Hi, I've written a comprehensive (many sections) stub (mostly incomplete) replacement for the copyright infringing original in Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter/Temp. I've had a look through that pages history, and it looks like it was doomed from the start. I would like it if this replaced Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and any original prose that is missed (and is not copyrighted elsewhere ;-) ) can be added back in later.
It seems there was no copyright infringement in the original article. The two articles (original and Temp) have now been merged. -- Curps 07:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Remove Copyright Violation Tag, Transferred Temp to Original!
It’s been 2 weeks now and nothing has been done about it, so why not just remove the offending material (who ever wrote it if you want it back take it up with a system op) and place the temp page in its place. That tag is an eye sore and slows access to the non-copied material. The temp page can be made into a redirect until (someday) an op deletes it. --BerserkerBen 18:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
After reading though the deletion policy I have called for a vote to delete this page as a copyright infringement and to replace it with its temp. Votes_for_deletion/Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter
The vote is now moot, since there was no copyright infringement after all and the two versions (original and Temp) have been merged. -- Curps 07:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
After much complaining on my part the copyright tag has been remove, after Curps call for merger, I merged the text from the temp article with the original and Jni(?) deleted temp article.--BerserkerBen 16:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I had a look at the cited 'copied' article, and couldn't find any exactly copied passages, except for the quoted text (not an infringement). I'd like to see the quote from the Mission manager gone, it isn't wiki-ish. JamesHoadley 09:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with the quote being removed. --BerserkerBen 13:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Copyright: Don't Just Copy from the NASA site All NASA material fine
Latest comment: 9 August 20051 comment1 person in discussion
I had to rewrite the MCS sub-subsection, it was copied.
This page has already been suspended for copyright violation in Jan 05. JamesHoadley 19:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aren't NASA pages public domain? The last copyvio was from www.space.com I think. --Bricktop 21:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I thought the same: All NASA publications - images or text - are public domain. Is this incorrect? Awolf002 21:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I might be wrong, images are certainly in the public domain, I thought website text wasn't. I was thinking the last copyvio was from NASA material, but you're right Bricktop... I think we can copy stuff from the website. Sorry for going off. I think that subsection is better rewritten anyway, there was some confusion in there about the filters. JamesHoadley 17:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Each solar panel has an area of approximately 10 metres square (100 m² or 1100 ft²)
Latest comment: 16 August 20055 comments4 people in discussion
I don't quite follow this sentence - how can 10 metres square be equal to 100m²? Does it mean a 10m by 10m square? If so, I feel this should be clarified. – drw25(talk)12:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I would think that "10 metres square" should be changed to "10 square metres" if the area is equal to ten panels where each panel is a square and each side of a square is one metre in length. Also, why "metre" and not "meter"?
Because metre is the proper spelling. Except for the Websterites (Americans, mostly). :-)
NASA built it using meters, not metres. News flows out of the program in "meters" and those studying engineering in America use "meters". Won't the audience of this article expect "meters"? 4.248.221.67
Looks like someone has updated the article to say the solar panels are 5.35 × 2.53 m. Just to put out any fires, the rule with spelling variations (colour/color,metre/meter) is that it should follow what the original article writer did. In this case we're using US spellings. I used metres here because that's how I spell it, it doesn't matter on the chat page. JamesHoadley
Update, it looks like Gene Nygaard has changed it from it's mixed state of US/British spellings to all US spelling. One should be careful with this sort of thing, just because it is a US mission doesn't mean that the article has to be spelt that way. JamesHoadley00:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Actually, what you state is not the rule at all; that first contributor is a "last resort" rule, and furthermore the rule doesn't apply on a word-by-word basis; it applies on an article-by-article basis. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English.
This is an American project, and should follow American English.
Even on that last resort rule ("If all else fails,...", you lose. It is the "first major contributor (that is, not a stub)" whose usage sets the tone for the article in that case. For this article, that is User:AlexPlank, using "meters". Gene Nygaard02:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 August 20052 comments2 people in discussion
The "active" timeline (name could be changed if someone comes up a better one) is a timeline of events that occur, the "mission" timeline is a timeline of things that are suppose to occur. My question is how should events that have occurred be used to rewrite the mission time line? Should the mission timeline be left the way it is (future tense), or should events that have occurred be change to past tense? If the event that occurs is not exactly the same as it is planned then that should be taken into account to.
Generally the things that have now occurred should be turned into past tense. Some thought should go into it though, eg, "Four trajectory correction maneuvers are planned" should be turned into "On date XX-MM-2005 the third and final trajectory correction maneuver was performed. The mission plan allowed for four, but only three were needed. Mission principal PersonA said that the interplanetary burn went exceedingly well". That sort of thing.
So don't just rote turn past into future, try to tie things together and think about it as a piece of writing. Some details can be dropped, but generally they shouldn't, the number of planned corrections is as important as the number of actual corrections, and it puts the number of corrections in context. Thanks for bringing this up. JamesHoadley01:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
After some thought and the above comments I think higher details but limited scope should be in the active timeline when they occur, while less detail but wider scope is placed in the mission time line, so with the above example it would be "4 trajectory correction maneuver were planed, but only 3 deemed needed after all. A "5th" trajectory correction maneuver is also optional within the last hours before orbital insertion for emergency purposes"; while the active time line says: "On date XX-MM-2005 the third and final trajectory correction maneuver was performed. The mission plan..." Note the above mission timeline example incorporates both past tense events and future tense events. The mission timeline will provide wider picture details of what was planed and what happened, while the active timeline will provide in-depth details of specific events, such as when the orbiter blows up (knock on wood).--BerserkerBen04:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Mars is apparently closer than we think
Latest comment: 13 August 20053 comments2 people in discussion
Here's another reason not to copy directly from NASA's Mars Program website, from "Rich Zurek and the Mystery of the Disappearing Spacecraft"[3] (12 April 2005):
In 1999, the U.S. sent Mars Polar Lander, but it too never made it successfully to the surface. In fact, two-thirds of all international missions to the red planet have failed. It isn't trivial getting spacecraft safely to a planet that is hundreds of thousands of miles away, and solving some of the mysteries surrounding those that were lost will help future missions be successful. [emphasis mine]
Did anyone else realize that Mars moved from being about 40 million miles away to something approximating the orbit of the Moon? I think I understand now why two-thirds of the missions fail. What bothers me most about this is not only did the unnamed author write a full 3-word phrase ("hundreds of thousands") which is hard to imagine as a single typo, but nobody caught this in proofreading (assuming they even have proofreaders). It looks to me like the decaying state of the U.S. educational system is affecting even our elite science projects. ~ Jeff Q(talk)18:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Oh well. Still technically correct, 40Mmiles = 400 x 100000 miles, so plural hundreds of thousands of miles is correct. It's a literary "feel" sort of thing, so perhaps they decided that millions of miles away sounds beyond the reach of humans, but hundreds of thousands of miles is big, but definitely within the reach of humans (which is NASA's current major goal). Then again maybe they should be just shot and their family disgraced. Just joking. 58.104.40.13714:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)JamesHoadley (not logged in)Reply
Maybe NASA thinks the American public is too stupid to understand big numbers. (And maybe they're right; consider the recent juror who refused to convict based on DNA evidence that had something like a 1 in 10 billion chance of being wrong — I bet she plays the lottery every week.) I guess I should be grateful they didn't say "so far away it would take lots and lots of fingers to count all the miles". But it doesn't bode well for using NASA as an authoritative source for its own subject area. ~ Jeff Q(talk)19:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Countdown
Latest comment: 30 January 20065 comments3 people in discussion
Ok I think that is going just a little to far! Talk about a huge waste of space when you have 100 of these listed:
"Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was only xxx million kilometers away from Mars at 200x-xxx-xx xx:xx:xx UTC."
