Talk:Rosetta (spacecraft)/Archive 1

Gravity assist

from the website i've read that: "To gain enough orbital energy to reach its target, one Mars and three Earth gravity assists will be required" i was wondering, how exactly this is done? gravity assist

Itay2222 09:01, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, first you have to realize that when a spacecraft comes close to a planet (or other heavy object) its trajectory will be changed. That's pretty easy to see. Then you need to remember that due to "Newtons Law" this action has a re-action, which means the trajectory of the planet is changed as well. Since that change is very small it can normally ignored. However, the concept that is requiring these changes is important. It is called a "conservation law." It states that, for instance, the total momentum of the two objects (planet and spacecraft) stays the same during the encounter! The planners of this mission will send Rosetta passing by the planet, so the momentum of the planet is decreased. Thus the momentum of the spacecraft is increased and it gains energy in the process. Awolf002 15:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

0.05%

I'm sorry, but I'm being bold as apparently I should be. What is otherwise a fantastic article, may have either a mistake or a potential misinterpretation. In the 'major events' section I read:

"The first and most important deep space maneuver was successfully executed and brings the space craft on its correct course, with a reported accuracy of 0.05 %. "

Surely 99.95%, or even and margin of error of 0.05%?

Hi, welcome and yes, be bold! Here is the ESA report where this figure was taken from. You are correct that it should be called "inaccuracy"! I will change the article. Awolf002 15:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Flyby of Mars - 2007-Feb-25 01:44:18 - 3650 km - (3396.2 x 3396.2 x 3376.2 km)

Better image? Other improvements?

The "computer model" image used two times in both the head and body of the article isn't very detailed, and really doesn't explain anything at all. What instruments are being carried? What type of solar panels does it use? All the little details are missing. Look at the Cassini page for a much better example of how this should be done. It's a mission a decade in length and this article is tiny. The most obvious to do would be to include an actual photograph of the spacecraft, possible in the assembly room, or maybe one of those really nice graphics they have on the main ESA site. Here's a good one. (10 pages of images of the probe and science results from the Earth flyby and more) [1]

This is what they say about use of the material. "ESA grants permission to users to visit the site, and to download and copy information, images, documents and materials from the website for users' personal non-commercial use." As far as I can tell, Wikipedia is non-commercial, so those 10 pages are useable. This would be the first step to getting this article to featured status before EOM (End of mission):) --Planetary 17:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that permission is not compatible with GFDL. There was a discussion with ESA some time ago (like 20 months) to gain access to ESA images with similar 'license' as to those made by NASA, but I think nothing has changed. Sorry, we will have to refrain from using them, IMO Awolf002 23:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they can be uploaded with Template:promotional? I think that this case fits perfectly with that template... // Duccio (write me) 08:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that. Copyrights are asserted by the creator or owner of the artwork, not the 'consumer'. And we can not (re-)interpret their intentions any other way than they are explicitly stated in the ESA web page. Awolf002 19:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just found the page about the ESA image issue. It seems to be a complicated mess, so I'm finding it difficult to undertsand why we can't use Template:ESA-multimedia? There are already 68 images closely or not closely related to Rosetta[2], and a number of better images of the spacecraft then what is currently up. I confess that I've probably overlooked some critical detail, so just feel free to shoot my idea down. :) --Planetary 08:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi I have created a screenshot using Celestia[3] and added it to the page. It is a much more detailed than the previous image which really looks nothing like Rosetta. I also do have some pictures of the actual spacecraft taken by myself prior to the spacecraft being shipped to Kourou for launch and also have pictures of the full scale engineering model of Rosetta located at ESOC which I can also add if people wish. --IanShazell 02:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You sir, are a genius! Problem solved, or at least that one is.--Planetary 02:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge 2007 VN84?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of this discussion was not to merge. Awolf002 12:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Against merger

