Difference between revisions of "Talk:Procedures Table of Contents"

Revision as of 23:20, 2 April 2010

Procedures Project Status

Status:

• Maclean already has a bulk of work done, which she should put up.
• Chapter divisions proposed. Not all necessary articles listed. Does not reflect current Procedure numbering system. Stefanido 12:55, 3 March 2010 (EST)

Work:

• Fill all Red Procedures
• Sort the procedures in "Old Unsorted" below into the new procedure names

Proposals:

The formal name for the Engineering station be either ENG or POWER. -- Stefanido 1752, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

I agree, INCO is just a traditional name, and we should become less dependent on tradition ;)---Benzyne^{Talk Page} 17:59, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

We should get This Extension, so that we can easily print off the procedures manual once it's been completed. -- Stefanido 1629, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

Changes that require approval:

FIDO replace GUIDO as the name for the flight telemetry monitor in MC. -- Stefanido 1149, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Rationale: We are patterned on NASA's Apollo Positions

Apollo MC Position FIDO had the following responsibilities

Responsible for the flight path of the space vehicle, both atmospheric and orbital. During lunar missions the FDO was also responsible for the lunar trajectory. The FDO monitored vehicle performance during the powered flight phase and assessed abort modes, calculated orbital maneuvers and resulting trajectories, and monitored vehicle flight profile and energy levels during re-entry.

Apollo MC Position GUIDO had the following responsibilities

Monitored onboard navigational systems and onboard guidance computer software. Responsible for determining the position of the spacecraft in space.

The formal name for the Engineering station is ENG. -- Stefanido 1752, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Rationale: INCO doesn't fit, since it's actually an AUXCOM variant. Power grid doesn't fit because it's too long, and the same is true for Engineering. Therefore, the position is named ENG pronounced as in "Engine." However, see Proposals, as POWER might be a better name.

Old Unsorted Procedures

• Trajectory-Setting Procedures
• Rendezvous with AYSE Drive Procedures
• Departure from Orbit Procedures
• Passive Thermal Control Procedures
• Rate Control Procedures
• Orbital Insertion from Approach Procedures
• Orbital Maneuvering Procedures
• Landing Procedures
• Planetary Launch Procedures
• Habitat Drive Systems Procedures
• AYSE Drive Systems Procedures
• High Altitude Landing Abort Procedures
• INCO Procedures
• Mutiny and Hijacking Procedures

---

Talk

Call to Action!

Hey! Time to update these to be actually useful! I'll get started. Stefanido 22:17, 2 March 2010 (EST)

Maclean's already on it. ---Q-Cumber 11:56, 3 March 2010 (EST)

Srsly? Let's see it then! Stefanido 12:32, 3 March 2010 (EST)

It's in process ---Q-Cumber 15:43, 3 March 2010 (EST)

Sorry for my earlier tone. What I meant to say was that a common fallacy in organizations like Spacesim is that when a particular task has been assigned to someone, the other members assume that it will get done in a timely manner, and so they can cease to take any responsibility for it. While Maclean is undoubtedly one of the most dedicated Spacesim members I have met, writing a procedures manual is not really a solitary task, and I doubt that she will be able to complete it without some help. In order to dispel the inertia that's keeping the procedures at the stage they were when I was a Commander, I feel that contributors to the Wiki should start updating the procedures themselves. In this way, not only is the burden lifted from being solely Maclean's, but other members of Spacesim have the chance to contribute to the procedures, and the procedures will be more robust for having been considered from several perspectives. Of course, this should not negate Maclean's efforts towards creating the new procedures, and her current work should be integrated into the wiki wherever possible and as soon as possible. -- Stefanido 13:26, 8 March 2010 (EST)

I tend to agree, as Maclean's come down with mono. *feels annoyed at the time spent commenting on talk pages instead of editing lol* ---Q-Cumber 17:50, 9 March 2010 (EST)

one issue with editing procedures straight on the wiki is that non-Commanders (see everyone currently editing the wiki) will be changing Spacesim's most important document. I think that all changes should be discussed first with a commander or agreed upon by a minimum number of people with minimum ranks on this talk page. - Darth Wombat 23:14, 9 March 2010 (EST)

For the most part, these procedures are the same as the outdated ones I inherited in 2004. I honestly don't think that we could do any harm. In addition, Commanders already control how training is accomplished, and will surely review the manual before any training actually transpires. In that case, and with the Wiki's rollback and edit features, it'll be more easy for Commanders to pick and choose the good procedures proposed here than for them to try and come up with all of them by themselves. As a final argument, participation in the rewriting of Sim's most important document (which should therefore be its most active document) will encourage non-Commanders to take pride in their work at Spacesim, feel that their contributions are meaningful, and perhaps even inspire them to apply to jobs they wouldn't have considered previously. One of Spacesim's aspects is as an organisation that lifts the aspirations of its members, giving them a chance at leadership if they'll take it. -- Stefanido 23:23, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Alphabetical Order

I reject the use of alphabetical order for determining the order of topics in each chapter. Articles should be arranged in order of hierarchical importance. For instance, since the first thing that needs to be done in MC is Staffing, the staffing article should be first. Then since, FLIGHT is in charge, FLIGHT Procedures should be next. -- Stefanido 22:45, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

I thought you would. I will put Flight Procedures next, and after that Mission Specialist, but I have been informed that beyond that there is no hierarchical importance within Mission Control and since this article is mostly why I thought there was, I thought that it should reflect the truth and should be arranged accordingly. Also, in the previous order many of the articles did not exist and did not have the proecudres template. If you look at my edits, you will see that a lot of what I'm doing is adding to the articles as well as rearranging them. - Darth Wombat 00:19, 3 April 2010 (EDT)