Lets stick with the active timeline, maybe you can integrate distances in there, but please stick with logarithmic numbers such as .1,1,10,100 million, to save space.
*******************************************************************************
Revised: Aug 16, 2005 Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter (MRO) / (Sun) -74
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/
LAUNCH DATE: MARS ARRIVAL DATE:
Aug 12, 2005 (it's up and away) March 10, 2006
NOTE: AUG 11 LAUNCH SCRUBBED (fueling sensors)
ORIGINAL AUG 10 LAUNCH SCRUBBED (gyros)
LAUNCH VEHICLE:
Atlas V two-stage
BACKGROUND:
MRO will aerobrake for 6 months from the post-insertion 35 hour orbit, saving
450 kg of fuel. Primary science phase starts in November of 2006 and operate
for 2 Earth years from a 112 minute, near circular polar orbit.
SPACECRAFT PHYSICAL PROPERTIES:
Height= 6.5 m Solar panels = 20 m^2
Width = 13.6 m (tip-to-tip) launch weight= 2180 kg
SPACECRAFT TRAJECTORY:
Trajectory file "nav001_050812_051013_p-v1" released Aug 13.
*******************************************************************************
Instantaneous distance between Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars
*******************************************************************************
Revised: Oct 13, 2005 Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter (MRO) / (Sun) -74
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/
LAUNCH DATE: MARS ARRIVAL DATE:
Aug 12, 2005 (it's up and away) March 10, 2006
NOTE: AUG 11 LAUNCH SCRUBBED (fueling sensors)
ORIGINAL AUG 10 LAUNCH SCRUBBED (gyros)
LAUNCH VEHICLE:
Atlas V two-stage
BACKGROUND:
MRO will aerobrake for 6 months from the post-insertion 35 hour orbit, saving
450 kg of fuel. Primary science phase starts in November of 2006 and operate
for 2 Earth years from a 112 minute, near circular polar orbit.
SPACECRAFT PHYSICAL PROPERTIES:
Height= 6.5 m Solar panels = 20 m^2
Width = 13.6 m (tip-to-tip) launch weight= 2180 kg
SPACECRAFT TRAJECTORY:
Trajectory files (concatenated): Start End
------------------------------------- ------------------------ -----------------
pfile_OD003 2005 AUG 12 12:41:55.862 2005-Aug-12 13:20
MRO_p_c_ref-od010_050812_060401_p-v1 2005-Aug-12 13:20 2006-Mar-12 00:00
Includes predicted TCM-2 maneuver on 2005-Nov-11 and MOI on 2006-Mar-10, but
no aerobraking maneuvers thereafter.
*******************************************************************************
Instantaneous distance between Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars
A little more than two-thirds the way there! Is it me, or does the fact that it seems that it being only halfway through with its travel is a little contradictory? We are four months into the trip and we have four months left. It seems that way, but then of course MRO has to decelerate or else it'll miss Mars altogether! It also has a couple of course corrections. Just a few of my thoughts. --Marsbound202403:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, it will lose velocity as it travels away from the sun to Mars (exchangine Kinetic for Potential energy). I've never thought about that before. The course correction burns are just nudges, it's effectively in orbit until it gets to Mars. The orbit insertion burn (if there is one) and aerobraking puts an end to that nice Newtonian physics stuff. JamesHoadley10:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Less than 10,000,000 kilometers remaining. Time to start photographing Mars I think. After all, they did photograph the Moon from this distance during calibration. Look forward to orbit insertion. Marsbound202404:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Just to be safe, notes
Latest comment: 11 March 20063 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 11 March 20061 comment1 person in discussion
Has anyone researched the MRO secondary mission as a communications relay?
After its primary mission, MRO is expected to spend two years as a communications relay between Earth and future spacecraft, like NASA's planned Phoenix lander in 2008 and the Mars Science Laboratory rover in 2010.Space.com
Latest comment: 12 March 200611 comments6 people in discussion
I would suggest pulling out some of the sections on the instruments and creating specific articles for them, just to spread the love around. For example, the HiRES camera could then be placed in the Category:Space cameras--Hooperbloob19:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I disagree on your proposed solution, we need a lot more structure than merely linking stuff through categories. I think the scientific instrumentation section should be split off into its own article named Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter instruments (or something) and then linked to from this page. Of course, it could also be in whatever category exists for space instruments (and a lot of the instruments onboard MRO aren't cameras, by the way), but its connection to the main MRO article needs to remain very explicit. --Cyde Weys19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
A summary of the instrumentation should still remain the article. The child article could be linked in that section as {{main|Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Instruments}}. Same with other sections. Just my 2c. - Ganeshk(talk)21:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, the article should not be split into two. The current article should stay where it is and not be moved to a specific spacecraft article. What is suggested is merely that the instruments be turned into a sub-article and linked using Template:Tl. --Cyde Weys07:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I also oppose a move. I see no point in a separate article for the instruments of the Orbiter. Maybe you could split the article into one about the Orbiter itself and the other about the mission it is supposed to carry out, but an article for its instruments is unnecessary. --Revoluciónhablarver00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. The article is big, but we should only think about it when it gets to ~60kB (I think the official warning limit is 32kB for old versions of Netscape). Plenty of featured articles are bigger. On another point, HiRISE isn't really a space telescope, space telescopes are pointed to other bodies, cameras are taken to their bodies for study. For instance, Cassini's Narrow Angle Camera is a big reflecting telescope, but is designed to look at Saturn. --JamesHoadley04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, literally all lenses, cameras and telescopes are telescopes, literally there are only microscopes and telescopes. I guess I think of the difference between cameras and telescopes as what I wrote above (telescopes aren't brought up to their target), but maybe you could find some other definition. I think they're calling it a telescope to emphasise its size. -- JamesHoadley08:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
How do I cite NASA TV?
