Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum to Antimatter-Rocket

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuum to Antimatter-Rocket

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Vacuum to Antimatter-Rocket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Upon reviewing the sources, there is nothing that is definitely usable for proving notability.

  1. [1]: 2 sentences, part of a large gallery. No consensus yet on the reliability of space.com.
  2. Primary source, a JBIS paper detailing the proposal by Richard Obousy. Obousy is also a co-founder of Icarus.
  3. [2]: Primary source to Icarus website, plus weird citation formatting.
  4. [3]: About antimatter and fusion technology, does not mention VARIES.
  5. [4] Supposedly republished from Discovery News, but the original is no longer available; might be a PR by Obousy. There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News for science topics.
  6. [5]: 2 paragraphs out of many proposals; probably not RS.
  7. [6]: This is the paper that first predicted Schwinger pair production. It was published in 1931, while the proposal was made in 2011.
  8. [7]: Blog.

More information here: FTN thread. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Run-of-the-mill "proposal" for an invention that will Revolutionize Space Travel(TM), with the typical PR campaign material recycled by the typical low-standards websites. The Fox News item definitely looks like PR written by Obousy himself; it doesn't have a byline at the top, but the text at the bottom (Richard Obousy is co-founder and President of Icarus Interstellar Inc., etc.) certainly reads like an author bio. I wouldn't expect space.com to have any higher standards than, say, Popular Mechanics when it comes to fringe stuff; wormholes and warp drives are good for clicks. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as likely WP:SOAP. Let some better sources comment on this idea before creating an article. jps (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found some more sources:
  • [8]
  • [9]
  • [10]
  • [11]
  • [12]

🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

I believe it's the only spacecraft proposal on using Schwinger pair production for uncrewed interstellar travel.
JBIS is one of the most prestigious journals on interstellar tavel: https://www.jbis.org.uk/paper/2011.64.378
Centauri Dreams (https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2016/08/02/the-evolution-of-antimatter-propulsion/) is written by Paul Gilster, an expert on interstellar travel: https://www.planetary.org/profiles/paul-gilster
Space.com and Interesting Engineering and reliable secondary sources as far as I'm concerned.
Cheers. ExoEditor 03:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds are space.com and "Interesting Engineering" reliable? Also, the JBIS paper is by Obousy himself, so it's a primary source and doesn't count towards notability. Nothing in Gilster's bio suggests relevant professional qualifications, either. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of these sources read like pr pieces. Instead of being discussed in haphazard corners of the internet, we should look for reliable research on the concept, which I see none of (the one scientific reference notably is not about the topic of the article). Sam-2727 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is poorly written and largely content free. The references appear to be very inadequate. And the facts just don't make sense without much better referencing. The idea doesn't even pass the laugh test. How can the power system and laser could produce more or better propulsion by producing and then subsequently using antimatter, compared to simply using the power directly? That feels like a violation of conservation of energy, and a worthwhile article must at least mention and discuss such an obvious issue. Fcrary (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources can't even agree on what this does. Schwinger pair production produces the lightest charged particles, i.e. electrons and positrons. I left that conflict unresolved in my earlier edit because I didn't understand it, on further review the proposal just doesn't make any sense, it's not surprising that the articles about it don't make sense either. --mfb (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Theoretical spacecraft propulsion, then merge several other sci-fi concept articles as sections into the new title. This will preserve the content of this content and solve the same problem with several other articles (ie. Fission sail, Gravitational shielding, Helical engine, Nano electrokinetic thruster, Nuclear photonic rocket). JHelzer💬 15:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. But I personally think the articles should be kept because a single article including all seems very long. Btw I would say none of them are sci-fi, but rather published in prestigious scientific journals. I prefer to call them theoretical physics. ExoEditor 15:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ExoEditor: Whoa! I'm glad that you liked the idea, but that was very fast and unilateral. What you've created makes a good demonstration of my suggestion, but in the future I suggest waiting for consensus before taking action. The discussion is still open. JHelzer💬 16:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do like this idea and will help refine the new article if we get consensus to go this route. JHelzer💬 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think "Theoretical spacecraft propulsion" would be a confusing title. It would sound like the article is about the theory of how spacecraft propulsion systems work in general. Something like "Hypothetical spacecraft propulsion concepts" would be better, but that's a little wordy. Fcrary (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Hypothetical AAV Propultion Concepts" Advanced Aerospace Vehicle (AAV) is what NASA, Spaceforce, AATIP, and others refer to these vehicles as. 70.126.0.99 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This kind of move shouldn't be done until the AfD is concluded. Doing it this way, by starting a new page, also obscures the page history, which is bad for attribution purposes. And a new article shouldn't use the same unreliable sources that this one did. Moreover, the content copied (without attribution) from nuclear photonic rocket should also be deleted, just like Photonic laser thruster was; it's another COI creation of Young K. Bae. Let's not make copies of material that shouldn't exist. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is manifestly unworkable for the simple reason of energy conservation. Solar panels are not going to collect enough energy to pay for their own weight in this scheme. This is the limiting factor; converting their energy into antimatter cannot magically boost the energy density to equivalency with that of antimatter as this article implicitly suggests. One could just as plausbly run a fusion reactor with banana peels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgaugh (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vacuum_to_Antimatter-Rocket&oldid=1010020921"