Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Solrad 1/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2019 [1].

---

Solrad 1

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• This article is about SOLRAD 1, the world's first surveillance satellite and the first satellite to make observations of the sun in X-ray and ultraviolet light. I created the article, improved it to B class, then to G.A. Since then, I have further improved the article, exhausting all sources I could find. I thus humbly submit it for the F.A. review process. --Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  I will be helping Neopeius with this nomination and will start to address comments as I find time. Kees08 (Talk) 21:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

No examination of prose, no survey for comprehensiveness of sourcing at this time.

There are a bundle of problems with source formatting, completeness of bibliographic information, and at least a few (rebuttable) RS concerns:

• Date formats! I see MDY, DMY, and ISO.

  Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• The Review and Redaction guide really needs more verbose bibliographic information. As it stands, this is basically just an external link. And I think you cite it differently, twice.

  Combined and done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• I know Google Books says that Space Exploration and Humanityis authored by "America Astronautical Society". Google Books can be a trap. It's actually edited by Stephen B. Johnson. Individual topics (which should be cited with |chapter) have unique authorship. The "SolRad Program" section you are citing, for example, is by Matt Billie.

  That's particularly ironic since I'm on the American Astronautical Society's history committee and should probably email Matt about his article :) We had our semi-annual meeting last Friday. How is this citation?

  --Neopeius (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• I sense a colon missing in the title of Day, Logsdon, and Latell (1998).

  Interestingly, there is none on the cover or the frontispiece, but there is in the ISBN info. So... in goes the colon! --Neopeius (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Periodicals (such as Aviation Week and Space Technology) don't require publication locations or publishers barring exceptional circumstances (you don't need them here). On the other hand, page numbers... YMMV regarding the archive link. Technically, the web link is a convenience link, because the real source is print media. Some people like the double-archiving, some hate it. Regardless, that's not actionable.

  Then I shall note it but take no action!  :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• You don't fully cite "Navy's Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities". Which should probably be italicized, because it's essentially a book published online. Actually, I'd cite it as such. And it has a doi, for fun: 10.17226/11299

  How is this reference? (the placement of the chapter field seems odd) --Neopeius (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

References

• Let me look at the "Poppy Satellite" source more thoroughly before I pass judgment on it.

  It's an NRO document. If we can't trust the government, who 'can' we trust? :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Vanguard 3" is incompletely referenced.

  Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• "SOLRAD 1" is incompletely referenced.

  Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• You appear to reference Significant Achievements twice.

  Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• I may need to be convinced that Mark Wade's website is a reliable source.

  That's fair. I'm finding him increasingly incorrect. Swapped him out for McDowell's launch log. --Neopeius (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• The Chicago Daily Tribune source is a broken link. It probably needs more bibliographic information, especially a page number.

  Fixed Kees08 (Talk)

• Kahler and Kreplin 1991 has a problem WITH CAPS LOCK BEING LEFT ON.

  Fixed Kees08 (Talk)

• I need to be convinced Andrew LePage's website is a reliable source.

  Drew is quite reliable, and he lists his sources. I could probably dig through and recreate his research, but I trust him. He's certainly as trustworthy as Matt Billie, for instance. --Neopeius (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Check author name format. Friedman doesn't match.

  'Dr.' Herbert Friedman? I'm not certain what you're referencing. --Neopeius (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• The satellite tracking source is incompletely referenced. I'll need to dig a little to assure myself that's RS, but hardly my biggest concern at the moment.

  What other information would you like sourced? It's not an article but a tracker. Please let me know since I use this site for all of the satellites I write about, thanks. --Neopeius (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of this is fairly easily correctable. So I'm just in "comment" territory at the moment, although I may revisit that if I get more time to dig deeper. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help! I hope we're zeroing in on completion. :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Squeamish Osifrage: All corrections made. Ready and standing by for the next round! :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC) @Squeamish Ossifrage: Neopeius whiffed a little on his ping, pinging so you see his comment. Kees08 (Talk) 15:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Drive by comment by Nick-D

In addition to the referencing issues noted by Squeamish Ossifrage above, I'd also note that the references for several of the online sources do not identify who published them, or the broader website/publication the page is part of. This can be quickly fixed though. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

  Fixed Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Added alt text; let me know if you think it needs improving. Kees08 (Talk) 07:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick-D: @Nikkimaria: Ready to resume when you are! :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Hey, just seeing if you have time to sign off on the image review. Let me know if you would like additional changes. Kees08 (Talk) 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Images should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

This has been open a month and not attracted any support for promotion thus far. I've added it to the FAC Urgents list, but if we don't pick up some momentum within the next few days this will have to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Argento Surfer

I made a few copyedits. Please review them for accuracy. Is there a reliable estimate on how long the satellite will remain in orbit? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! The first one I might quibble with since it makes it unclear what the NRL established itself as, only when it did so. The other two are fine. As for a reliable estimate, given its altitude, I'd guess 100-200 years, but that's just comparing it to Vanguard 1, whose perigee is a little higher. --Neopeius (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

And you can't include OR of course. Any RSs suggesting the same? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a one. --Neopeius (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I can support the prose. I have not reviewed the images or sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's wonderful, thank you! Sadly, SP100 is not available online for your perusal. --Neopeius (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "It shared satellite space with and provided cover for the first in the GRAB (Galactic Radiation and Background) series, a secret electronic surveillance program." This is clumsy - I had to read it several times to understand it.
• "Solrad/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit with Transit 2A via Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket". This is also unclearly worded. Do you need to mention the navigation system in the lead? I would say "Solrad and GRAB 1 were launched into orbit on a Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket". (See also query below on whether there were one or two satellites.)

Yeah, this paragraph has evolved a lot largely because when I originally wrote it, I did so from the perspective of SOLRAD being the main satellite and GRAB being the parasite. It's an outdated way to think about it since the two packages co-flew, and the GRAB mission was the more important one, even if the SOLRAD mission returned some excellent data. I've fixed it, and if you like it, that'll be my model for the other satellites in the series.

• "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit (along with Transit 2A) via Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket on June 22, 1960, marking the first time two instrumented satellites (SOLRAD/GRAB 1 and Transit 2A) had been orbited at once." I think I understand now - Transit 2A was a separate project? Maybe "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit together with another satellite called Transit 2A on a Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket on June 22, 1960, marking the first time two instrumented satellites were launched on the same rocket." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Modified -- let me know if you like my solution. :)

• The first paragraph of 'Background' is unreferenced.

Good catch. I'd only recently split those paragraphs.

• It would be helpful to give the dates of Vanguard.

Done, with reference.

• " which in turn, inhibits stellar astronomy" I do not think you need the comma.

but I *like*, my superfluous, commas! :)

• "solar flares and other outbursts directly affected the Earth's thermosphere" What "other outbursts"? This is vague.

I guess solar flares is good enough for any irregular outburst.