Latest comment: 15 March 20062 comments2 people in discussion
I added info from my DVR recording of NASA TV's coverage of the orbital insertion (coverage of control room at JPL and audio of control room engineers and staff) and NASA TV's coverage of the post-orbital insertion press conference. JamesHoadley was asking that I reference that, but how? I can't find a transcript anywhere online of mission control or the press conference. I’m not even sure what reference type it qualifies as (Engineer N/A said this… ?). Spaceflightnow.com Mission Statues Center MRO As some of the information I guess I can cite that? If anyone can help that would be appreciated.--BerserkerBen21:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
It would be nice but I don't think it complies with rule 2.e. for featured article criteria as this is a current event and will change progressively over the next 6+ years with scientific discoveries made by it. Then again I don’t know much about feature article statues. --BerserkerBen03:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
It seems rather inappropriate to have an article detailing a current event presented as an FAC, given that it can't be described as "stable". siafu04:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think it could get there, if there was a consistant way of adding new events and discoveries. The event timelines seem to work, but I can't think of a good way to put in discoveries. The Mars Exploration Rover, Opportunity rover and Spirit rover articles became like bomb sites because of all the progress, dicoveries and images released from those. I'd like to know a way to stop that sort of thing from happening. For instance, when it starts imaging previous landers on Mars, people will add it like it's the most important thing about the mission, whereas it's really a sideline. Plus all the data and discoveries come in dribs and drabs, starting as images, then slower releases of radar data, early speculation, then publications and big news conferences. That sort of thing doesn't help a Wiki article.
Back to the FA thing, it shouldn't have too much stuff that's happening right now. For instance, the second paragraph is about the orbital insertion, and it's arguable that that paragraph should never have been there, it should be up to readers to find the section. It's a very small aspect of an encyclopedia article on the whole mission. If we have a sensible way of updating it FA candidature should be fine. --JamesHoadley04:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well we could have a "discoveries" section place in or after "Science operations and extended mission" are you suggesting some rules and guidelines to adding information to that? --BerserkerBen05:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm not really sure how to keep it under control, and I don't think there's any good way of doing it, apart from maybe deleting minor stuff once it gets old, and lots of other things like it have been done. For instance, the first partial image of Olympus Mons might get into the article, but then if they release a bigger better version, we might just want to delete mention of the small image. JamesHoadley11:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I would recommend waiting till the aerobraking starts, wait a few weeks to settle down, and apply for featured. It's the period of time that's the most likely to be calm, with relatively few changes, as during the aerobraking phase, there's no new pictures, no new major news, etc. --Tuvas16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Before we try for a Feature article we could try for a good article status, it makes a good start, but first we need to get the current event sticker off, I'm just going to go ahead and do that a nominate us for good article statues. --BerserkerBen01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Some unsolicited advise from someone who has been there: I tagged this as a Good Article because it's comprehensive, well-referenced, illustrated and appears to be on its way to featured status. However, it is not yet Featured Article status primarily due to the prose. Don't worry about stability; now that it's in orbit, it's stable. Each of the bullet points and timeline items can and should be incorporated into the text and written as prose. For example, looking at the timeline, there are two items about the gyroscopes. The preceeding Launch section states "Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter launched on August 12, 2005." If you rewrite this to "After a two day delay related to concerns over the gyroscopes, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter launched on August 12, 2005." You killed two relatively insignificant timeline items and avoded having to twice mention that the Orbiter launched on August 12, 2005. The Instrumentation and Scientific instrumentation sections repeat themseves and there are way too many section headers in the latter (and don't bold any item unless it's a Wikipedia keyword that will lead directly to the article). My suggestion would be to delete all the headers except for Instrumentation at the top and then rewrite without any sub-headers. While headers help categorize materials, they can also be excuses to preserve poorly written prose that, without the header, are not readable. Headers come last, not first. I hope this is helpful and I really am looking forward to seeing this on the FAC page. Jtmichcock13:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
current event tag
Latest comment: 20 March 20062 comments2 people in discussion
This will be a "current event" for the next several years, as the MRO will be still surveying the surface of Mars so I think it should be removed now that a week has passed since it enter's Mars's orbit. --Revoluciónhablarver01:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Infoboxes usually only have information about the subject itself. Then there are the subject templates that go at the bottom of the article. I think a spacecraft infobox would be a good idea though. LEts see what feilds would it have? Image, Name, Location, Distance travelled (?), launched by (NASA,,ESA etc), Official Site, Parent spacecraft (for landers?), Launch Date,Power (solar, neucular). Hrm I willmake a sampleone. Great idea!!! -Ravedave05:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have updated it. These are my inital field ideas, once there is feedback they can be implemented. * == required:
Infobox Spacecraft
| Name* = Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
| Photo = Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter.jpg
| Caption = Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter over Mars (conceptual drawing)
| Location = Mars orbit
| Creator* = NASA
| LaunchDate = August 12, 2005
| LaunchCraft = Atlas V-401
| ParentSpaceCraft =
| DistanceTraveled =
| Power = 2 Solar panels, 2000 watts
| OrbitalInsertionDate = March 10, 2006
| MissionCompletion = November2008
| Weight = 2,180 kg (4,806 lb)
| TransmissionRate = 6 Mbit/s
{{Infobox spacecraft
| Name = Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
| Photo = Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter.jpg
| Caption = Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter over Mars (conceptual drawing)
| Location = Mars orbit
| Creator = [[NASA]]
| LaunchDate = [[August 12]], [[2005]]
}}
There's already an infobox (Template:Spacecraft) floating around, but it's no good for a lot of missions, because it makes assumptions, like it has a single orbit and single target body, so maybe this could be expanded to accommodate different orbits and different flybys. It's used on Cassini-Huygens, but doesn't belong there. -JamesHoadley21:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 28 June 20069 comments3 people in discussion
The discussion was going around once about if we wanted to apply for featured article. We decided at the time that the best way to go about was to apply for a good article canidacy, and go from there. However, that has been some time ago, and I think we might have a shot at featured article again. Ideas? Tuvas04:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I totally disagree now, if we have to cut the article down so much to make it a FA then I'm against it (what ever that worth). There was plunty of intresting information lost in the most resent cut downs, also the layout looks very wrong now with everything looking messy and jumbled.--BerserkerBen05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