• I believe this should be kept at a separate page but linked to the Rossetta page as it shows both the sensitivity of the searches and the danger of mis-identification 81.156.167.185 07:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)John Murrell
• This not an alternate name, but the story of a mistake. It seems to be notable enough to stay separate for now, since many people looking for that story will use that designation. Awolf002 19:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'm against the merger as per the two reasons stated above. ;) Very good reasons!EverybodyHatesChris (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Whereas the two objects are one and the same, and 2007 VN84 is now retired, the story of the two objects is quite different. One is a spacecraft, the other is a story of mistaken identity, of the search for NEOs, of the sensitivity of the search etc. They are really two very different stories, even though the object is the same. 83.147.173.171 (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• —Alastor Moody 04:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For merger

• Although interesting enough for a subsection of Rosetta (spacecraft), 2007 VN₈₄ is ultimately the same object. Merge and set 2007 VN84 as an R from alternate name. — Eoghanacht ^talk 13:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest to merge and redirect directly to the subsection, so people will find it. --Cspan64 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and protected redirect - the designation has been retired, the redirect will bring searchers to the relevant article, and a mention can certainly be made in the lead if there is concern over confusion for readers. ---Ckatz^chat_spy 09:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

And yet still it was merged...

See: Talk:2007 VN84#Not merge.... but still merged?. SkywalkerPL (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That discussion was from more than six years ago, and the merger happened in 2009. Times change, standards change, and how we handle redirects has shifted significantly since that time. It simply isn't acceptable by today's standards for such an article to exist. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it have gone through the voting too? I thought that all of the mergers like that should be voted on, especially if they were voted before. SkywalkerPL (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It should have been, but having also been five years since the merger happened, it would be overly bureaucratic to undo something that's been de-facto accepted by the community. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation :) SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Rosetta Disk

Rosetta disk goes back to the future

This ESA article says that a Rosetta Disk was mounted on the space craft, where should it be placed in the article? --58.107.3.49 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the disk onboard Rosseta (Rosetta Project) -containing 1000 languages- is noteworthy. It already has a WP article but a short summary should be placed in this article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)-+*------

Venus Express

Something should be said about the use of instrument spares from this program on Venus Express 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Failed Mars Missions template included?

I'd have deleted it as inappropriate but I can't actually find it in the edit space. The ultimate goal of the mission may or may not succeed, but its Mars flypast was fine. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Overview

This is just to explain an edit I just made to the overview section, where I changed "besides" to "aside from" in the sentence originally worded, "Besides the changes made to launch time and target, the mission profile remains almost identical." You may think the original wording had the same meaning as the changed one. In fact they are quite the opposite of one-another. "Besides" means in addition to. It is used when two truths coexist one beside the other with neither negating the other, e.g. "besides being an accomplished astronomer, he was also a skilled mathematician." By contrast, "aside from" connotes subtraction (as opposed to addition). It is used where the element to be subtracted or disregarded tends to negate the remainder, e.g. "aside from its poor English, the article was otherwise quite good."

Spelling

In the figure the name of Churyumov is misspelled as "Churimov". Does anybody know the source of the figure? Tkuvho (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that it's a regional spelling variation. I'm seeing some instances, even at NASA and ESA, of the comet being referred to as "Churimov-Gerasimenko". The graphic should be updated if someone has the ability (way beyond my ability). Better yet, recreate it in PNG format for a more professional appearance (and with consistent font usage as well). Kudos to the original author for creating it for us, but the heavy JPG compression doesn't help things. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Russian spelling at https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/67P/%D0%A7%D1%83%D1%80%D1%8E%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%E2%80%94_%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE clearly supports the "Churyumov" transliteration. There is no room here for regional spelling variations as there are none. Tkuvho (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done - corrected image spelling of File:Rosetta 111106.jpg to => 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko - also, adj font size to "24" and font type to "Carbon block" (via JASC Paint Shop Pro v6.02) for easier viewing - unable to overwrite the original .JPG format version with a .PNG format version (upload halted) for some reason - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Tkuvho (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Tkuvho, I was definitely not arguing for keeping that spelling, just making an observation. Thanks Drbogdan for making that fix. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