• "chart the Sun's radiation, determine its effects on the Earth, and correlate it with activities observed in other wavelengths of light" Correlating the sun's radiation with other wavelengths does not make sense.

Thanks. Measurements replacing activities.

• "was required to properly chart the Sun's radiation, determine its effects on the Earth, and correlate it with activities observed in other wavelengths of light" Correlating the sun's radiation with other wavelengths still does not make sense. Presumably you mean correlating X-rays and ultraviolet with other wavelengths, but you need to say so.Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Fixed. Also, made consistent the capitalization of "sun"

• "to cheaply and efficiently produce a satellite for the GRAB surveillance mission." This is unreferenced and I am not sure it makes sense. Do you mean that production of SOLRAD reduced costs for GRAB?

Fixed both issues.

• "The satellite's GRAB surveillance equipment detected Soviet air defense radars using the S band (1,550-3,900 MHz)." You imply here that GRAB equipment was on the SOLRAD satellite, but in the lead and below you refer to "two instrumented satellites". Then you say "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was the world's first operational surveillance satellite." You are inconsistent whether there were one or two satellites.

Fixed above.

• " thus scanned the whole sky with no source in particular." Again clumsy. Maybe " thus scanned the whole sky without focussing on a particular source."

Thank you. Fixed.

• "as much for the orbiting of SOLRAD as the simultaneous orbiting of Transit 2A" I am not clear what this means. The article on Transit 2A describes it as a navigation system, not a satellite. You imply that Transit 2A was the satellite which carried GRAB, but if so this should be made clear. Then you describe Transit 2A as the parent of SOLRAD 1 - "SOLRAD 1 separated automatically from its parent, Transit 2A". I am confused.

Removed parent issues.

• "whip-style". This should be explained or linked.

fixed

• "ionized thermospheric layes" layers?

yes!

• "The SOLRAD/GRAB series flew four more times" Presumably the GRAB article is wrong to say that only two of its five satellites made it into orbit?

fixed.

• You say now that it flew twice more successfully, making three in total, but the GRAB article says two in total. Which is correct? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is an interesting article, but the text is often unclear and it is some way off FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

All excellent suggestions. Thanks so much! --Neopeius (talk) @Dudley Miles:

A ping only works if you include the ping and your signature in the same edit. @Dudley Miles: Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Goodness, I'll never get this right. @Gog the Mild: --Neopeius (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This process has actually had quintuple benefit since all the improvements end up on the others in the series. With luck, they can all be FAs! :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. My queries have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! Your comments were all spot on. I will carry your suggestions to future articles (and FA reviews I am involved with). --Neopeius (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

Copyedits were great, thank you!

• the satellite was in many ways a direct successor to Project Vanguard: as far as I can tell from the body, it would be OK to shorten this to "the satellite was a successor to Project Vanguard"; the qualifications don't seem to add any information.

Well, here's the thing. Vanguard was a civilian program. SOLRAD was not. GRAB absolutely was not. So, though it used the same satellite bus and many of the same people were involved, it was not a direct successor. That said, I really wanted to draw that line for context.

Fair enough, but what you currently have doesn't say that -- and in any case the lead should be a summary of what's in the body, and this isn't mentioned in the body. Do you have any sources, perhaps that discuss the overall SOLRAD program rather than this specific satellite, that talk about the relationship between SOLRAD and Vanguard?

I understand your concerns, but I do say in the article that SOLRAD used the Vanguard bus, that it was created by NRL, and many of the same engineers were involved. Moreover, several Vanguard experiments made it into the SOLRAD package. I think it's fair to say that SOLRAD was "in many ways a direct successor" -- the ways being what I've listed above.

Struck; I'd prefer something more direct, but I see your point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• the GRAB ... package, whose mission was to...: this might be a British/American English difference, but I typically would only see "whose" for a person. Not a big deal if you're OK with it as it is, but how about "...package, which was intended to map..." or "designed to"?

I'm not quite sure I agree, but I've changed it anyway! :)

• Is there a suitable link for Soviet air defense radar network in the lead? Perhaps Russian air surveillance radars?

That link goes to VHF radars, whereas SOLRAD was looking in the S Band (between UHF and SHF).

OK. How about a redlink, then? Or Maury, do you know if there's a suitable target article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If it was working in the s-band, I suspect it was looking for the Fan Song, not the P-12. Most Soviet EW radars of that era were VHF, and I don't think the antennas on the sat would be big enough to get a good signal above UHF. I'll ask someone that knows though, but I wouldn't hold it up on this, I'll add it when I know for sure. HOWEVER, there's no description of how the sats recorded and or played back the signals, and I think that is pretty imporant. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you recommend a source for that?

• It was also desired that the intended targets of this electronic surveillance not know that they were being spied upon. Therefore, as American space launches were not classified until late 1961, a co-flying cover mission sharing satellite space with GRAB was necessary to enable this concealment. The source doesn't really say it was necessary, it says it provided cover (and saved money), so I think this needs a tweak. How about: "American space launches were not classified until late 1961, so a co-flying cover mission sharing satellite space would help conceal GRAB's electronic surveillance mission from its intended targets."

Done, thank you. :)

• Is it possible to identify the features visible on the equator of the infobox picture and reference them in the text? E.g. if the small feature on the left is one of the photometers, say so when describing the instrumentation in the "Spacecraft" section. I see the drewexmachina.com page has an image identifying some of the details; is that image available for us to use?

Good idea. Uploaded to Wikicommons and included.

• The drewexmachina.com page has quite a few details you don't mention. If you think it's a reliable source, I'd go ahead and add the extra details -- the mention of GREB, for example, the fact that GRAB was declassified in 1998, the fact that the lower orbit was intended to avoid the radiation problem, or the reason why the orbit varied from the plan (problems with the rocket's second stage).
• You mention a deviation from the planned orbit, but as far as I can say you never say what the planned orbit was.

I've been loathe to open the can of worms which is the zillion ways the satellite has been referred to in the literature. Similarly, I haven't wanted to clutter the text with too much info. That said, you're probably right. I'd like to not bring up GREB/SR1/SOLRAD 1/Solrad 1/GRAB/Tattletale/Dyno if I don't have to, though. :) I'm also not going to mention the lower orbit because Explorer 7 HAD a lower orbit, and this didn't keep it from getting saturated. Drew's stuff is generally reliable, but I try to verify what I see there in more than one place.

• The event was front page news, though as much for the orbiting of SOLRAD as the simultaneous orbiting of Transit 2A – the launch marked the first time two instrumented satellites had been carried to orbit on the same booster. The clipping accessible via the citation doesn't support this; is the clipping incomplete? I don't have "Publishers Extra" access to newspapers.com so I can't see the whole article. Assuming it does support this, I'd suggest rephrasing as "The event was front page news, though as much because the launch marked the first time two instrumented satellites had been carried to orbit on the same booster as for the individual satellites."

rephrased.