As near as I can tell, very little content itself was totally removed off of the page, although some of it was moved to other pages. Most of the rest of the changes were cosmetic, rewording a few things, adding citations, etc. As for things appearing to be jumbled, well, I'd like to hear what you'd like to see to change the layout. Tuvas14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Cosmetic!?!?, what do you mean like making a good looking women look like a horror? Seriously the article looks awful now! There is a huge degradation from this [4] to the present article. Now there are some good points like the spacecraft table but that’s about it, what wrong with all the pictures? Why is HIRISE the only instrument worthy of its own title (let me guess its because someone that worked on HIRISE is putting in their own POV), what happened to the timelines, where did some of this information go, where are these other pages you speak of. Why is everything so crammed together, are you trying to fit it on printed text? This is wikipedia the supposed bastion of all human knowledge which implies removing any information is a sin, of course most people here just want this to be another Britannica or a site that purports what ever they find important and not much else, I don't agree with that but I unlike most here know I'm powerless and I don't have the persona to believe I’m right enough to boss people around, as such my complaints stand only as a objection and I don’t believe you or any of the others will change their activities because of it.--BerserkerBen15:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Okay, HiRISE getting it's own section was more due to the fact that there was more information on it than any of the other instruments, by quite a fair sum really. And, I would like to add, I had little to do with it, I've only been around here for the last 2 months, if you look back to HiRISE 2 months ago, you will notice that it still had the most information. Also, if you look at just any news report on MRO, HiRISE is given the spotlight more than any other instrument. If you don't beleive me, take a look at http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/mro_mars_story_archive.html , and count the number of references to HiRISE vrs to any other instrument. I personally don't see any need to cut HiRISE down any further than it is to place it with the other cameras, but, if I get the feeling that I am alone in this decision, I would willingly change it.
Now, let me also add that I do beleive that I can be subject to POV, I could very well be wrong. If you do see something you think was cut too much, feel free to mention what it was, and we can work to getting those parts back up to the same as it was before. I may seem like a tyrant, but, beleive me, I'm more than willing to work around other's ideas.
Also, I'm not seeing any images that were cut down, with the exception of 2 HiRISE images, which were moved to the HiRISE page. The Timelines went to the Timeline of the Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter page, there's a link to it clearly visible in the overview section.
The reason for the cuts were largely as follows. I was thinking, in a few years, what will really be important about this article. Anything that wasn't was either removed or moved to a different page. I mean, who really cares that Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was 100 million kilometers away from Mars at August 25, 2005 15:19:32 UTC. Granted, when that first happened, it was news, but now? Also, anything that was covered in the article in a different place was either greatly summerized or eliminated.
The whole purpose to the changes was to make things easier to find, not make the article look so cluttered (Which it appeared with so many sub sections). Still, as I said before, I challenge you to find something noteworthy from the version of the article you linked that was removed from the current version, not including things that were moved to the HiRISE page or the MRO timeline page. Tuvas16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well you don't consider the timeline "note worthy" so I don't think we are even on the same frequency here. Another thing I think that one giant section is much more cluttered then many subsections, you don't. Many feel this is a encyclopedia (if it was then there would not be public editing that for sure) some of us (like me) feel this is a attempt to categorize and embody all human knowledge no matter how trivial one believes it to be, but I know I'm out numbered I'm not trying to change what your doing as I know I can't, I'm just objecting to it.--BerserkerBen02:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
As I've stated before, nothing was removed, just some of it moved. The timeline was moved to a new page. I'm not saying it's all a waste, but anything that is truly important was kept on the page. The smaller things now have a seporate page, that's all. However, to have a section with 2 lines kind of defeats the purpose of a section.
As to this being an encylopedia, well, that is the intent. On the front page of wikipedia, it states The Free Encyclopedia, in quite a few languages. I'm not saying you can't put all of human knowledge here, just that some things deserve a seporate page, such as the timeline. If you would like that something else be more included on this page, do the research and add it. Take a look at the HiRISE page now, if you want an idea. The previous version was about 3 paragraphs in the MRO article, now there's 4 sections, all on HiRISE. Will it all stay the same? Probably not. I'm sure that this can be done with more instruments however. While I still will say that HiRISE is the key instrument on the MRO, it's far from the only one of signifigance. I just don't have the time nor the interest to study the other instruments to that point. I have been working on improving each of them, however. I've found that my calling in wikipedia seems to be to get some ideas down. Others then come and catagorize, edit, spell check, etc my ideas. Tuvas06:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'm finding it to be quite interesting, we have been on the FAC now for the second longest of any of the canadates to date, and we've had two people who at first objected, then supported, our becoming a FA. Kind of funny... Still, I think if it stays 2-0, then they will have to give us FA status... Strange. Tuvas17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, but this is one way to get people disinterested in the FAC process. Wait them out with casual disinterest.--Koeppen21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Peer Review
Latest comment: 26 May 20065 comments2 people in discussion
Looking at some of the comments, we should probably expand the CTX, MARCI, and CRISM sections, to include somewhat more information. Could someone take charge of that? Tuvas21:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Overview section
Okay, there's also some parts that need to be condensed. I rather think that the launch timeline, overview, and aerobraking timeline could be condensed to just a few key points. The major dates should be kept, which would include launch, orbit, the end of aerobraking, start of the PSP, etc. What isn't needed is testing of MARCI, HiRISE, etc, those events won't interest the majority of people. I'm going to make some cuts to the article, it might need a bit of patching up afterwords though. Tuvas01:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Instrument Section
Also, looks like the intro section could be combined together to make something a bit neater. I can't quite think of how to do it, but I'm sure it can be re-done. I don't want to get rid of anything from HiRISE, but now that there is a main article about it, perhaps it could be simplified... Perhaps it could be done in the simple sections of Cameras, other science instruments, and engineering instruments. Just tossing a few ideas out there. Tuvas02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 28 May 20063 comments3 people in discussion
I think there are a few too many 'citation needed' tags here.. most of the information is readily available at NASA's website, so i don't really see the need for all the inline citations.. any thoughts? Mlm4213:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I left a message on your talk page. Featured articles are expected to be amply sourced. If the goal is to get this article submitted to FAC, then every statement tagged has to be referenced with a reliable primary source. Otherwise, it will simply be rejected. Jtmichcock13:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think I got all of the citations needed, mostly taken from NASA's MRO website, but a few others added. There was a few cases of duplicate references used in the same section, I don't know what to do with that, but at least everything's cited at least once. Make sure that I didn't make any mistakes (I caught myself making one, but there might have been another one or two to have crept in.) Things are looking alot better (And with 70+ edits in the last 24 hours, it should be). Now, what else still needs to be done...Tuvas17:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Slightly skewed
Latest comment: 19 June 200611 comments2 people in discussion
I didn't want to jump in too much and step on any toes - you guys have been doing a great job with this article. But a few things:
1) I reworded the opening paragraphs because when I read it the first time I got the impression that MRO was merely a stepping stone for future missions rather than a scientific mission of its own merit.
