider notability criteria'' (WP:EVENT), however such an article should be focussed around the accident, and only be created where there is sufficent information available to expand the article beyond a stub." And no, the flight and accident are not synonymous, as there was no flight. The explosion occurred days before the scheduled launch. [[User:Limongi|Limongi]] ([[User talk:Limongi|talk]]) 17:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
:::No, but there was a flight scheduled, please don't be pedantic. And the passage you quoted was pretty much what I was suggesting under the compromise proposal. --'''''[[User:WDGraham|<span style="color:#115566;">W.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:WDGraham|<span style="color:#364966;">D.</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/WDGraham|<span style="color:#496636;">Graham</span>]]''''' 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Please point out how "we could rescope this article to deal solely with the accident". Have you actually read the article? It is entirely about the accident. [[User:Limongi|Limongi]] ([[User talk:Limongi|talk]]) 19:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
::::I think we're both missing each others' points. Regardless of what is currently in this article, it could easily be expanded. This is more about restricting the directions in which it expands so as not to encroach upon future articles about the planned mission, and establishing that both can be covered separately. --'''''[[User:WDGraham|<span style="color:#115566;">W.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:WDGraham|<span style="color:#364966;">D.</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/WDGraham|<span style="color:#496636;">Graham</span>]]''''' 01:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::I agree, I think we were missing each others' points. I don't see a problem with restricting the scope of the article to cover only the accident. In fact, that is precisely why I'm proposing the name change, so that the article's scope will be limited to information about that specific event, and not the mission or rocket. I didn't want to create a new article, as I believe that an article about the accident should be prioritized due to its notability. If you check the pages that link to the current article you will see that nearly all of them are directing there due to the accident. The article could easily be expandend in that direction as there is a multitude of sources, as well as a 200-page report by the investigation board. So I guess the question is, should we rename this article or create a separate one? [[User:Limongi|Limongi]] ([[User talk:Limongi|talk]]) 01:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]].  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

== References ==

*{{cite journal | doi = 10.1016/j.ssci.2006.05.007 | title = An investigation into the loss of the Brazilian space programme's launch vehicle VLS-1 V03 | year = 2008 | last1 = Johnson | first1 = C.W. | last2 = De Almeida | first2 = Ildeberto Muniz | journal = Safety Science | volume = 46 | pages = 38 }}
*{{cite web |  url = http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~johnson/papers/Ildeberto_and_Chris.PDF | author = Ildeberto Muniz de Almeida, C.W. Johnson | title = Extending the Borders of Accident Investigation: Applying Novel Analysis Techniques to the Loss of the Brazilian Space Programme’s Launch Vehicle VLS-1 V03}}
*{{cite journal | doi =10.1007/978-1-4419-0874-2_10 | chapter =Brazil: Development - space launch systems, space probes and satellites | title =Emerging Space Powers | year =2010 | last1 =Harvey | first1 =Brian | last2 =Smid | first2 =Henk H. F. | last3 =Pirard | first3 =Théo | isbn =978-1-4419-0873-5 | pages =335}}

--[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 11:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
:Why is this here, rather than in the article itself? --'''''[[User:WDGraham|<span style="color:#115566;">W.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:WDGraham|<span style="color:#364966;">D.</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/WDGraham|<span style="color:#496636;">Graham</span>]]''''' 21:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
::Somebody has to read it and put it into the article, an up to now I only got the references and had a very brief look. --[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 21:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

== Is there a hindsight bias? ==

Recently I came across the phenomenon of hindsight bias and I wondered whether this bias might also be present in this Wikipedia article...
According to the hindsight bias, in retrospect it is overestimated how likely, predictable and/or inevitable an event was, and obviously a study has even found it in Wikipedia articles on accidents/catastrophes: doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7
So I wondered whether that could be the case with this article, too, – and whether the disaster is presented as more predictable and inevitable than it actually was before. Maybe we should search again for information that would have spoken against its occurrence?
Apparently, the hindsight bias occurs because of a retrospective focus on information that spoke FOR the event while ignoring (or not taking seriously) information that would have argued for another outcome, which then, of course, leads to the impression of inevitability and foreseeability... This is why I wondered whether this article might 
also be affected by hindsight bias and should thus be checked again for this? --[[Special:Contributions/2A02:810D:1300:38E5:61F3:7C52:F3B4:D1D8|2A02:810D:1300:38E5:61F3:7C52:F3B4:D1D8]] ([[User talk:2A02:810D:1300:38E5:61F3:7C52:F3B4:D1D8|talk]]) 16:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)