• These thermospheric disturbances were not just caused by solar flares, but also by active solar prominence regions as well as bright surges and subflares at the edge (or limb) of the sun. Was this understood at the time? Or is this a modern assessment? It would have required correlation with ground-based observational data, and I don't know to what extent e.g. the prominences could be monitored from the ground in 1960. If it's not something that could have been deduced at the time I think we should add something like "It was later determined that".

SP100 came out in 1965. It was a contemporary assessment.

• "Lyman Alpha" or "Lyman-alpha"? You have both.

With hyphen. :) Fixed.

• I can't see the source to confirm that it supports this, but assuming it does, I'd suggest saying in the "Ultraviolet" section that the Lyman Alpha detectors were dropped because it had been determined that solar ultraviolet output was not linked to flares.

Wouldn't that be nice? I had this discussion with Kees. AvWeek says it was deleted from SOLRAD 3 because of the negative findings. BUT it was left on SOLRAD 2. Why? Well, I can guess -- probably because SOLRAD 2 had already been built (and maybe even launched) before the finding was made. The sentence was deliberately phrased that way to avoid people asking why it wasn't deleted from SOLRAD 2. I agree, it's not perfect.

I tweaked the wording slightly to make it flow a little better without actually asserting the connection; see if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's just fine, thank you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• SOLRAD 1 was also assayed for its ability to detect Soviet above-ground atomic tests: I'm not sure what you mean by "assayed" here. Do you mean that the data was examined later, or that SOLRAD 1's ability to detect these tests was discussed during development?

The latter.

Then I'd suggest rewording to make that clearer. How about: "It had been hoped during design and development that SOLRAD would be able to identify above-ground atomic tests, which produced strong emissions of X-rays in the bands that SOLRAD could detect. If a nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union were to go into effect, SOLRAD or its successors might then be able to detect unauthorized tests by the Soviets." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ooo! That's quite nice, thank you.

• Nevertheless, even this first limited surveillance endeavor yielded valuable insight into the disposition of Soviet air defense radars; in fact, Soviet air defense activity was found to be more extensive than expected. If the only information gained was that it was "more extensive than expected" then it's a bit wordy and we could probably cut down most of the first half. If it found more than that, are any details available?

Nothing that would be meaningful to the lay reader, but you're right that it was too wordy. Fixed!

• The "Status" section is too short; I'd combine it with "Legacy", either as "Status and legacy" or just "Status".

Done!

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: --Neopeius (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(further changes answered --Neopeius (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC))

I've struck everything except the point Maury responded to. I'm ready to support, but since Maury indicates above that he feels significant information might be added, I'm going to hold off to see if he can suggest sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments: I had not heard of this very interesting project and I'm glad it's come up here. However, there is definitely a missing section about how the ELINT worked.

One of the sources has some details, and reading between the lines I see how it worked. Basically it did not record anything, instead it simply took the output of its receiver's IF stage and mixed it with a VHF source and back out it went to be picked up on the ground stations. So it could only be used when it had line-of-site both ways. Judging by the size of the ground station antennas, it looks like the downlink was around 1-200&mnsp;MHz, so that's why the Soviets didn't see the signal on their own receivers. Very clever!

Having been through FAs in the past, I feel bad about holding up any FA, especially because I don't have a good source that fully describes the system. I'm perfectly happy passing as-is as long as we don't have to re-FA when I do find the info and add it. I have no idea when that might be, I'm still in the midst of working my way though the UK sets. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Maury! Thanks very much for looking at this issue. When I started SOLRAD, it was kind of as an aside, but then I kept finding more and more information to add. I agree that this kind of information is valuable, but I also worry about inundating the reader with too much information. For the average encyclopedic reader, that GRAB listened for air defense radars (I don't even mention that these are the radars that coordinated AA missiles) is probably sufficient, just as I don't go into detail how an ion tube works.

Which is not to say this information should not be added -- I'm all for making the articles as complete as possible (and defense stuff gets neglected since it was classified and rather arcane). It's just important that the information be presented in a concise and accessible manner so as not to detract from the context of the whole piece.

Anyway, if you think it's FA-worthy now, and you want to improve it later, I'm obliged to you on both counts. I'm certainly game for reviewing whatever you add.  :) --Neopeius (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It's operation is easy to explain. Unless anyone objects, I'll add a section based on the NRO document. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is what I propose adding:

During World War II the RAF Coastal Command began deploying a series of radar systems to detect German U-boats on the surface. As the technique improved, the Germans found themselves under constant attack and deployed a series of radar detectors to give the boats time to dive.

In the post-war era, the use of radar in the anti-submarine role became widespread, and the need for better radar detectors became pressing. One such system was worked on by Reid D. Mayo of the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). This solution used a spiral antenna connected to a crystal detector tuned to microwave frequencies. The system was small enough that it could be placed inside the submarine's periscope, which allowed the submarine to check for nearby aircraft while remaining safely submerged.

In 1957 the Soviet Union began deploying the S-75 Dvina surface-to-air missile. Details of its "Fan Song" radars were measured by electronic reconnaissance aircraft flying off the borders of the Soviet Union, revealing their rough location and individual operating frequencies. This allowed the US Air Force to plan its entrance routes across the border by keeping their distance from the sites, but information on the sites further inland was lacking. Some experiments were carried out using radio telescopes looking for reflections off the Moon, but the information collected was not particularly detailed.

At the time, the NRL was heavily involved in Project Vanguard, the US Navy's effort to launch a satellite. When a snowstorm trapped Mayo at a Pennsylvania Howard Johnson's with his family, he began to consider using the periscope receiver system on a Vanguard fuselage to map Soviet missile sites. While his wife and children slept, he began carrying out calculations on the restaurant's placemat, and determined that the detector should be able to measure the signals as altitudes just over 600 miles (970 km).

The concept was very simple. A receiver in the satellite was turned to the approximate frequency of the radars, and its output was used to trigger a separate VHF transmitter in the spacecraft. As it travelled over the Soviet Union, the satellite would be hit by the pulses from the missile radars and immediately re-broadcast them on the 108 MHz telemetry frequency out a turnstile antenna. Ground stations around the world would record the signals and send them to the NRL for analysis. Although the receiver was omnidirectional, by looking for the same signals on multiple passes and comparing that to the known location of the satellite, the rough location of the radars could be determined, along with their exact pulse repetition frequency.

When he returned to Washington, Mayo presented the idea to Howard Lorenzen, head of the NRL's countermeasures branch. Lorenzen promoted the idea within the Department of Defense, and six months later the concept was given an official go-ahead under the name "Tattletale".

That's absolutely beautiful. Here's is my suggestion:

I propose that this NOT be added to SOLRAD 1 as it is quite long, comparatively, and goes into more detail than needed for the article. Where this would be absolutely FANTASTIC is the GRAB article, where I've wanted to put this information, which you have presented perhaps more cogently than I ever could. I think that would tie things together nicely, and in fact, set up the whole GRAB/SOLRAD 1-4B sequence for Good Topic status. --Neopeius (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: I think a condensed version of Paragraph 5 (second to last) of what you wrote would go wonderfully right after where I currently have (under Spacecraft) "The satellite's GRAB surveillance equipment detected Soviet air defense radars using the S band (1,550–3,900 MHz).[13]" But the full definition would best go on the GRAB page.