2) I concur with Tuvas' brief comment above: the science instrumentation section of this article currently reads like: MRO has HiRISE! (oh, and some other stuff too).
3) These sentences: "A few of the mission's main goals include mapping the Martian landscape with high resolution cameras [this is only one goal, not a few]. This is primarily to choose the best landing sites for future landers and rovers." made me grimace. Same comment as #1. There's lots of cool science to be done NOT just in preperation for the next landers (and let's face it, pure science might have to be done for a few more years if MSL takes the Mars Polar Lander or Mars Climate Orbiter approach). Assisting future missions has been a part of every Martian orbiter proposal but would never be funded if it was the primary objective. --will07:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if my perception is skewed, but HiRISE is by far the most talked about part of the MRO, some of it's single images are larger in memory than entire missions before. I suppose alot of information on other uses can be found at the HiRISE website, I'll look into it to include some more of HiRISEs goals. SHARAD would be nice to include something, perhaps even MARCI. (Refering to the summary) CTX, MCS, and CRISM, while they are useful, they are not quite in the same range, meaning they won't have daily weather forcasts and such. I'll just toss a few ideas that should be included, but I don't have time to make them work now. 1. Using RADAR to possibly identify liquid water underneath the polar ice caps. 2. Daily weather forcast of Mars. 3. Using hi-resolution images to date the Martian surface. Those should do. Tuvas15:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
HiRISE is definitely exciting - no contest there. But as someone who works in a community of VIS/NIR and thermal infrared scientists, all of us are talking about CRISM. Certianly, HiRISE is the spotlight instrument, but it just makes me wince to see other instruments unloved. --will00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Is CRISM the first visible-light ranged spectrometer to orbit MARS? Just curious, that's all. I guess though that it all just depends on your focus. I would like to hear though why everyone is so excited about CRISM. This not meant in a bad way, just curious, that's all. Tuvas15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
No offense taken! I was actually thinking about starting a CRISM page, but just don't have the time right now.... The basic gist is that CRISM will be telling us something about chemistry and mineralogy of places imaged by HiRISE. Hi-RISE will produce great images (which which is great for geomorphologists and outreach), but the compositions will be really key for many of the rest of the scientists (spectroscopists, geochemists, mineralogists, and petrologists). CRISM has both targed and untargeted modes with spectral bands are specifically chosen to be looking for to look for locations with water. It will cover "half the planet in the first few months" of the mission at low resolution (~150 m). That has some pretty exciting implications for learning about the seasonal movement of water and ice, the development of CO2 frosts on the poles, where areas of hydrated minerals are located (past water?), if gullies are really formed by snowpack (as has been proposed), etc. Plus the mineralogy of the near surface which gives you all kinds of information about how the Martian surface has evolved and even how the planet was formed. (Of course, you wouldn't learn this from CRISM's website whose designer must have totally flunked "Getting the public excited about your instrument" class. HiRISE's was 1000x better.) --will21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
HiRISE has a dedicated PR person, she just does PR, the website, and gives tours, nothing else in the way of her job. It helps us. I do remember that when we took our first picture, we noticed one area that showed up on our blue-green alot brighter than the red and NIR, we were going to pass it to CRISM for a target. So, what you way makes sense now. Thanks! Tuvas00:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ok, so. I finally got around to creating a CRISM page. It's currently very short, but does offer a little more information than in the MRO article and I'm planning on adding more in the next few days. I linked it at the beginning next to the HiRISE link, however, there's no good place to link it in its section as "Main article: CRISM", so I linked the bold-faced acronym in its section instead. I don't really like how it looks, but are there any other suggestions? --will00:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm. I'll have to think about it. It took me a long time to get the HiRISE article to something decent, so you're allowed some time. I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll see what I can do to help you. Tuvas01:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and if you wish, feel free to expand the info on this page, and create a section for CRISM, just so long as it's a paragraph or two, it's fine. I'll put in a request to the Mars Spacecraft wikiproject to help with CRISM, and will work on it tommorow (If I have time) Tuvas03:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 30 May 20062 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed that the listed orbital period of the MRO is 25 hours according to here. I work with the HiRISE team, and have a way to find a more current orbital period (With about a half-hour of precision), I know that it's about 21 hours, and it's decreasing quite quickly. However, this is something that is changing every day by a few minutes, is it really worth it to include yet? Perhaps we should just list the desired orbital perameters, and leave it at that? Tuvas15:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I shouldn't have added it, I had the perapsis and apoapsis added as well, but then commneted them out. I suppose none of the orbital figures will be static until aerobraking is complete. I'll removed it till then. Thanks! -Ravedave15:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Engineering data vrs Science instrumentation
Latest comment: 2 June 20062 comments2 people in discussion
I don't know about you all, but in my mind, the Science instrumentation should be placed before the engineering data, that's where the meat of the spacecraft is, and not in the engineering data. Comments? Tuvas15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 21 June 20063 comments2 people in discussion
Is it more appropriate to say "The MRO" than just "MRO"? For example, "The MRO will demonstrate new technologies." vs. "MRO will demonstrate new technologies." I ran into the same question when editing the Mars Global Surveyor page and wanted to know if there was some consensus. Personally I think I prefer it sans "the" just because that's what I hear everyone say. But perhaps it's personifying the spacecraft? Is one more correct than the other or are there strong opinions either way? --will09:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I did a search for this, and found that NASA uses MRO, as does HiRISE (Using their internal documents, not publicly avaliable...). So, I've changed everything to consistantly say only MRO, omit the the in front of it. Tuvas15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:WikiProject: Mars Spacecraft
Latest comment: 2 June 20061 comment1 person in discussion
Hey all. After some careful consideration, I've come to realize that it would be nice if we could continue such colaberation that we have had for this article, to improve similar articles. In the efforts to do so, I decided to create the Wikipedia:WikiProject: Mars Spacecraft. It's still in need of a great cleanup, but, I think it might just be worthwhile, once everything is nice and orderly. Only a few sections are really opened (What is there is a template that I used to start up), but, the task section is opened. It's probably not quite good enough for general use, however, I would like your input, feedback, and help. Thanks! Tuvas16:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Mission Duration
Latest comment: 3 June 20062 comments2 people in discussion
The "official" duration is 2 years, after which it will enter extended mode. No one knows exactly how long it will last, but it will likely be quite some time. Tuvas01:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Style for Units
Latest comment: 17 June 20061 comment1 person in discussion
I went through the entire article today and tried to standardize the units (i.e. writing them out vs. abbreviations). The Wikipedia:Manual of Style was not an incredible help, but I made up a few rules to follow that I thought looked good. I don't think any of these are set in stone, but as a reader, I tend to like consistency. Please object, add, or change if you find something wrong or inane:
In order of precedence:
Write the units out if they are after spelled out numbers, e.g. seven miles, 10 million kilometers
Use symbols if directly after a numeral, e.g. 20 km, 15 K, 25 kg
Time is never abbreviated unless it's part of a fraction, e.g. 15 seconds, three hours, 15 m/s, 25 m²/h
By default "mi" stands for statute mile (it must be specified to be "Nautical")
By "precedence" I mean the first rule trumps the third (i.e. if the value is written out, the units should be too, even if it's time in a fraction. E.g. seven meters per second, NOT seven m/s).