'Overview' section subdivision

I'm planning to put a section in relating to the 2006 leak in the RCS and how it impacts the mission but looking at this lead me on to thinking about the 'overview' section, to me it should be subdivided into the separate stages of the mission, nominally - Planning, Construction, Launch, Deep Space Manoeuvres (again to be subdivided?), Orbit of 67P/C-G & End of life. If no one has any objections I'll have a crack at breaking the section down over the weekend, but if anyone has any concerns/suggestions let me know. Markh89 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. The better organized it is, the better we can handle the editing rush when Rosseta establishes orbit on the comet. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Section subdivided. Thanks BatteryIncluded for proof reading! Markh89 (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Deep space manoeuvres

"The asteroid's orbit was known before Rosetta's launch, from ground-based measurements..."

It's not clear at this point in the article, which asteroid is being discussed. Anyone care to clarify this?

Kortoso (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, it is a comet, not an asteroid. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Core

"Abundance" or "quantity"?

"Abundance" may perhaps be a technically correct term in the UK, but it gives the wrong impression to the hoi polloi, methinks. Kortoso (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Rendezvous vs. flyby

From ESA's press release: "After a decade-long journey chasing its target, ESA’s Rosetta has today become the first spacecraft to rendezvous with a comet..." Clearly ESA does not equate a flyby with a rendezvous, and I don't think it makes sense to do so. Consider the word in human terms. If you have a planned meeting with a friend in a bar or hotel room, that would be considered a rendezvous. Driving past your friend's house without stopping would not be considered a rendezvous, even if one planned in advance to wave at them while going by. It would not be considered a "meeting" because meeting someone typically implies eliminating relative motion. We might as well use "rendezvous" in the sense that ESA and others in the space community do. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As long as you make clear that it is not the first probe to approach a comet. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree that Rosetta is rendezvousing with 67P at this time, with the intent to orbit later. I may be missing something, but where does the article imply that Rosetta is doing a flyby? Just curious as to what prompted this post. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with rendezvous - compare Space rendezvous and planetary flyby.Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Space rendezvous seems the technical wording. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I have mentioned, and added a link to, previous comet flyby missions. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Valuable

   A colleague wrote

it became obvious that follow-ons were needed that would shed more light on cometary composition and answer new questions.

I've tuned it up some, but one of the first questions it raises for me is

Who imagines that the need for follow-on missions was not already obvious before Rosetta results were available?

and i imagine whichever colleague wrote that as struggling for a grasp on what motivates the expensive comet research.
   I'd like to see instead, inter alia, links to our articles that summarize the state of the understanding of the formation of solar systems, and to our coverage of earth-impact events like Chicxulub, Tunguska, and Chelyabinsk. (Step up, astronomy jocks!)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk) 11:21 & 11:48, October 19, 2014

IES

On the NASA JPL Rosetta page for NASA's role [4], it mentions IES - Ion and Electron Sensor, which is not mentioned in this article. Should it be added to the Instruments section or is there a reason why it should not? Alaney2k (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Alaney2k:, IES is part of the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (RPC) package, listed under Solar wind interaction. So no reason to list it separately, though if you want to add a description about RPC (its role and components, etc) in that section, that would be welcome. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Orbital period / velocity

Much of the news lately has been made of Philae landing on a "speeding comet", a comet "flying at 18km/s", etc, but I think most people fail to realise how *slow* Rosetta must be moving relative to 67P. Does anyone know the orbital period of Rosetta around 67P? This info should be in the infobox with the periapsis. - Anxietycello (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that Rosetta has been changing orbital regimes fairly often in these early days. Adding that info (if it can be found) might be possible later on once it falls into a stable science regimen. 161.45.233.183 (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It changed a lot in the last weeks, but in an orbit the relative speed is significantly below 1m/s. --mfb (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Shirtgate

