Talk:Marco Polo (spacecraft)

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe: ESA

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by ESA task force.

Merged content from Marco Polo (spacecraft) to here. See Talk:Marco Polo (spacecraft).

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I propose that MarcoPolo-R be merged into Marco Polo (spacecraft). The same Marco Polo mission concept was submitted 4 times (M1, M2, M3 and M4) and was rejected each time for the "M" medium-class missions under Europe's "Cosmic Vision" programme. MarcoPolo-2D, as the latest concept was termed, has been culled at the very first stage of the new competition. Updated news at [1]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Agree There's really no point having a separate articles. Separate sections - yes, but articles? No. SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

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.

Add topic