Talk:Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite

Copyright question for possible image

I'm terrible with copyrights, so here's a question: Does this copyright policy mean that this image or any others on the official GOSAT site can be used on Wikipedia? I believe it does, but I am in no way sure. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't use them. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We should trawl the NASA websites in the coming weeks to see if there's a NASA photo we can use, which would be PD. This PDF file at nasa.gov has a photo of a "structural and thermal model" on page 6, but the PDF file looks like it's the work of the "Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency" and not NASA. Flickr has a few photos of the launch but they look like a bot just grabbed them from Yahoo News, copyrighted. Tempshill (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We need more development of this idea in the Copyright Tags section, but here's a point from the article Japanese copyright law that suggests we can just grab JAXA photos and put them in the article:

News: Unless a newspaper or wire service article specifically states that it cannot be reproduced, free reproduction is permitted. Normally, copyrighted materials can also be reproduced to the extent necessary for reporting of current events (this extends to printed matter, film, and photographs).

That is, we could grab them if Japanese law were controlling and not American law. Tempshill (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[1] says, among other things:

{Quote|It is to be noted that, under copyright laws, you may use the Materials without obtaining permission of the copyright holder (JAXA) to the extent that your use is for scientific/educational and/or private purposes (for example, printing out the Materials and/or storing the same on a hard disc for the purpose of use in the course of lessons in a school or other educational institutions established for nonprofit-making or for the purpose of personal use, family use or other similar uses within a limited circle).}

It goes on to say that we would need to attribute the photo, and we would be forbidden from modifying the photo. This seems to me identical to CC-by-nd. I'll post to VP:Policy about it. Tempshill (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ifuki means breath

I like a lot to learn new languages. I tried to find out the meaning of ifuki in English wiktionary, but I did not. I went to Japanese webpage and I found 息吹 (ifuku) it has two kanji: 息 (kun reading iki) that means breath and 吹 (kun reading fuku) meaning blow. In Japanese webpage kanji are not used. --Hedleypanama (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The first?

The claim that this is the first greenhouse gas satellite seems to be wrong. At least there was CRISTA in the 90's, see de:CRISTA and [[2]]. On the project page (second link) it is mentioned that CRISTA took measurements of 15 gases, e.g. ozon, CO2, FCKW, NOx, methan ... 77.180.55.165 (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the concern expressed above I have moved the uncited assertion of it being the "first" out of the lead section, and tagged it as needing a citation. Thanks for pointing this out! (sdsds - talk) 06:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My attempt to fix this was reverted. The cited source doesn't say what the other editor thinks. Truth is, AP says a JAXA offficial claimed Ibuki is the first satellite dedicated to observing greenhouse gases, i.e. it has no other mission. (sdsds - talk) 08:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've rephrased the sentence. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dual-purpose or special purpose article?

For every satellite launch, there are potentially two distinct articles that would make sense to have as part of our encyclopedia. One article is about the satellite, and the other is about that particular flight of the launch vehicle. In this case, there could be both Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite and H-IIA flight 15. In practice neither the articles about a given satellite nor the articles about particular launches would be very long, and it makes sense to merge them (or never split them in the first place). But here, now, it might make sense to split out H-IIA flight 15, because an editor has deleted from the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite article details about H-IIA flight 15, such as the names (and links to) the secondary payloads aboard the flight. How do other editors see this? (sdsds - talk) 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you made the article and had a good ref. or two, I'd have no objections. Kuro ♪ 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. For most satellite articles it makes no sense to have 2 separate articles, but for this one, deploying lots of satellites, it makes sense to me. Tempshill (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever we decide will need to be able to be applied consistently across all orbital launches. My only concern is that there may not be enough to say about individual launches. I suppose the countdown could be covered in detail. An alternative would be to use a list format, but that doesn't really provide enough detail. This might be an issue to discuss with the Rocketry WikiProject. --GW… 10:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If we do implement this, I would favour using COSPAR designations, as flight numbers are only available for about half of orbital launches. Launch failures could use flight numbers or month and rocket type. --GW… 13:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

With the explanation now I see the point, some thoughts:

• Launch description may (should) include weather condition
• It may (should) include all delays. For something like inter-planetary mission, detail of launch delay may be crucial information for launch window constraints. For most Earth satellites, they're less useful information. Here I'm not convinced about the necessity of little necessary information.
• Why not put them in the page of the launch vehicle?

--Fukumoto (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mission failure

Apparently, the GOSAT mission has failed according to an article from CBC News [3]. I might do the update in the article, but I am really busy at the moment. I'm at least providing the source alongside.

--m-p{3} (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wrong satellite. It is NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory that has failed. GOSAT is fine. --GW… 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ibuki - Vitality

I don't understand why Ibuki has to be translated to "Vitality". See, for example, http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/10/20081015_gosat_e.html . An Englihs-Japanese dictionary at hand has about fifteen translations for the word vitality but no "ibuki". --Fukumoto (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Connect to larger issues: sustainability environment Seal the Deal! climate change denial Stern Review IPCC The Age of Stupid ...?

Connect to larger issues: sustainability environment climate change denial Seal the Deal! Stern Review IPCC The Age of Stupid ... ? 99.37.84.61 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131213032/http://www.calgaryherald.com/Technology/Alta+scientists+monitor+oilsands+from+space/1203112/story.html to http://www.calgaryherald.com/Technology/Alta+scientists+monitor+oilsands+from+space/1203112/story.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)