Talk:Swift boost mission

Title

The mission appears tp have been renamed to “Swift Boost Mission”, according to NasaSpaceflight Ax4247 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The official name for this mission is "Swift Boost Mission" see: https://science.nasa.gov/mission/swift/swift-boost-mission/ ~2026-36188-47 (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Article has been successfully moved as of this writing KyloRen2017 (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Guys – you are looking at the name of a blog, not an official mission name. The mission is referred to by various descriptions within public NASA sources, none of them being indicated as official in any way, and certainly with no indication of an official change of name. Unless you have a source saying otherwise, the title of this article is descriptive only, and whatever it is, should not be capitalized. Space mission guy (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

There's this and this, both using "Swift Boost Mission" in a formal sense. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, the page title should at least be "Swift boost mission" rather than "reboost" based on the naming in sources. I would prefer it be capitalized. In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I really don't know what you mean by "in a formal sense". All you're showing us is two articles with capitalized titles because that's their house style. There is nothing anywhere indicating any level of formality to this as an official mission name. "Boost" is as good as "reboost", it just requires a formal move request. But whatever word is used, the title should certainly not be capitalized on the basis of current sources. Space mission guy (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe 'Swift Boost Mission' is a more appropriate title simply because NASA calls the blog about the mission as such; Wikipedia is intended to compile, and with a lack of a better word, parrot, whatever information is given in a subject. Pancakes321 (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

When will the title be updated to Swift boost mission? All nasa.gov pages refer to it as such (blog, event articles, etc.), so I don't see why there is any debate or hesitation here. NASA has the final say on the naming of its missions.

ex: https://www.nasa.gov/event/swift-boost/ ~2026-39433-13 (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Swift reboost mission → Swift boost mission – move to bring back into line with source terminology, see discussion on article talk page. To-be-repaved redirect has nontrivial but small edit history. In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 1isall (talk | contribs) 14:46, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Support. Some sources say "reboost", but "boost" seems to be more common. Space mission guy (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Swift was boosted into orbit on a rocket booster. An orbit was established. The orbit is decaying, and the orbit must be altered. Re-boost. ~2026-38564-13 (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed in principle, but ever source I've found is calling this a "Swift boost mission" - have you found sources that refer to this specific mission as a reboost? In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Note "boost the orbit" in the article to reboost. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Support a number of news articles and space websites outside of NASA already called it the Swift Boost Mission since its launch on July 3rd. KyloRen2017 (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to LINK (spacecraft) as it is the name used for the satellite by NASA. The mission is named Swift Rescue Mission Abdullah1099 (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, there is no indication anywhere of the name "Swift Rescue Mission" being official. And the article is about the mission, not just one of the two spacecraft involved. Space mission guy (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

No @Space mission guy bro, As i know you are the creator of the but the article is about the spacecraft used on a mission where it covers both of them. For short term use this Swift Rescue Mission, etc would have any relevance but in long-term the spacecraft name would be relevant. It like we call Swift Telescope, Swift not Delta II flight D-300 or so. Also almost all the source except some are technically useless as the name should be given will be prioritise on the basis of which organisation is funding and releasing things to the public in this case NASA. NASA in majority is calling it as LINK. For example:

https://science.nasa.gov/blogs/swift/2026/07/03/teams-make-contact-with-spacecraft-set-to-boost-nasas-swift/ Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Space mission guy, There are some solutions like either split the spacecraft part and mission part as different articles or make the spacecraft part of as the main article and mission related things as it's separate section in the article. Also please stop reverting other people contributions to the article like you done when i removed some unnecessary parts from the article. Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm really having a hard time parsing your arguments, but suffice it to say the mission and spacecraft, despite being different things, are so deeply linked that a split would be counterproductive, and the only way to appropriately cover Swift's joint participation is to have the overall topic be the mission, not one of the two spacecraft involved. There is also no "long term" for LINK that would see that focus changing; its entire purpose is boosting Swift, and it will be decommissioned soon thereafter. And a descriptive title for the mission is in no way analogous to identifying the mission by its rocket launch; no one is talking about calling the article "Pegasus mission F46". And no, NASA is not calling the mission LINK, they're calling the spacecraft LINK. There are, again, no sources asserting an "official" mission name (you're welcome to present one), leaving us with a descriptive name (i.e. lowercase) as the only option. Several such descriptions appear in sources, but "swift boost mission" seems to be the most common, and the one used most often by NASA. Space mission guy (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Here again you are wrong i am not calling the mission LINK but spacecraft. Yeah, NASA is calling the mission name. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Then why did you earlier propose to move this page to "LINK (spacecraft)" - this is the article about the mission? In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Abdullah wants the article to be about the spacecraft, not the mission, or to split it into separate articles about the spacecraft and the mission. I don't think either are very good ideas, and I think he's alone in that thinking, but there you are. Space mission guy (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Space mission guy, Please stop these Abdullah want this or that talk about facts and prove them. I found out that NASA is call the mission Swift boost mission and spacecraft LINK based on that the article should be updated. So, I told you two solutions based on it. If you have a better solution then tell about it Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Whether the topic of the article is to be the mission or the spacecraft is not a question of what sources call either one, which is well established – it's a matter of editorial judgement, and one where you are alone in your opinion. Was I wrong in saying you think the topic should be the spacecraft? If so, then I have no idea what you still disagree with. Space mission guy (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think splitting the spacecraft from the mission is productive here. We don't even know yet for certainty if LINK is just a one time thing for the Swift Boost Mission only or if it's going to be used for future similar missions to it. Suffice to say, if this article gets renamed, it should be according to the most number of external references calling it (so far it's the "Swift Boost Mission", though there's still others using either Rescue or Reboost. I haven't seen LINK being used commonly elsewhere KyloRen2017 (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

No, it's a "Swift boost (or reboost, or rescue) mission". We only capitalize every word in proper names. This isn't one, as far as any sources are concerned. In sources, it only appears capitalized where it's part of an article title, where all words are always capitalized in the style guide those sources use. Space mission guy (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

fyi I now agree with you on capitalization based on reading through the sourcing. NASA and Katalyst never refer to this as a proper name, just as capitalized in titles/headings. In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, we do know that LINK won't be boosting any other spacecraft – it simply doesn't have the fuel for that. Space mission guy (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to a class of spacecraft similar to LINK, which afaik doesn't have one yet KyloRen2017 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, that was unclear. Anyway, since you replied to this comment but not the one right above it, can I infer that you don't have anything more to say about the proper name/capitalization question? Space mission guy (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Support

Most sources including NASA call it Swift boost mission Best wishes, Macaw*! 16:29, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Support. Another NASA use of that name: . Pete Tillman (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Last launch of Pegasus XL?

Unsure if any sources agree with my information, but I'm 90% sure that this isn't the confirmed final launch of Pegasus XL - I believe it's the last known manufactured but Northrop Grumman is keeping their options open to make more if needed. LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Ars: The last two Pegasus rockets were originally ordered by Stratolaunch, a company originally owned by the late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. Stratolaunch gave up the rockets after Allen’s death in 2018, and Northrop was free to sell them to other customers. It sold one to the Space Force in 2021, and the other to Katalyst last year.

It would probably be best to frame it as the last scheduled flight of the Pegasus. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Operators

Abdullah1099, you should have taken this to Talk the first time I reverted you, instead of starting an edit war, but nevertheless, here we are. To repeat from my last edit summary: This [identifying the operator of LINK as NASA/Katalyst and the operator of Swift as NASA alone] is all simply wrong. The operator of LINK is Katalyst alone. There is a Katayst mission control in a Katalyst facility, staffed by Katalyst personnel, operating a spacecraft owned by Katalyst, with no direct control by NASA, which repeatedly calls it a private/commercial mission. Swift, however, is a NASA-owned spacecraft operated from a PSU facility by PSU-contracted personnel, with direct NASA management (under a very different contract structure). The values for the "operator" parameter should be "Katalyst" alone for LINK, and "NASA/Pennsylvania State University" for Swift. And yes, the operators of both spacecraft should be listed, as both are active participants in completing the boost. Space mission guy (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)