Incidentally, NOMAD is NASA's Operational Messaging and Directory Service - i.e. webmail system. – Distantlycharmed 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed text Edit

I removed the following text:

SeaQuest DSV - Dream Weaver-Nomad

Nomad in seaQuest DSV

  • In the episode "Dream Weaver" of seaQuest DSV, there is an homage to the Nomad probe. When the "Stormer" alien falls to his death, he lands beside a monument marked as the "Nomad Probe", launched December 14, 2002, from Cape Canaveral. It was designed to seek out alien lifeforms.
In the TNG episode "Eye of the Beholder", there is an homage to Seaquest. On one personnel file Deanna Troi studies one of the officer's assignments was to the USS Seaquest.

An homage to seaQuest DSV doesn't belong in the apocrypha section, if anywhere, and the TNG homage to seaQuest belongs there even less. -- Renegade54 17:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is relavent to the topic, but from a non-canon source. Apocrypha is EXACTLY where it should be.Capt Christopher Donovan 03:54, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
We have separate pages for that, Star Trek parodies and pop culture references (television). - Archduk3 04:29, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
It is more than a "pop reference, or a "mention", but an actual detail link between the two shows, just. As it is outside Trek canon, it is Apocrypha. This detail was included and left alone for years, there is no reason to remove it now.Capt Christopher Donovan 04:33, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
Apocrypha is for the expanded Trek universe only, and Seaquest DSV is not in the Trek universe. Also, the length of something being wrong doesn't make it right. - Archduk3 05:14, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Launch date Edit

Are we sure that the "2002" number on the schematic indicates a launch year? Isn't that speculation? -Angry Future Romulan 20:55, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

It seems pretty likely that was the intention. Kirk did say "Wasn't there a probe called Nomad launched in the early 2000s?" (which Spock confirmed). I bet the art department picked up on that when drawing the schematic.
But to minimise speculation, the article could just say "early 2000s". And the bit about Nomad on 2002 could be moved to the 2000s page.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:53, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
Haha. I just looked at the picture above and realised in the seaQuest universe it was indeed launched in 2002. ;-)–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:55, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
Following the supposed NSSDC ID of 2002-045b, and following the rules of the "A" ID indicating the launching vehicle, if Nomad were launched IRL it would've done so on the Russian transport craft Progress M1-9 (2002-045A). Just in case you were curious. 09:35, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Voyager Edit

Did Nomad have the same intentions as voyager? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I'm not sure which "Voyager" you are referring to(the Voyager VI or the USS Voyager) but I suggest you look at those articles and decide for yourself if the "intentions" were the same; that's not really something we can answer for you(and article talk pages aren't really for this sort of discussion). 31dot (talk) 13:53, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Template for "Components of Nomad" Edit

This might be a good template. It's not enough for a category. --LauraCC (talk) 17:18, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

I don't see much value in that, a list here seems like it would satisfy any information need I can think of. But hey, shouldn't those components be merged, under the precedent set by the Apollo components? -- Capricorn (talk) 05:17, November 27, 2016 (UTC)

I would support a merge of these. I just thought a template would look nicer than a list and could go on each separate page. But yeah, the pages have little information beyond saying that it was a part of the probe and the same schematic image. I'm wondering now if the same should be done with aliases of Flint, which was discussed back in 2005 last. Might round it out enough for a featured article. I hesitate because we have to take Flint's word for it that he was in fact all these people; the Nomad parts, on the other hand, appear on a schematic that presumably is considered by the crew to be more reliable than one man's say so. --LauraCC (talk) 18:50, November 27, 2016 (UTC)

The Appollo discussion was a highly specific one (and I was against the merge, btw), so I don't think that ought to apply to Flint, which has its own completely different set of reasons. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:36, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Namely that these individuals did or were said to do things that Flint didn't speak of having done? Some character pages only exist as a result of "Requiem for Methuselah", whereas others, like Leonardo da Vinci, are mentioned elsewhere, with nobody else mentioning Flint = him. --LauraCC (talk) 17:40, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not saying that you can't open a discussion on that again if you think the previous ones missed something, I'm just saying that I think this discussion doesn't affect the Flint one and vice versa, that there's different reasons for merging (or not) in each case. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:03, December 1, 2016 (UTC)