How about:

A receiver in the satellite was turned to the approximate frequency of the radars, and its output was used to trigger a separate VHF transmitter in the spacecraft. As it traveled over the Soviet Union, the satellite would be hit by the pulses from the missile radars and immediately re-broadcast them to ground stations below, which would record the signals and send them to the NRL for analysis. Although GRAB's receiver was omnidirectional, by looking for the same signals on multiple passes and comparing that to the known location of the satellite, the rough location of the radars could be determined, along with their exact pulse repetition frequency.

(and we'd need the complete citation)--Neopeius (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: I have added the above and also the frequency transmission for GRAB (139MHz). I think the article is ready to go. Can you please sign off, and also provide the complete Bamford reference? Thanks very much for your help! :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the changes made address the completeness problem I see. The article glosses over the history of this system, and I'm not sure why. I suggested adding a total of four paragraphs, which hardly seems long for an article of this relatively short size. Additionally, unless I'm reading it wrong, according to the NRO sources the elint was broadcast on 108 and the 139 was used for commands and status. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Maury. As this article is about the spacecraft, which was a dual mission, I made a deliberate decision not to overly emphasize one aspect over the other. Again, I think this information is great and best included on the general GRAB article.

Also, while I am not disinclined to briefly add some more of the information you want to include, I cannot do so without the Bamford source, which I've now asked for three times (not to sound snippy! :) That's just what's holding me up...) Thank you again! :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. You are correct re: 139MHz. Fixed! :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Again, I am amenable to including material from the Bamford, but I'll need the full citation and, if possible, a URL for direct access, to do so. Thank you! :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Finally, I will note that, on my SOLRAD 3 review, I am being told that I'm spending too MUCH time on the GRAB mission there... So perhaps it's best to leave things as they are? (but I'd still like the citation, please). --Neopeius (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Bamford is here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Maury indicated elsewhere on this page that they believe the page is much better and are supporting, in case you would like to cast your support/oppose. Kees08 (Talk) 16:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

References

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking forward to it! Things should be pretty close to done. --Neopeius (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• the development and management of Project Vanguard (1956–59), --> "the development and management of Project Vanguard (1956–1959)" because MOS:DOB
• composed of the Project Vanguard engineers unlink "Project Vanguard".
• Like Vanguard 3, the spacecraft was roughly spherical unlink "Vanguard 3".
• massing 19.05 kg (as opposed to Vanguard's 23.7 kg) No U.S. customary measurement system?
• via four whip-style 63.5 cm long antennas mounted No inches.
• varying from 611 to 1,046 km in altitude No miles.
• the planned 930 km circular orbit Same as above.
• less than 6x10−4 ergs/cm²/sec How much is cm² in U.S. customary measurement system?
• over a circular area 3500 nautical miles in diameter --> "over a circular area 3,500 nautical miles in diameter" and link nautical miles
• intelligence successor, Poppy, 1963–65. The final five SOLRAD satellites were stand-alone scientific satellites, three of which were also given NASA Explorer program numbers. These flew from 1965–76. --> "intelligence successor, Poppy, 1963–1965. The final five SOLRAD satellites were stand-alone scientific satellites, three of which were also given NASA Explorer program numbers. These flew from 1965–1976."

More comments

• "19.05 kg" no lbs in the infobox.
• "(42.0 lb)" the "0" isn't necessary (in the lead and the infobox).
• By WP:UNIT the U.S. customary measurement system should be primary and then metric units.
• Just let you know that cm and km in the article are written in British English (centimetres and kilometres instead of centimeters and kilometers).

• Lbs were in the infobox...
• Fixed.
• Also per WP:UNIT, in scientific articles, SI comes first. Also, mass in pounds is meaningless. :)
• I'm using the Wikipedia {convert} template. Is there one that works in Murican?

Thanks again! Are we close? Could someone support this article for FA? @CPA-5: --Neopeius (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

All changes made, though I loathe the need for conversions. The scientific community exclusively uses metric. We might as well start putting in furlongs, rods, and fathoms conversions. :)

The only change I could not make is 6x10−4 ergs/cm²/sec -- there is no English conversion, and turning cm² to English while keeping the other components metric would produce a meaningless chimera unit. That said, I did find that, although the erg is still commonly used in astrophysics (the province in which SOLRAD's findings clearly reside)m nevertheless, I converted ergs to Joules for universal application.:* @Neopeius: This looks great. Here are my last comments

Thank you very much for your help! --Neopeius (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Neopeius: This looks great. Here are my last comments about issues I just found. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Neopeius: Looks good Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Done?

Hello all. I have done my best to accommodate all revision requests. I believe this article is ready to go. I am pinging all those who commented; please make a final review and let me know if you support/oppose/are neutral. And thank you all so very much for the time you've put into making this article excellent. Please do not hesitate to ping me if you ever need similar assistance from me.

Thus far, I have support from CPA-5, Argento Surfer, and Dudley Miles, as well as conditional support from Mike Christie (I've incorporated Maury's suggestions as far as I feel is appopriate for this article).

@Squeamish Ossifrage: @Mike Christie: @Nikkimaria: @Kees08: @Gog the Mild: @Maury Markowitz: --Neopeius (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: It seems to have an image review, and I am assuming that Squeamish Ossifrage's effort was the source review? I have been stalking the page, and if there is any type of review that an editor who knows nothing whatsoever about spaceflight could do, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how FARs are split up -- I didn't see anything about it on the page. What are the other categories that need to be checked off, and do they all require one reviewer apiece? Thanks for dropping by! --Neopeius (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Neopeius: Hey Neopeius could you add page numbers in the PDF refs. Because they have at least 20 pages and two of the three have more than 100 pages. Thanks and Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sure can. Thanks! --Neopeius (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Done! @CPA-5: --Neopeius (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

To chime in on sources, since this is a first-time nominator there will have to be a spot check. Also, I have gone through them all with a fine-toothed comb and have nitpicked as much as I possibly can. There theoretically should be few issues remaining, if anyone can pick this up. I have also been spotchecking throughout. I presume my edits to the article disqualify me from source reviewing, but if that is incorrect please let me know and I will finish it up. Kees08 (Talk) 00:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I remain concerned about coverage and completeness. If you want to FA it in its current form I'll vote Neutral. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Thanks for reviewing—would you have time soon to enumerate some of your concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Laser_brain! Maury has articulated his concerns in our exchange above pretty thoroughly, and I've documented what I've done in response to his concerns. In short, I feel I have adequately incorporated his suggestions in such a way as to not focus the article too narrowly. Given that another reviewer has already told me that I included too MUCH information on GRAB in SOLRAD 3, which is structurally an identical article, I think it's best exactly as it is. Maury's more detailed information is best suited to the overall GRAB article rather than an individual mission article. Given that every encyclopedic source on this topic does not go into the detail Maury is suggesting, I think my approach is the better one (which is not to discount Maury's efforts or understate my appreciation for his assistance!) @Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk)

Thanks. @Kees08: If you have the bandwidth for a source spot-check, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I will request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Source review and spotcheck

• Where is SOLRAD 1's mass in this? Should we add the SOLRAD 1 NSSDC link to the end of SOLRAD 1 was slightly lighter, however, massing 19.05 kilograms (42 lb) (as opposed to Vanguard's 23.7 kilograms (52 lb)).
• For the Aviation Weekly citations, can you add the page number? I know the url links to it, but it would be good for those with a paper copy.