Any thoughts? It would be nice to standardize some of the scientific style. --will10:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Intro/Lead vs. Overview
Latest comment: 21 June 20063 comments2 people in discussion
I split the Overview out of Overview, launch, and orbit insertion today as it seemed a bit of an interjection (the article really went Launch, Overview, and Orbit Insertion). Then I scanned up to the lead, and back to the overview, and back to the lead.... Essentially, I think the overview would be a GREAT way to shorten the lead which I've been thinking is long in some parts. But if there's serious objection to that then I think the overview should be IN the lead shouldn't it (they have a lot of the same information already)? Any takers either way? --will09:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Personally, my view is that the lead is the right length, not too long, nor too short, as it stands right now. Tuvas14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 July 20067 comments4 people in discussion
There has been a request (by FAC review) to add a section with information about MRO prior to launch. I don't have time to do it right now, but found a few references that may have some info in case someone else does. Some of these are probably useless, others might be better mentioned in the Timeline of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter:
Well, I think I've got the key pre-launch points included, but, there isn't really much to say. Still, it seems to have added a nice touch to the article, and it gives the launch section a much better name (History). Tuvas16:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
We should also say that MRO was originally competing against MER for the 2003 launch window. After MER(s) were choosen to fly in 2003, MRO was put on schedule for a 2005 launch. Sources: [5], [6]. And the sentence MRO was announced by NASA on October 26, 2000 in the Prior to launch section is not correct: check the same sources as above. --Bricktop13:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I beleive the first time the mission was called Mars Reconaissance Orbiter was on that press release. Perhaps there were some elements in the links which you stated to a possible surveyor mission, however, they do not appear to refer to the orbiter as the Mars Reconaissance Orbiter, rather, the Mars Surveyor Orbiter. Still, such a mention might be aplicable, I'll leave that up to you. Tuvas14:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes you may be right. I tried to add some things I've mentioned before, but you maybe should take a short look at my additions because of my relatively poor english. --Bricktop00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 August 20065 comments4 people in discussion
Well, we've officially failed the FAC process (And we were so close too...) Anyways, what should we do next? We can do one of two things, either try for a peer review again, or just take the article apart ourselves, either way applying for FA status in about a month? Thoughts anyone? Tuvas15:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
The article is good, we know that. I think we should wait till the MRO is in a stable orbit and doing science before applying again. Then everything should be pretty static, and I am confident it shall succeeed. -Ravedave17:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Okay, but I still think it might be a good idea to go through another peer review. The end of the FAC process brought out alot of ideas that might well be able to improve this article. Tuvas17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm in. It seemed like the main opposition was really the stability issue, which suprised me really. However, that pretty much means no FA for ... well months if not a year. But I also agree that the other comments - another strong copy edit, perhaps less pictures, longer sections on individual instruments, etc. should be discussed.--Will.i.am21:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I object to making this article a FA until the primary science mission is over (~2 years), first of all try implementing some of those PR ideas first before going under another PR! Second it won't be stable until after its science mission is over before and during which alot of discoveres are going to be made. --BerserkerBen20:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Further cleanup
Latest comment: 6 August 20062 comments2 people in discussion
Object!, There was only one objection to the images and many others seem to be impressed and approving of images. If you have to remove images then only remove images that won't be orphaned, there are alot of MFAH that will delete orphaned images very quickly, before they can be put to good use somewhere else.--BerserkerBen20:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Auto peer review
Latest comment: 20 August 20061 comment1 person in discussion
I ran the auto peer review script on this just to see. Strike trough stuff that is verfied or completed.The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[1]
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[3]
Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[4]
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[5]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 15 additive terms, a bit too much.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
Latest comment: 2 September 20062 comments2 people in discussion
Well, that time has finally come, MRO's now in a transitional orbit, AFAIK, almost right on the planned orbit. I'm not positive yet, so don't quote me... Anyways, we need to make some changes to reflect that aerobraking is over, probably as soon as we have confirmation. Tuvas18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Okay folks, PSP is just around the corner, final testing for MRO starts this week! Yah! But, that means we're going to have to go through this site quite a bit. I know there's probably alot of "This instrument will do this" type of references, we should work on changing them to the present tense. I beleive that we now have all instruments on line, ei, there isn't really anything else major that can go wrong in the transition phase, we'll find out when transition imaging takes place at the end of this month. I think we should polish this article up, and push for a FA in early October, about the time that the solar conjuction is taking place. That means the results of the vote should be done by the end of solar conjunction, just in time for PSP:-) I'm going to remove the current event tag, as there isn't really that much more to be had in the way of current events. I also took the oporunity to archive the talk page, it was needing it, and it's a good time to start again. Comments? Tuvas17:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wait 2 years?? Thast a bit much. I would prefer to wait until the science mission gets underway for a little bit and preferrably until after it sends back its first high quality photo. At that point all of the article execpt one or two sentances will be in past tense. After that I can't imagine many peopel will think the article could change alot. -Ravedave(help name my baby)16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
High-quality photos from all of the instuments will be avaliable in the next few weeks. I totally agree, two years is a bit excesive... HiRISE takes it's next pictures on Oct. 29th, SHARAD has already taken pictures, as has MCS. I think MARCI has too, but, I'd have to check that one out for sure... CTX and CRISM are both about the same time as HiRISE (I don't have the exact table in front of me, but everything I've seen says it'll be about the same time). Since MRO is in it's final orbit, all of these things are the real deal, so... Of course, they won't be released to the public right away, so, it might be better for those. HiRISE will release it's first image the 29th, ASAP, the rest of the images will also be released as they come in, for the most part (Exceptions being ones that might have a press release behind them). Among the sights will be Victoria Crater, current home of Opportunity. Should be fun, I can't wait:-) However, if the previous case is to show us what to expect, we can expect that the other instruments will lag (HiRISE has the fastest turnover, however, it also has the most money of any of the instruments, thus the most resources...) Tuvas03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
