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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System 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.
I'm unclear if this is the same thing as MAVEN (spacecraft). I don't think NASA is planning on sending two orbiters to Mars in 2013, but I'm not sure about that. Can anybody confirm that this is a separate mission or should it be merged/deleted and redirected? Grant (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the best expert but I think they're different. The Mars Science Orbiter proposal descended from Mars Telecommunications Orbiter => Mars Science & Telecommunications Orbiter => MSO. So it's a big-budget mission along the lines of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. MAVEN on the other hand has more limited funding secured through the Mars Scout program which is supposed to send a science probe every five years. Assuming the Scout program goes as planned, and several general-purpose "big satellites" (like MRO, Mars Express, Mars Odyssey) remain in service, it would seem MSO is superfluous and unlikely to go ahead, however. Potatoswatter (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems like under the new Mars Joint Exploration Initiative between NASA-ESA, the 2016 Mars orbiter will be built by the ESA and launched by NASA, as part of the ExoMars mission. If so, this article needs to reflect this new change. Aditional info here. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is another reference (March 2009) about launching the MSO with the ExoMars mission:: "One way to keep the mission joint would be to launch MSO and ExoMars on the same rocket in 2016. And on the trading table from NASA, it appears, is an Atlas V rocket." We know now that the weight is such that there will be 2 launches, and that the orbiter will be in the first and it will be built by ESA. I just requested an update on the MSO from NASA media office to verify its status, however, it is not even listed in the official 'NASA Missions' page, or in the JPL Mars Missions page --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The instrument payload is only existing as a model payload without any connection to what the people will propose in the anouncment of oportunity AO which is sheduled for early 2010. This will be another hard fight who is in the payload.--Stone (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Mars Trace Gas Mission was just the early NASA term for this spacecraft, the ESA name is the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) (see ). Since the mission was remodelled to be ESA-led and mostly built, it seems NASA have adopted it (). (relatively) more recent media reports reflect this (). ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Correct. I am in favor of a rename/page move. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Should we rename it "ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter" or just "Trace Gas Orbiter"? BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Good question. ESA abbreviate it to TGO, not ETGO, on their website implying that the actual name is Trace Gas Orbiter and that "Exomars" is simply a qualifier that denotes that it is a part of that programme. This is repeated elsewhere in industry, in public technical papers for the instruments for example where it's often later just shortened to TGO (see  (PDF)). On the other hand lots of cases in media articles are using the full name for now. Perhaps a good solution until usage settles down would be to use "ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter" (abbreviated to TGO in the lead) and have "Trace Gas Orbiter" as a redirect, both are valid and we can always swap over if the other is clearly preferred.
One a related point, it may be an idea at some point to split the current "Exomars" article into one about the whole programme, "Exomars programme", and one about the 2018 "Exomars rover". At present it feels a bit schizophrenic since it was set up originally to discuss the rover before the programme got bigger and now it's trying both. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I did some editing followed by the move/renaming. Please check for accuracy and mistakes, as English is not my first language. Regarding the ExoMars page, yes, the information on each ExoMars spacecraft/module will be large. I agree to separate them into "ExoMars mission" and "Exomars rover". If you could please bring your proposal to that page so we could talk some more about it before splitting them. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, and yeah the edits look fine. I'll suggest the split now. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)