That's all I see right now. Sources seem to line up with the information in the article. Kees08 (Talk) 02:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Both issues addressed. Thank you for the check! --Neopeius (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be all good to go on sources then (and spotchecking). Kees08 (Talk) 04:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the lack of support for promotion by those who have dug into the comprehensiveness and content, acknowledging that we do have support from a prose quality standpoint. I have this on the Urgents list because I'm hoping for some more feedback. If you can sift through relevant wikiprojects for any other SMEs who might be interested in posting a review here, that would be a more proactive way to move this forward if so desired. --Laser brain (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Laser brain:. I will see who I can get to help. We're so close... --Neopeius (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage and Mike Christie: Seeing if you all have any more comments for this? Kees08 (Talk) 20:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Laser brain, I'm not opposed to promotion, but have refrained from supporting since Maury has indicated he feels some content is missing. He hasn't opposed, but he's more of a subject matter expert than I am and I would be uncomfortable supporting while he still thinks that. Maury, do you still feel the article is incomplete? I know Neopeius has added some material in response to your comments. Other than that I have no reservations about promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think this article is incomplete. The history is simply not an accurate description of how this came about, and I personally don't think the solution is to read some other article. But that's being said by something who writes 125,000 chars on a single radar. It does not seem anyone else has commented on this, so I'm unconfortable holding up the FA on my opinion only. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Maury Markowitz. A theme that comes up a lot during criticism of the FAC process is that we don't have enough SMEs to really dig into comprehensiveness questions. For things that I'm personally qualified about, I could walk into an FAC that's enjoying lots of support but notice that a key source or piece of the narrative was missed (in good faith). Usually the nominator just didn't know, and it's a process to work through the issue. @Neopeius: I'm hoping we can resolve this issue as I feel this is actionable feedback and I'm uncomfortable considering promotion with this pending. --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I've shortened the Background even further per Balon Greyjoy's request. Tattletale and SOLRAD each now just get a short paragraph apiece. I've carefully considered Maury's objections (which I value!) and responded to them. The technical details he desired are included under Spacecraft. The developmental details are subsumed under "After Vanguard, the Navy's next major goal was to use the observational high ground of Earth's orbit to survey the locations and frequencies of the Soviet air defense radar network." Does the article really need four paragraphs describing the provenance of the Tattletale system? Does the reader really need to know Mayo came up with the idea in a Howard Johnson's? Or that it was based on crystal video technique developed for submarine periscopes? That information is completely superfluous in the context of this article.

SOLRAD 1 is about SOLRAD 1. The focus is on the satellite, its design, and its results. I think adding all that verbiage regarding Tattletale's provenance does not improve the article. --Neopeius (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The entire concept of FA is to be comprehensive and engaging. This article is neither. Quite the opposite, the edits that have been carried out have removed everything interesting and reduced it to a boring collection of factoids. It gets further from what I think of as FA with every edit. I realize this is ultimately simply a difference of opinions over how to write wiki articles. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've got a plan for a revision of Background which I'll implement on Monday. I'll ping you when it's up, thanks. --Neopeius (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(the article has been substantially revised per the latest comments -- please review and let me know if the current form adequately satisfies the need to balance breadth with brevity.) --Neopeius (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for this tardy reply, been busy IRL. I think the article is much better now. I'll support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz:, your help has been invaluable. Thank you for all the time you've put into this FAC. --Neopeius (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Proper review by Nick-D

This article is in good shape. I have the following comments:

• The lead should note the period this satellite was active. It would also be preferable to note earlier (preferably in the first sentence) when it was launched, given that it's main claim to fame is that it was the first to do a bunch of things.

Substantially revamped the lead for the better. Thank you.

• What was the Naval Research Laboratory's role in Project Vanguard?

"the development and management"

• "in history's first remote satellite deactivation" - bit clunky

Fixed.

• "The satellite communicated results in real-time, each pass providing just one to ten minutes of data," - this is confusing. What's meant by a "pass" (is this an orbit?), and why did it only provide data for about 10% of each orbit?

Fixed.

This is still unclear - why did it collect data for only 10% or so of the time? Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it by putting things in a better order. It only communicated in real-time, so a station had to be in range, which wasn't most of the time.

That looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• "about half the time the sun was in the sky" - this seems a bit confusing in the context of an orbiting satellite.

Better?

• S band is linked twice

Fixed.

• Reference 5 needs a page number

Fixed

• I'm not a fan of the lack of page numbers for reference 3 (American Astronautical Society), given that this is a 3-page range. Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. I also added a reference under Background to the dummy SOLRAD launched before SOLRAD 1.

Thank you so much for your attention to this article! :) @Nick-D: --Neopeius (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy comments

Background

• "established itself as a player early in" I would change that to "was involved in" to flow more smoothly, and I feel like "player" is a bit of a colloquialism

Agreed.

• even though it's a backronym, I would start shorten the naming sentence for GRAB with "was called the Galactic Radiation and Background (GRAB) program"

I've now put in the entire messy lineage of acronyms, from Tattletale, to Dyno, to Grab/Greb, to Solrad. :)

• since "such cover" references the end of the previous paragraph, I would expand a bit more to say that "the study of the sun's electromagnetic spectrum was the official cover used for the GRAB program"

You got it.

• I would shorten the sentences about the reason for solar astronomy, and just state that flying above the atmosphere was required to study the sun's spectrum
• Remove "on a more practical level" as that is subjective; just state that the solar flares affected the thermosphere
• Remove "in other words, a satellite" as that sounds conversational. The reader will know what a satellite is, or can go to its Wikipedia page. "A long-duration satellite was required..."
• Instead of using a list, why not make it a paragraph to explain the NRL goals? Some of the goals are redundant with what you explain earlier in the paragraph.

Spacecraft

Boy -- condensing all of that down to two paragraphs while preserving the information was difficult, but I think I got it. What do you think?

• I would split the first sentence, as a lot happens in it. "The NRL science satellite team, lead by Martin Votaw, was composed of Project Vanguard engineers and scientists who had not migrated to NASA upon its creation. The team adapted the Vanguard 3 design for SOLRAD/GRAB 1."