The design of the shirt worn by scientist Matt Taylor, and its perception by some women scientists, has been the subject of widespread comment on social media, in turn reported here, here, here, etc. At what point does this become worthy of a brief mention in the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Never, because personal clothing doesn't have anything to do with the spacecraft. It's just typical shallow stuff found on the internet these days, where people whine about cr*p that isn't important. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. This has nothing to do with the Rosetta mission. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I was expecting that sort of response. However, if this develops further into a notable example of perceived sexism within the scientific community, it will be of encyclopedic importance and will need to be mentioned. Where? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Start a new article on arguments in support of human extinction. This sensationalist crap has no place in this article. --W. D. Graham 11:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It may or may not be an argument for human extinction, but the top story on the day we landed on a comet was about a photo of someone's bum. Btljs (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

D-list Reality Stars have proven that tv and internet panders to the lowest common denominator of the population, but Wikipedia should strive to be far better. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

There was I, thinking that we should be providing information for all the population, not just those who deem themselves not to be "the lowest common denominator"... Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just that at this point this shirtgate stuff looks to be mostly fringe and made out of one single article on The Verge. All the drama was made outside scientific sources Loganmac (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A lowest common denominator is a thing that appeals to the maximum number of people not a description of a section of the population. You could argue that thoughtless sexism affects rather more people than space exploration but both are worthwhile. Btljs (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC) strikethrough Btljs (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

One man's fashion decisions are not going to be relevant in a week. Please don't waste time on this, it's really not worth it. DCLukas (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree, what a waste of time. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

YES, this merits a mention--Kiyarrlls-talk 13:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion has now moved on to Talk:Matt Taylor (scientist) - which I agree with others is now a more appropriate forum than here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Draft of edit

Including "Shirtgate" within rosetta (spacecraft) mind you, can be found in Talk:Matt Taylor (scientist).--Kiyarrlls-talk 00:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it is included in the Matt Taylor article - I try not to get involved with BLPs but the controversy is certainly far more relevant to him than it is to the mission - I think there is a fairly clear consensus here that it should not be included in the Rosetta article. At best it is useless trivia, while at worst it is giving undue weight to sensationalist viewpoints. --W. D. Graham 19:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Any discussion of whether to include this nonsense in the Rosetta article must take place here rather than at Taylor's article. But as WDGraham says, there does not seem to be any consensus for inclusion. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is now suggesting that it should be in this article. Why is this discussion still continuing? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Because Kiyarr says it in the parent post of this subsection, quote: "Including "Shirtgate" within rosetta (spacecraft)...", but perhaps I misinterpreted that wording. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I am indeed saying that it should be included. if there is an entire section called "social media coverage", in which 3 sentences are put on how it was on the social media, then there is space for how the mission scientist was so overwhelmed by the negative publicity that he tearfully cried and apologized for his error in an official meeting with the press.--Kiyarrlls-talk 01:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

How at all is this relatable to a space craft which I believe is currently still on the comet? Does it get transmissions now? Or...I'm just not seeing how it's relevant at all to this article. You already got Shirtstorm (which is nominated for deletion) and Matt_Taylor (scientist) (which appears to be here to stay) and it's just in general, a very coat rack idea to think of putting this social media craze on the respectable space craft's page. Tutelary (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is relatable to the space craft, but yes to the spacecraft mission, project, and public image (including the press meetings). Despite this being called Rosetta (spacecraft), it also refers to the mission, it's project. The Matt Taylor page and Shirtstorm page were only created because a false consensus occurs here as to the non-inclusion within this article. And "you've already got" makes it appear that it is my personal agenda, it is not, it is wikipedia that "has got" those articles. It would be comparable to accuse that those that are refusing to include it have a personal agenda. Those are not my articles, and this page is not owned by the few people that believe that this is not worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia is not the ownership of the few people that frequent this page most often.--Kiyarrlls-talk 16:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think 2 to 3 sentences treating the affair is appropriate. I do not think the controversial thing is the inclusion, but the manner in which it is included. And I appreciate your discussing the specific points of argument that are the problem for inclusion Tutelary, rather than appealing to an already created "consensus".--Kiyarrlls-talk 16:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion so far has you and Ghmyrtle as being proponents, while all but one other commenter has been against. The way consensus works is that you need consensus to be on your side before adding material to an article, and you certainly do not have consensus at this point in time. I see no issue with having a Matt Taylor article with this situation added in balance with other material, but I will restate that it has no place in an article about Rosetta. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a minor point to clarify, for posterity - my post on 18 Nov shows that I'd clearly moved to "against", three days before this post was added. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"been against" - count me in. This has nothing to do with Rosetta (and the relevance elsewhere is questionable as well). --mfb (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the clothing choices of scientists has no place in this article. It can be covered, if justified, in the BLP. N2e (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It would be a very poor editorial choice which would only detract from the scientific focus of the article, which naturally is on the spacecraft and not on the fashion statements made by the scientists involved, even if controversial or in questionable taste. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Requesting for more Technical Details

