Talk:Whipple shield

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

incorrect link for Nextel, in this artical it refers to a material, not the communication company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.81.248.6 (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following sentence: "The shield acts much like an umbrella, effectively disintegrating the particles before they threaten the spacecraft's main body." Umbrellas do not work that way.

"As opposed to monolithic shielding of early spacecraft, Whipple shields consist of a relatively thin outer bumper placed a certain distance off of the wall of the spacecraft. This improves the shielding to mass ratio, critical for spaceflight components, but also increases the thickness of the spacecraft walls, which is not ideal for fitting spacecraft into launch vehicle fairings."

I don't see how the Whipple sheild "also increases the thickness of the spacecraft walls." Does it imply that the "spacecraft wall" is the sum of the inner wall (ie the wall proper) + the distance out to the shield + the thickness of the sheild itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawright12 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a very reasonable interpretation. Whipple shield saves weight and not volume. BP OMowe (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is a sensible place to discuss this, but does anyone else find the "extrapolation" mentioned in the JAXA article on Kibo's shields highly odd given the context? The article states that the tests were in the range 2.5 km/sec to 6 km/sec. In the chart showing the curve extrapolated from these tests, there are severe corners right at the ends of that region and wildly different shapes outside it. Perhaps someone could explain why the graph has the shape? I imagine there must be models that suggest it, but the article doesn't explain at all, and in the absence of explanation it sure looks like a non-sequitur. --76.15.125.150 (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current included image does not adequately illustrate what a Whipple shield is or looks like - even after reading the article, the image is incomprehensible to me (a university-educated adult with 20/20 eyesight). An annotated image, with the shield and other components clearly labeled, would go far in improving this article.12.146.44.50 (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whipple shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211000227/http://hitf.jsc.nasa.gov/hitfpub/shielddev/basicconcepts.html to http://hitf.jsc.nasa.gov/hitfpub/shielddev/basicconcepts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Whipple shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225001045/http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2003-210788.pdf to http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2003-210788.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325000204/http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=21624 to http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=21624

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]