What about scientific discovers made by MRO? Can the article be made a FA without considering the vast amount of information that as you mention are just days away from just starting to be delivered. I can see people at a FA discussion opposing FA status using my argument. By the way what will getting FA statues provide now that can’t wait 2 years? --BerserkerBen22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Other cameras
Why can't the "other cameras" get there own labels, other instruments like the MCS and SHARAD which have equally small amount of text get their own titles. I think for aesthetics and NPOV that those cameras get there own titles. If there are no objections I will make the changes within days. --BerserkerBen 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There I did it now if we could get a picture of MCS all the insterments will ahve their own picture.--BerserkerBen16:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think it might be a good time to request a new peer review, there have been quite a few changes since the last one, and I wouldn't mind an extra set of eyes to make sure we got everything ready for PSP. Tuvas19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
For anyone interested, all instruments on MRO have been turned on, deployed, lens caps removed, etc, for the first time ever!!! So, everything is now set for transition imaging, which will begin Friday, at least for HiRISE, I don't know about the other instruments... Still, it's exciting! Tuvas23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Another update, two instruments released their first images today from Science orbit, HiRISE and CRISM. I can get the links the the sites if you want them, but they are pretty easy to find. I don't have time at the moment to post anything, but you might want to update them. Tuvas23:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Just wait till the full image comes up. There are things I'm still thinking, wow, that's just amazing, and it's only the begining... I can't remember off the top of my head, but the number 10000 seems to stick out in my head, as the number of images we'll eventually receive... And this image is only a fraction of the first... Tuvas01:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Orbit
Latest comment: 10 October 20062 comments2 people in discussion
"NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has failed to spot the silent Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft. The agency will next call on the Opportunity rover to listen for the missing spacecraft's radio beacon, though mission members say MGS may already be dead."
[9]. Not sure if its inclusion worthy. -Ravedave(help name my baby)05:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
images
Latest comment: 22 November 20066 comments5 people in discussion
I thought it was pretty amazing how the shadow of the mast could be seen. Maybe I should crop it and add it to the article to show the resolution that can be accomplished. -Ravedave(help name my baby)01:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
If we put that image in we should start to worry about how big the "Events and discoveries" is going to be 1-2 years if we keep adding images at a rate of 1 a month. Is there any way we could get a image of opportunity taken by MRO orbiter with some deconvolution routines run on it, or have they already done that?--BerserkerBen02:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
All images released to the public from HiRISE have been deconvoluted. But that mainly only matters for the high-precision measurements, HiRISE by itself is able to be within 100 counts or so even without processing, with 16k possibilities. And yes, there are some geometric features and such that are corrected, but the products released are the most accurate representation that we can get, and they get more accurate constantly. However, it is an exciting thing, we'll worry about an increasingly large events and discovery section when there's alot more things there... Tuvas21:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is just that it looks like the color layers are not matted well, they seem to be slightly off from each other, but what ever. I'm going to move the timeline link down to discovers & events section. --BerserkerBen15:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I took a bit of a break from MRO, but if I can interject a suggestion: what about creating a "Results from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter" article (or "Discoveries" or similar)? (1) It can be stubby at first and just grow as results like this image come it. (2) You could nominate some headlines for the "Current Events" section on the mainpage. (3) It would also preserve the stability of this page until a list of published results come out and can be added (if you desire).--Will.i.am06:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Tense
Latest comment: 26 January 20072 comments2 people in discussion
The article is a jumble of past, present and future tense sentences, someone needs to go through the article and fix these things. For example: "MRO will carry a variety of engineering instruments" needs to be change to "MRO carries a variety of engineering instruments" and that just one of many many sentances that states things that have already happened. Now this is just my idea but I think it would be best to make as many past tense statements as possible, as things that have happened don't need to be changed in the future. For example: "MRO joins four other spacecraft currently studying Mars: Mars Express, Mars Odyssey, and two Mars Exploration Rovers." might be better as "MRO joined five other spacecraft at that time studying Mars: Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, Mars Express, and two Mars Exploration Rovers." This way future corrections to the statements are not needed. If no one objects eventually I'll get on it--BerserkerBen03:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Mostly done. I may have changed some things from "will" to does without obtaining correct facts such as the prediction that 70% of the fuel would be used on orbital insertion. I think the article is ok for now though. I think in 3-6 months when there is more information released the article can be updated and cleaned up. -Ravedave(Adopt a State)18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
mission duration
Latest comment: 12 April 20073 comments3 people in discussion
MRO will (hopefully!) be doing science for several years to come, maybe a decade or more, but it's primary science phase will only last 2 years, after which it will do science still, but it will continue to do other things as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.161.240 (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC).Reply
All NASA exploration missions have a short nominal duration, based on the time required to achieve the goals in the original proposal, and the initial budget. If everything is still working, and the mission is still producing valuable scientific data, they're always extended indefinitely. Satellites normally carry enough fuel to maintain their orbit for several years. The mission duration has more to do with politics, budgets, and ass-covering (the manufacturers don't want to be held accountable for dysfunctionality beyond the original proposal, and rightfully so) than with the actual expected operational life of the spacecraft. Aside from MRO, every active Mars mission is years beyond its nominal phase. It's a nice benchmark to declare "mission accomplished", and everyone comes out a winner when something like Odyssey or the Rovers are still going strong years later.James A. Stewart23:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
News
Latest comment: 12 October 20071 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 December 20072 comments2 people in discussion
I'm confused from the article whether the CTX camera is taking images 30 or 40km across. Both figures are given. Maybe this could be checked and corrected? Or if correct but in different contexts, it could be reworded to be more clear? sjwk00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 October 20151 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add Template:Tlx after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add Template:Tlx to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Latest comment: 29 June 20161 comment1 person in discussion
Hi everyone, I think this article should say a bit more about its sun synchronous orbit. This is especially relevant for its observations of the Recurrent Slope Lineae. They can only be observed close up at around 3 pm local time - scientists would like to observe them in the early morning, but are forced to observe at the least likely time to find evidence of liquid water there because of the orbit chosen for its science orbit.