Please add more technical details for Rosetta, such as Processor, Memory, Electrical Storage, Solar Cell Size, ... Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to include Shirtstorm in article

"A Rosetta mission leader on one of the press conferences used an inappropriate shirt, given the issues faced by women in STEM fields. This was also covered to a great extent, and covered extensively in social media, to the extent that in the next press conference he apologized."

This seemed to be a concise, and to the point, reporting on it as it was important and relevant to the mission. That is, that it happened within a press meeting, and that it was apologized again within the Rosetta mission press conferences. Do you disagree that this is what happened in this edit? --Kiyarrlls-talk 18:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

See above section #Shirtgate. There is no consensus for inclusion of this material in the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The above seems to argue that clothing is not relevant to the spacecraft, but it is relevant to the "Media Coverage" - to the extent that in a press conference that he made he was pressed regarding the issue. So it might not be relevant to the spacecraft, but yes to the coverage, and to the misson.--Kiyarrlls-talk 17:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The media coverage of the shirt obviously covers the scientist who wore it, not the spacecraft, or its mission. As it has been reiterated multiple times now and in multiple threads, there is no consensus to add these irrelevant trivia to this article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there is broad consensus to not put it in. --mfb (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The media coverage (the apology) was in the official press conference of the Rossetta mission. If there is a part of the article that treats the coverage of Rosseta, then it is meaningful, it is relevant to that.--Kiyarrlls-talk 00:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

DK, the consensus is firmly established against you on this issue. Please drop the stick. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is of no use to dwell on this point. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

External links removed from article

I've just removed a link from the article as extraneous and failing WP:EL, but someone might find information in it useful as a citation. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-comet-discoveries-revealed-by-rosetta-spacecraft/ — Huntster (t @ c) 17:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the article actually belongs within the External links section of the 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko comet article, and placed the link in the comet article Jcardazzi (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Jcardazzi: Please read WP:EL to familiarize yourself with what is acceptable for external links sections. They should be kept to a minimum, and should provide unique resources. This news article says nothing that existing citations don't provide, and specifically fails #1 of "Links normally to be avoided". In general, news articles should never be included in the External links section. If you feel they are important enough or contain useful information, integrate them as a citation in the article rather than simply throwing them into a pile. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed crash disposal

"But for several months now a plan has been quietly hatched to see the craft go out with a bang by being brought down to a collision with 67P." Source (29 May 2015): [5] Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete section