Done

• Take Explorer 7 out of the parentheses, and state "Vanguard 3 and Explorer 7 had also..."

I took out Explorer 7 altogether.

• Since this section is about the design of the spacecraft, I would change the lead for the third paragraph to state that the surveillance equipment was designed to detect Soviet air defense radars

Good call

• Shouldn't "turned" be "tuned?"

Yeah. Probably. :)

• Change "would be hit by" to "detect" to indicate that it is interpreting this information

Got it.

• It's a little confusing that it discusses how the spacecraft is over Soviet territory while it rebroadcasts to ground stations below, which the sentence makes it seem as if the ground stations are in Soviet territory

Agreed. I moved the range info from results to spacecraft.

• Was it a single antenna listening on 139 MHz? If so, it should be "via a smaller antenna" If not, the plural for antenna (either "antennae" or the commonly accepted "antennas") should be used

Fixed.

Launch and orbiting

• Thoughts on changing this section name to "Mission timeline?" "Launch and orbiting" comes across as a strange title, since this paragraph covers the entire mission

The paragraph just covers the launch and orbiting. The rest is in the science results.

• Shorten the first sentence and just state the SOLRAD/GRAB 1 launched on June 22, 1960 at 05:54 UTC"

Shortened

• Rephrase front-page news, as that is a figure of speech (and it probably wasn't front page on all papers), and would be better served by saying that it was extensively covered in the news

Ok.

• Remove the sentence of "once in orbit" and just jump straight to the orbital parameters, as the rest of the information about its staging isn't included in details of the launch
• Referencing the previous comment, if you keep the sentence, make the tense consistent

Ok

• States what glitches occurred in the second stage booster.

Don't know em. :) They're probably buried somewhere in Drew's references, only some of which I have direct access to.

Scientific results

• Remove "Nevertheless" from the beginning of the sentence, and I agree with previous comments about rephrasing the satellite deactivation

Fixed the clunky. I want to keep nevertheless. Otherwise, it appears the reader is getting two contradictory pieces of information (the satellite stopped sending useful data; the satellite continued to send data).

• Make the tense consistent in the sentence about communicating the results

You're referring to the -ed followed by -ing? That's proper English. :)

• Do you have the location of the "few other isolated receivers?" I would include that

I don't, sorry.

• Combine the "1.2%" comment with the previous sentence, as that connects with the information that it could only relay info when in range of a tracking station

I understand what you're saying, but it makes the prior sentence unwieldy. I'm open to suggestions.

• Remove "(wobble around its axis) like a spinning top" as that is explained in the precess page

I understand there's a link to precession, but most people won't click it. I think the reader is better served with the explanatory parenthetical.

• It isn't clear what the sentence with "only 20% of the data" is about. Would the satellite's only data be in the ranges it could detect? This requires some more explaining, as it's not clear what that means.

Fixed

• Remove "nevertheless"

Fixed

• I would change "deleted" to "removed," as deleted tends to imply something virtual, rather than hardware not being included on future missions. Granted, this removal was probably still during the blueprint phase, so there was no actual hardware removed, but I still think the word choice could be better.

How about "excluded"? Removed suggests it was in SOLRAD 3 and then taken out.

• It should state what organization/groups hoped that the satellite could detect above-ground tests

I don't have that information. The source just says "NRL was requested to scrup its year-long Solrad data..."

GRAB results

• It's redundant to say "Nevertheless, even;" pick one word to indicate that it still had valuable information despite its limited usage

Done

Legacy and status

• Can you elaborate further on the future SOLRAD/GRAB flights. Did the failures explode during launch, fail to make orbit, not broadcast information, etc.?

Yep.

• Remove the "and its position can be tracked online" as that's not a legacy of the satellite itself

I really want it to be easy for a reader to click the link to track the satellite's position. How do you recommend this be accomplished?

Done with my comments. Nice job on this page, it has grown a lot since I first reviewed it for a B-class in January. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your help! @Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

19 April additional comments

• I understand the rationale for wanting to explain what precess is, but I think "like a spinning top" is too conversation, and the parenthesis can say "(wobble around its rotational axis)"
• "in the wavelengths the satellite could see" reads awkwardly. I would make in "in the detectable wavelengths"
• I would cite the online satellite tracker as a reference for the sentence, but remove "position can be tracked online" I know that you want the reader to be able to track it, but I think that would be more appropriate under and external links section.

Welcome back! Fine on #s 2 and 3. I'd like to keep the top metaphor for number one, but I did put the explanation into the parenthetical, where it reads better. :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Did you have any additional comments, and did you intend to support/oppose or just provide comments? Kees08 (Talk) 16:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: Well, I feel dumb for not following up. Whoops! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Support - Nice job with the article! You addressed all points that I brought up, and while I disagree with you on some style choices, you have done an excellent job of bringing this article up from its beginning. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Captain! Your help was invaluable. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Support by Kees08

Coming soon. Kees08 (Talk) 23:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe rephrase: It was the first satellite to successfully observe solar X-rays, the first to conduct surveillance from orbit, and SOLRAD/GRAB 1 the first to be launched with another instrumented satellite (the unrelated navigation satellite, Transit 2A). to It was the first satellite to successfully observe solar X-rays, the first to conduct surveillance from orbit, and the first to be launched with another instrumented satellite (the unrelated navigation satellite, Transit 2A).

Fixed.

• I thought I noted this elsewhere, but it would be good to list the page number for this in case anyone has the hard copy or is looking at the digital copy that is paginated. Green, Constance; Lomask, Milton (1970). Vanguard – a History. The NASA Historical Series. Washington D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ISBN 978-1-97353-209-5. NASA SP-4202.

fixed.

• What do you think of including File:Atmospheric electromagnetic opacity.svg in the background section to illustrate that Earth's atmosphere blocks X-rays?

sure

• Extra period here: had not migrated to NASA.[9].

Fixed.

• Was this because the NYT leak? On page 2 of the black vault source. Might be worth mentioning if that is the case, more interesting than a simple rebranding. Also, wasn't the project renamed to Walnut, and the satellite called DYNO? This first space surveillance project was initially called "TATTLETALE" and later renamed "DYNO".

All right. I think I've fully upended the naming can of worms. I think the resulting story is pretty good. Thanks.

• I think there is some sort of 'deactivation' parameter for the infobox

Added.

• You should talk about the batteries, and how they changed after the first satellite (page 10 of Black Vault)

I talked about the batteries. I'll describe changes in the appropriate articles.

• NSSDCA site has some interesting information on how the magnets affected the mission, and some other details that could be included

Already discussed further on (I talk about how the magnets caused precession)

Very good. The other details that could be added would be the range of the Lyman-alpha sensors (like you have for the X-ray), the nitric oxide/argon chambers. You only have one sentence on them in the spacecraft section, seems like more detail exists that could be useful to the reader. Kees08 (Talk)

Added.