See "MRO and Odyssey are the two NASA orbiters with Proximity-1 relay communications
capability. Their orbits are Sun synchronous. Each time the orbiter crosses over Mars’ equator
from south to north, the mean local solar time (LST) at the ground directly below is 3:00 p.m.
(MRO) or 5:00 a.m. (Odyssey). " from section 1.4 of http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/DPSummary/MRO_092106.pdf
It's orbit also has an inclination of 93 degrees, see page 9 of that paper. And orbital period 1 hr 52 minutes.
I think the article has all that information except the information about the timing "Each time the orbiter crosses over Mars’ equator
from south to north, the mean local solar time (LST) at the ground directly below is 3:00 p.m." which I think is worth mentioning because of its relevance to RSL observations. And it could be worth highlighting all this in a separate section as well as the mention you already have in the right panel. Just suggestions. Robert Walker (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
External links modified
Latest comment: 4 June 20171 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. 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:
I have just modified 5 external links on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. 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:
Latest comment: 18 January 20181 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. 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:
Latest comment: 9 December 20222 comments2 people in discussion
Inclusion of the calculations to the Darian calendar is misleading here. It implies a level of acceptance, even officialness that does not exist. The Darian calendar is a proposal, among many, for time keeping on Mars.
The closest thing we have to a Mars calendar is the year numbering system is what most scientists use, especially in comparing atmospheric data from year to year. Years begin from the northern hemisphere vernal equinox in (Earth) 1955 and are tracked by solar longitude from there. --MadeYourReadThis (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 January 20232 comments2 people in discussion
In the "Mission Objectives" section, the article lists the rovers and landers that MRO helped choose the landing sites for, but there is an inconsistency there. Most of the missions are listed with the years they landed on Mars. Curiosity is listed as 2012, when it landed, instead of when it was launched in 2011. Same thing with Perseverance. InSight launched and landed in the same year, so there's no difference there. But Phoenix is listed as 2007, its launch year, instead of its landing year, 2008. This just confused me, I'm not sure if it's really an issue or not, I just wanted to point it out. 185.163.72.18 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for pointing it out! I've changed the Phoenix lander to match the others, changing the year from the launch year, 2007, to the landing year, 2008. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Creation of a Gallery section?
Latest comment: 26 May 202322 comments2 people in discussion
The discoveries and photographs section has a lot of images, especially images of other spacecraft. The articled itself also has a ton of images, some of which, in my opinion, should be moved. Additionally, the MRO produces thousands of images a year, so more recent photos could be added to a new gallery section. Thoughts? ARandomName123 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
The orbiter makes tons of discoveries, so the discovery section should be as brief as possible, only 1 picture per discovery listed if that. And the tectonic fractures picture in the timeline seems completely unnecessary. It looks like there is a gallery section, but it only has 2 pictures and they're of the same thing. Maybe a few of the unnecessary pictures in the rest of the article could go there instead, as well as a few more recent photos (if you need those I can supply them, I spend a lot of time looking at the HiWish map) such as pictures of the rovers and any interesting discoveries the orbiter makes. DragonGirlStar (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discovery section used to be even more cluttered, since it used to include all the images in the gallery section. The gallery section has more than two images, but we should probably remove one of the duplicates. The tectonic fractures picture could be replaced by a variation of the Victoria crater image, where the rover mentioned in source 24 circled. The image in the source is pretty good. If you could supply some interesting recent photos, that would be great, thanks. I'll move some unnecessary pictures to the gallery when I have time. ARandomName123 (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here's a few HiRISE pictures, I might get more later if you think I should. The first is of Melas Chasma, the second is of Perseverance (in the center - I forgot to mark that when uploading, but it's kind of obvious so that's fine), and the third is of InSight and its hardware. DragonGirlStar (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I'll get some when I have more time, I'm kind of busy right now. I just figured the rover pictures are usually what people are more interested in, but you are right that there's a lot. Do you have any regions/styles/formations you think should be in more pictures, or just any interesting one I come across? DragonGirlStar (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's fine, take your time. For the pictures, I guess just choose some interesting ones, or some linked to some recent discoveries. I'm planning to update that section in the future. ARandomName123 (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here's two more, both unnamed craters. I'll get more when I have free time, but I have some good ideas.
Here's two more, one of dunes near Mars's north pole, and the other one is something I think the average wikipedia-goer will like: the exact coordinates that the book The Martian is supposed to take place. This page probably gets a lot of sci-fi fans, so I think that would interest them. (first one is the book site, second is the dunes)
I can find more squarish ones, but the HiWish website doesn't have the images in full color, only partial color. There should be some with full color on the various HiRISE social media accounts. I know they publish a lot of its images in color on Twitter, but I'm not allowed on Twitter, so if you want to check that you probably could. I'll grab some with the square proportions. DragonGirlStar (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I got some that aren't nearly as long, HiRISE images don't usually come in squares and when they do it's areas that have already been photographed many times so these were hard to find.
Oh shoot. Sorry, I was stressed about exams at around that time, and it completely slipped my mind. Thanks for reminding me. I'll add in the long one with the big crater, the one with the dunes, and the one after that. If you think more photos should be included, feel free to add them in. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
They don't have to be rotated, but I think it'll fit better on the page. Also, do you think we should remove 1 or 2 images from the "Other spacecraft" section? More specifically the second and fourth photos. The gallery section is filling up pretty quickly, and the images mentioned are blurry, and don't add much to the article. ARandomName123 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Update for Timeline - re attitude monitoring/control
Latest comment: 6 August 20232 comments2 people in discussion
Veteran Mars probe looks to the stars for longevity says the primary inhertial sensor (gyroscopes) was switched off a while ago and the backup has been used, and now 2018 they are testing a software upgrade to avoid relying on the inhertial sensors at all. "The primary system was already switched off a few years ago after it clocked up 58,000 hours of service, and NASA says that the backups have now reached 52,000 hours." Also talks about battery ageing and possible changes to the orbit- Rod57 (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