I suggest we remove the Rosetta_(spacecraft)#Misidentification section. It is not relevant at all and doesn't deserve such that first-level heading. Huritisho (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Remove - Even if it is well referenced, it is almost trivia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huntster: Pinging you, since you were the one who added the section again. I wish more people would give their 2c on this. Huritisho (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping Huritisho. I still believe it provides useful information and should be kept, but we'll see what the eventual consensus shows. We need more input. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How can that information possibly be useful? Anyway, since it's been like 5 days and no one else joined the discussion, I think we should remove now. If anyone thinks the information should stay, they can just undo my edit and reignite the discussion Huritisho 18:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(Just seeing this now) I don't see how it is 'trivia'. It may be a peripheral piece of information, but live spacecraft are not normally mistaken for asteroids and especially not given provisional designations! It's a relevant historical footnote. A separate section indeed does not look warranted, but skimming the article I can't find a place where it would fit. --JorisvS (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly one way or another, but it could be shortened to one sentence. Add the rest of the info as a footnote - maybe at 'History#Deep space maneouvers.' Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Perfect section for it, where it was actually already mentioned! I've gone ahead and moved it and pruned it. I doubt we can make it one sentence without loss of information. I am actually missing an important piece of information: How much time was between 'discovery', submission as a minor planet and correct identification as Rosetta? --JorisvS (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I'm with JorisvS on this one; satellites are very rarely mistaken for asteroids, and this is an interesting and relevant part of the spacecraft's history. I don't think it should be relegated to a footnote, but it wouldn't hurt to shorten the text slightly to remove the excess of detail. I'm going to bring [WP:AST]]and WP:SOLAR in on this in case there are more opinions. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree that a top-level section is not warranted, but I would argue for a subsection under History (not just a sub-subsection under Deep Space Maneuvers, as has been proposed, since that doesn't make much logical sense). Re "trivia", I would direct editors to WP:NOTEWORTHY. Also, speaking of trivia, the Deep Space Maneuvers section is already a large section devoted solely to exhaustively listing every flyby that the spacecraft made to reach its target. I regard these details of routine spacecraft navigation to be far more trivial than the misidentification of a spacecraft for an asteroid, which, to my knowledge, has only ever occurred twice. To be clear, I think the Deep Space Maneuvers section is fine, but it is absurd to give it a section to itself without giving the misidentification its own section as well, especially since the misidentification does not logically fit into any existing section. A2soup (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Remove - I agree to keep, maybe, only if the section is turned into a subheading of something else. (Edit: It has already been moved into a subheading. That's better than nothing...) And no, even though it is rare for such a misidentification to happen, it still is irrelevant. If only the astronomer had any involvement with nasa or with the development of the spacecraft, it would be ok to keep. However, he is just some random unrelated astronomer. Huritisho 00:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  It's not irrelevant, it's a rare event, and part of the history of the probe. --JorisvS (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Move? - Another idea: Why not move that to the article of the astronomer? Huritisho 01:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  Because it is part of the history of the Rosetta probe. --JorisvS (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  No. It is part of the history of the astronomer. Once again, if only the astronomer was a member of the science team of Rosetta or something, then it'd be interesting noting, but he is just some random astronomer. He has nothing to do with the spacecraft. Don't you see that information is just irrelevant? Huritisho 15:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  Yeah, right. And Darwin's expedition to the Galápagos Islands is part of the history of Darwin, but not of the history of the Galápagos Islands. --JorisvS (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, don't understand at all. Is the discovery of an asteroid part of the history of the discovering astronomer, not the asteroid? Obviously, it is part of the history of both, as is also the case in this equivalent situation. As an aside, which astronomer are you even talking about? The one who "discovered" 2007 VN₈₄, or the one who realized it was actually Rosetta? A2soup (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - in this article, as it is - and nominate for DYK Geogene (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

a DYK about an inconsequential error? Just mentioning it is a factoid. Anyway, JorisvS already incorporated the info in the "History#Deep space manoeuvres" section. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

My impression of DYK is that it's all trivia, this being more interesting than most. Agree with not dedicating a subject heading to it. Geogene (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does not fulfill DYK's rule that the trivia has to be from a new article, newly drastically expanded article, or newly promoted GA. A2soup (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have been integrated into the text and timeline, which is a much better place for it. An entire section was undue weight. Modest Genius ^talk 13:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Lede too short

As far as I know the lede should summarize the article. I will try to expand it and do some copy editing, if I have enough free time available. Huritisho 05:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

About disambiguation

There is a problem that is starting to occur with the (spacecraft) disambiguation. Mission content that is not specifically related to the physically spacecraft is being stripped out. If this was an article about the mission, which it used to be, a section on instruments would at least mention there was more instrumentation on the lander. Instead it just listed what was on the spacecraft. Its driving articles into a situation where they do not "see the forest for the trees". Either a more even handed approach to articles with (spacecraft) in there title is needed, or we need to make a more general article such as Rosetta mission that gives an overview, if the articles are going to be very specific to hardware. Fotaun (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

NavCam?