• Did you read the information here or in the journal referenced?

That's recapitulation of what I have from SP-100

• The trajectory details are typically included at least in the infobox

Done.

• From McDonald, Robert A.; Moreno, Sharon K. "GRAB and POPPY: America's Early ELINT Satellites" (PDF). Retrieved February 11, 2019., it seems important to include when/why Grab was authorized. President Eisenhower approved full development of Grab on 24 August 1959; four days after the U-2 shootdown, he approved the first Grab launch. On 22 June 1960, a Thor AbleStar rocket roared off the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida, carrying Grab 1 into orbit. The U.S. now had a space reconnaissance program.

Done.

Well, the U-2 shootdown bit is not in there, do you think that's not important? Seems like the GRAB mission was authorized to cover the gap left from U-2. Kees08 (Talk)

Added.

• I forget, is the intention of this article to cover both SOLRAD 1 and GRAB 1?

Yes, hence the consistent usage of SOLRAD/GRAB 1 when referring to the satellite as a whole. It's awkward, but the fact is, they were essentially two different missions on the same satellite. The public knew about one, the military knew about both.

• Would an image of the radio control hut be a useful addition to the data section?

sure.

Are you going to add it or should I? Kees08 (Talk)

Could you? You have a better idea where you think it should go. Thank you! :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Seems like useful information on how the data was handled
• Needs an endash: the SOLRAD designation.[5]:301-302

I think you fixed that.

More to come later. Kees08 (Talk) 00:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay that's it for now, I will go at it again after these comments are addressed. Kees08 (Talk) 02:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you {{ping}Kees08}} I will address these tomorrow. {{ping}Maury Markowitz}}, {{ping}Laser_brain}}, I think I've come up with an elegant way to satisfy all concerns. Will draft tomorrow. Thank you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I fixed it today. Take a gander? @Maury Markowitz:, @Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I think overall the background section is much better now. I will take another read-through of it and see if I spot anything egregious (although would like to know your thoughts on the U-2 incident). Kees08 (Talk) 03:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This looks much better now. There's a narrative! I made two minor edits, a WS to separate two paras, and changed one word for GR (spell checker I bet). My only remaining issue: currently the instruments and results are in their own sections. I think it would be easier to read if the GRAB equipment were in the same section as its results. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Maury. I'm concerned about overloading the results section, especially since I describe the scientific equipment under spacecraft. If I move the GRAB equipment out of there, the SOLRAD equipment sits oddly alone. I think I'd like to leave things as is. Will that be all right? --Neopeius (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Another reason for leaving the equipment description in spacecraft is that, after this article passes FA, I am going to update the other five articles in the series, using the same format. Several of the satellites in the series won't have results sections. Now that breadth and comprehensiveness have been addressed, are you good with the article? Thanks again for your help! @Maury Markowitz: --Neopeius (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Why do you have quotation marks around fadeouts in the lead?

I've seen it that way in several sources, but I guess they're unnecessary.

• Same question for Fan Song

Artifact of cut and paste from Maury.

• Is there a succinct way to describe how it was a dummy SOLRAD? I don't want to make the background too excessively long, but it made me curious A test dummy SOLRAD was successfully launched on April 13, 1960 along with Transit 1B.

Rephrased for clarity, but all I know about it is that it's a dummy. Probably a hollow shell.

Why don't we call it a mass simulator then? That is a real term, and you could wikilink it. I have personally used mass simulators before, so that would make sense. Kees08 (Talk)

Fixed.

• Should sun be capitalized? MoS says when used in scientific context, which I suppose we are?

Fixed.

• Used single quotes on this one, should at least be consistent: radio 'fade-outs' occurred

Fixed.

• I think the GRAB results section could specify the reasons for only 22 transmissions, that they were afraid of another international incident because of the Gary Powers incident (Drew Ex Machina specifies as such)

Already in there: "For fear that the Soviets would discover the satellite's espionage mission, President Eisenhower insisted that every GRAB transmission be personally approved by him. Thus, though the satellite's surveillance equipment functioned from launch until their failure on September 22, 1960, GRAB 1 only returned 22 batches of data,"

• It should also include when the ELINT mission ended

Already there: "Thus, though the satellite's surveillance equipment functioned from launch until their failure on September 22, 1960,"

• Should be an endash after Vanguard, per the title, also id= can be used to add SP-4202. Constance Green and Milton Lomask (1970). Vanguard a History. Washington D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ISBN 978-1-97353-209-5.

Done

That should be all. Kees08 (Talk) 23:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I also incorporated https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/april/navys-spy-missions-space per your request. There isn't much new stuff for SOLRAD 1, but some great color for SOLRAD 2, which I'll update that article with.

@Kees08: --Neopeius (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• It is a hard habit to break, but logical quotation (comma goes outside). "NSA Data Reduction," indicating the intelligence to be derived by processing the satellite downlink

APA and MLA and every other place I've worked says comma goes inside. Is there a reference for this?

Yup, our MOS, specifically WP:TQ. I used to not like it, but honestly I am just happy Wikipedia standardized something so I can copy/paste stuff between articles and only have to memorize one style. Wish more stuff was. Kees08 (Talk)

• File:GRAB radio control hut.jpg - maybe right align this, and use the upright parameter?

I am being told inconsistent information regarding caption alignment.

• Ref goes after comma from the U-2 incident[25],

Fixed.

And then that should be all (though you have heard that before from me!) Kees08 (Talk) 03:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Support - the background section is a complete story, detailing what the Soviet Union was doing and what the U.S. response was (U-2 flights, shot down U-2, needed replacement for U-2). The pre-SOLRAD 1 story of the mass simulator launched is included as well. Spacecraft wise, all publicly available information is included so far as I can tell, I read through all the declassified documents. The launch section is complete, containing information on the launch and the only publicly available information on the 'glitch' in it. Results show the good, the bad, and the ugly; magnets helped get better data but caused problems in pointing the satellite, the only information on UV is included, the bonus nuclear test monitoring application is included as well. The GRAB results contains all publicly available information. Legacy and status includes all information after SOLRAD 1, including what is currently going on with the satellite and what happened with the backup. This article is as complete as it can be, as far as the research I have done shows. Kees08 (Talk) 16:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Questions by Spacepine

Welcome aboad the Good Ship SOLRAD 1!

Hi, not an expert on FA guidelines - but a space engineering/physics student - so basically the target reader. I have some questions (mostly to sate personal curiosity):

• Did the scientists know they were working with a spy sat? How separate were the projects?

Assuredly. Votaw's team were NRL employees.

• So the sat had no ability to store data? Perhaps showing my age a bit, but were all early satellites like that?

Not all. Some early satellites had tape systems

• Did the magnets cause the satellite to precess because they acted like magnetorquers? Or because they made the satellite non spherical?

The former. I've clarified this point in the article. Thanks!

