This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jayjohnson540.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fractional Orbital Bombardment System. 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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I've just completed what amounts to an overhaul for the article. The lead section should probably be adapted a bit as I haven't touched it other than removing a source that was breaking one of my references for some reason. Sources could be added to the lead unless you think otherwise; everything mentioned in the lead is sourced in the body of the article anyway.
Future editors should find more substantial academic/primary sources. These could be useful in the development history section especially. I have a feeling that most of the relevant sources for this article will be written entirely in Russian (and or aren't easily available in an online format). Certainly address any inconsistencies you find in my edits if you locate a good source like this.Rime7 (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The source for the line ("Theoretically, the FOBS was capable of staying in orbit indefinitely...") in the reasons for development section can be found in two places. It's most directly stated in [McCall, Gene H.; Darrah, John H. (2014). "Space Situational Awareness: Difficult, Expensive-and Necessary" (PDF). Air & Space Power Journal. Vol. 28 no. 6.] on page 8. It's also alluded to in [Goedhuis, D. 1968. «An Evaluation of the Leading Principles of the Treaty on Outer Space of 27th January 1967». Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht 15 (1): 17–41. doi:10.1017/S0165070X00022920.] on page 37. I could add these in (the McCall one is actually already there, it just needs a page number), but I'm not sure how to insert sources as you've been doing and don't want to mess up the format you have in mind. Rime7 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I've just reverted a large unsourced addition: [1]. @12alainu:
The problem is (as well as being unsourced) is that this is not a FOBS profile.
FOBS is well explained by the masthead image (right). It's a way of delivering a warhead rapidly, and covertly, by avoiding the high trajectory of a conventional ballistic approach. Note that this is a fractional orbit, not a complete or repeated orbit.
There have also been descriptions, in fiction at least, of "parking orbit" systems - as described in the reverted addition. However these are not supported by any real-world sources. There is no indication, outside fiction, that any such weapon systems were developed, let alone depoloyed. The R-36 / SS-9 Scarp certainly couldn't do it: it had no ability to accurately circularise an established orbit and it had no long-term power system to keep it viable in orbit (if the parking orbit can't be sustained for a long period, there's little point to doing it). Secondly, such a system might well have been developed and deployed (Putin just never returns my calls), but it would no longer be "FOBS" and shouldn't be described here as being the same thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
To be included in the article? China is testing hypersonic missilles based on the FOBS consept. [2] --Znuddel (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MybrotherinChrist2001, Ward0402 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Ward0402 (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)