The ESA website talks about a NavCam (like here), but finding any information on it is easier said than done (but I found this). Some details about it should be added to the article, methinks. A mention under the instrument list does not seem out of place, even if its main purpose is not science. --Njardarlogar (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a nice list of specifications about the NavCam. Does it matter that it comes from NASA instead of ESA? I suppose since NASA has the information, it must have been shared with them voluntarily by ESA. If that aspect isn't an issue, then I wouldn't be against a mention of it. I don't think, however, that putting it in the instruments section would be reasonable. The transponders on Rosetta could also be considered to be instruments under your definition, but they are listed separately. Perhaps a separate section entirely for cameras would be in order? How many non-scientific cameras does Rosetta have? Regardless, good on you for catching this. - Scrat9518 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I read a little of the available publications on several instruments and I am still not sure if the star traker and the NavCam are the same instrument with a switch of the the optical bench. Has anybody a clue about this? It was built by Officine Galileo Bibcode:2000ESASP.425..279B.--Stone (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This NavCam is a star tracker for navigation. It is a standard equipment for any space probe. I don't think it is notable, unless you want to list all the non-scientific systems or non scientific payload in the probe. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Currently, at least, the NavCam is taking daily pictures of the comet. These pictures have scientific value on their own (AFAIK, some of the best pictures currently available to the general public, herein most/all scientists not part of the project, are NavCam ones), although they do indeed provide a lower surface resolution than OSIRIS and are thus likely to be redundant scientifically in the longer run (unless they happen to capture an event of a short duration that therefore does not appear on OSIRIS pictures). --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to mention it in the article, but based on the definition of the word instrument (or here), I don't think it should simply be listed with those mechanisms that are designed specifically for science. Having said that, I believe that we have at least three options:

• We could make an entirely new section.
• We could put it under a new section in "Instruments", provided that it is made clear that the NavCam is either not used entirely for science and/or was not designed with science in mind.
• We could mention it under "Construction and Design".

I tend to like the last option the best, while the second also seems reasonable to me. Thoughts?

- Scrat9518 (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what about the NAVCAM? (as some sources have it, even though it's clearly not an acronym...) I've been following the Rosetta blog and I noticed that its resolution is roughly the same as the OSIRIS wide angle camera. Which led me to wonder: what's the point of having a separate camera for navigation?
Anyway, I came here hoping to learn more, to find the NAVCAM isn't even mentioned. Nor does ESA seem to give any information about it, despite all those pictures they've released. It certainly isn't among the list of "instruments". And I was none the wiser having followed the links given above (by the way, I took the liberty of editing a URL in Njardarlogar's original comment, since the page has moved). The manufacturer's paper seems to be saying the NAVCAM and star tracker are two separate instruments that happen to be mostly the same except for the optics, but the PDS specification talks about the NavCam being two identical (redundant) cameras that can do both imaging and tracking... Who do we believe?
Well, I did some digging around, and found some ESA documentation that does actually mention the NavCam:

• PDS Rosetta Orbiter Catalog. This seems to clear up the confusion a bit: it says there are two each of the NAVCAM and star tracker (see the section on AOCMS). So there are two identical NAVCAMs, and they're not the same thing as the star trackers. It also says that the NAVCAM was used for pointing during asteroid flyby - I suppose that could well be the main reason for the thing's existence, with all the pretty pictures being just an added bonus... And it describes it as a "sensor" rather than an "instrument", for what it's worth.
• NAVCAM Instrument Catalog is another version of the PDS data. Not a mirror, as there are discrepancies between the two. Though I'm not sure if that matters as far as this article is concerned...
• ROSETTA-NAVCAM to Planetary Science Archive Interface Control Document. This is probably the most useful source, since it contains most of the same information as the others, and more besides. Oh, it says the NavCam is an "instrument".
• The above document references the User's Manual and the Design Description, which might be useful to have, but goes on to say they're "not publicly available". Oh well.

Anything suitable for inclusion there? 2.99.205.189 (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)