• Why did the science part fail? Did the sun tracker just stop working? or did the precession mess it up?

Probably the former, but it's not said. I got that from the 1991 article (which is available online).

• Were the GRAB transmissions encrypted or otherwise disguised? Omidirectional transmitter, right?

It would have to be omnidirectional, and I didn't read anything about encryption. I've just added that the first downlink was made when the spacecraft was well out of range of Soviet eavesdropping.

--Spacepine (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Going through the Black Vault doc, I found a couple more tidbits to add. This article is the most complete resource on the topic you'll find -- at least until the NSA un-redacts their documents... --Neopeius (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for the info! Looking at the Black Vault doc - interesting what they've redacted. Seems like a lot of it could be guessed around from context. Cool article, good luck getting it through --Spacepine (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spacepine: I can answer one bit. The GRAB part was ridiculously simple - on the reception of a signal in the S-band, it sent out a signal on the telemetry frequency with the same duration. That is all! The resulting signal was received by ground stations, turned into voice-frequency pulses of the same duration, and sent directly to tape. Everything they learned was by carefully examining the timing of the signals they received - so for instance if there were three radars hitting the sat, they could see it was three separate ones because they would hit the sat at different times as their radars scanned around and they would get three brief sets of pulses on the ground. Slight differences in PRF also helped differentiate them, at least into families. There was no attempt to hide the downlink signal, and the Soviets could easily hear if they tried, which is, I assume, why the prez retained direct control over the system's use. But I think it would not be trivial for the Soviets to figure out what was going on even if they heard it, it would just sound like random beeping and would not have any obvious pattern to any fixed location on the ground. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: I loved the line you added about the system (under Background). Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Nominator's evaluation

Status as of April 25, 2019 This FAC began on February 19, 2019. It has been ongoing for more than two months and has been extremely rigorous. I have adopted virtually every revision suggested and left no suggestion unaddressed. At this point, I'd like to summarize where we are in terms of support: Squeamish Ossifrage Made a series of excellent comments on 3-14, all of which were addressed. He has not returned despite repeated pingings over time. Opinion: None Nick-D Made two rounds of excellent comments, all of which were addressed. Latest word: "My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)" Opinion: Support Balon Greyjoy Gave an extremely comprehensive set of comments on 4-13, all of which were addressed. Greyjoy returned on 4-19 with three minor comments, all of which were addressed. Greyjoy has not since returned, but it can be assumed that Greyjoy is, at least, not opposed. On 4-25: "Support - Nice job with the article! You addressed all points that I brought up, and while I disagree with you on some style choices, you have done an excellent job of bringing this article up from its beginning. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)" Opinion: NoneSupport Argento Surfer Reviewed prose on 3-19 and gave his Support. Since then, the article has only been further improved, in prose and in all other capacities. Opinion: Support Dudley Miles Made many excellent comments on 3-20, noting the article was not yet up to FA status. After the comments were addressed, he said: "My queries have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)" Opinion: Support CPA-5 Made a round of fine comments on 3-28. All were addressed, and on 3-31, said "Looks good Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)" Opinion: Support Mike Christie Began a commentary dialogue on 3-21. By 3-23, he had said: "I'm ready to support, but since Maury indicates above that he feels significant information might be added, I'm going to hold off to see if he can suggest sources." After back and forth with Maury, I added significant information to the article, and Mike Christie supplemented on 4-13: "Laser brain, I'm not opposed to promotion, but have refrained from supporting since Maury has indicated he feels some content is missing. He hasn't opposed, but he's more of a subject matter expert than I am and I would be uncomfortable supporting while he still thinks that. Maury, do you still feel the article is incomplete? I know Neopeius has added some material in response to your comments. Other than that I have no reservations about promotion." Since then, I have included all material Maury requested, and Maury, himself, indicated he was pleased with the narrative as it now stands. Opinion: Support, pending Maury's support Switching to full support, having reread since the last changes. This is a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Maury Markowitz Provided excellent technical assistance regarding the background and GRAB equipment on 3-25. We went back and forth for several weeks on just how much to include. On 4-4, Maury declared he was neutral on promotion as not enough of his information had been included. In response to Balon Greyjoy's suggestions, and the feedback I'd gotten on SOLRAD 3, I actually cut down on the background, which Maury declared made the article worse (and I agree). In response, I completely updated the article, incorporating all of Maury's requested information. On 4-24, Maury said: "Sorry for this tardy reply, been busy IRL. I think the article is much better now. I'll support." Opinion: Support Spacepine Asked a great series of questions, which led to some improvement of the article. He has not rendered an opinion, nor had he expected to. Opinion: None Kees08 Has done yeoman's work nitpicking this article to death :) All suggestions of his have been addressed. From today: "Support - the background section is a complete story, detailing what the Soviet Union was doing and what the U.S. response was (U-2 flights, shot down U-2, needed replacement for U-2). The pre-SOLRAD 1 story of the mass simulator launched is included as well. Spacecraft wise, all publicly available information is included so far as I can tell, I read through all the declassified documents. The launch section is complete, containing information on the launch and the only publicly available information on the 'glitch' in it. Results show the good, the bad, and the ugly; magnets helped get better data but caused problems in pointing the satellite, the only information on UV is included, the bonus nuclear test monitoring application is included as well. The GRAB results contains all publicly available information. Legacy and status includes all information after SOLRAD 1, including what is currently going on with the satellite and what happened with the backup. This article is as complete as it can be, as far as the research I have done shows. Kees08 (Talk) 16:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Opinion: Support --- Thus, as of 4-25, the tally (including several subject matter experts) is: 6 supports, 1 support conditional on a support that has been given, and 3 abstentions. @Laser brain:, with Maury and Kees having now weighed in and given their support, is that sufficient for promotion? Thank you! :) --Neopeius (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Just a note to see I saw Kees08's ping and plan to go through the article, probably tonight, since it's changed quite a bit, but since Maury's now supporting the reason for withholding support is gone and I would expect to support. If this is closed before I get to it, that's fine with me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Thanks so much, Mike! I hope you enjoy the new and improved article. :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC) I do, and have switched to full support above. I'm glad you've been patient with this process; I think the article has really benefitted, and I hope to see more nominations from you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC) All of your help is greatly appreciated, Mike. Thank you so much! --Neopeius (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC) As of 4-26, the tally is now 7 Supports, 1 Expect to Support, and 2 Abstentions. A consensus, yes?  :) {{ping}Laser_brain}} --Neopeius (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Grrr. @Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC) :) @Neopeius: I haven't had time to review the latest developments due my personal life being hectic. The next time Ian Rose or I goes through the list, we'll assess readiness and promote if appropriate. Thanks for your patience. --Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Thanks @Laser brain:! Please note that I was not grrring at you, but my fingers continuing to mess up the Ping command. :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Update as of late April 26: No 8 Supports and 2 abstentions (drive-bys, not Neutrals). It's unanimous! Thanks, everybody!:) --Neopeius (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.