Talk:Mars Orbiter Mission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / Education (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Education in India workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in December 2013.
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

Policy compliant?[edit]

Please can someone explain to me how this article avoids the pitfalls noted at WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:CRYSTAL. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly gives that impression without stating the name of the satellite. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mangalyaan meaning[edit]

Mangal means Mars in both Sanskrit and Hindi languages while yaan means craft, So Mangalyaan translates to Mars Craft and not "auspicious vehicle to Mars" as has presented in the first para. This mistake needs to be corrected now before foreign newspapers who may not understand the language may repeat it in their publications. WBRSin (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -Thank you for the correct translation. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Change of name?![edit]

ISRO doesn't refer to the probe as Mangalyaan in any of their press releases. For some time now it is being called the Mars Orbiter Mission instead. Should it continue to be called Mangalyaan here? --PremKudvaTalk 06:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad you mention that; I noticed it before, but Mangalyaan is the official name stated by ISRO. Using a title like "Mars Orbiter Mission" is a very generic name in this encyclopedia that deals with multiple Mars spacecraft. Moving the article's name to Mars Orbiter Mission would be like using a generic title like "Mars Lander", "Mars Probe", "Mars Satellite" or "Mars rover". I think that Mangalyaan is both specific and official. What do you think? CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I personally like the name Mangalyaan for the reasons you mention. But ISRO seems to have forgotten they named it such, and keep mentioning MOM everywhere now. Which is why I mentioned it here so that more experienced editors can think over it.--PremKudvaTalk 10:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
ISRO is calling it the mars orbiter mission not mangalyaan .In there site also they are calling it MOM (Mars orbiter mission). Mangalyaan was the name press gave it http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2013/01040907-isro-mars-update.html , its not the official name http://www.isro.gov.in/pslv-c25/Imagegallery/satellite.aspx talk. please change it !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axz Man (talkcontribs) 14:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The mission's official web page is now online (about time), and it does not make use of the name Mangalyaan. The challenge remains: there are multiple Mars orbiters, past present and future, from several space agencies. Suggestions? BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I think WP:DIFFCAPS applies here. There may have been other orbiter missions to Mars, but since it is the name of this one, using title case should be sufficient. We can always put a hatnote at the top of the page linking to list of missions to Mars to be on the safe side, but the capitalisation is enough for the page title. --W. D. Graham 15:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, I would strongly support a move to Mars Orbiter Mission --W. D. Graham 15:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think it's fairly clear that Mangalyaan is just something which was made up by the media and MOM is the official name. The comments above seem to agree that Mangalayaan is not the best title for this article and WP:TITLE advises against the use of neologisms and made-up terms for the purpose of disambiguation, so I'm going to be bold and move this to Mars Orbiter Mission. I think a hatnote should be sufficient disambiguation - as we have done with our article on India's Satellite Launch Vehicle. --W. D. Graham 10:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It has not just been made up by media but it is named as project Mangalyann in early stages of the mission. Prymshbmg (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Spelling?[edit]

The Malayalam spelling doesn't seem to be the same word, or am I missing something?
ചൊവ്വായാനം = chovvaayaanam
mangalyaan = മങ്ഗല്യാന്
69.7.77.20 (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is an English-language article. I feel that the various spelling in the multiple Indian dialects is not an issue here. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Malyalam is a language of India, not a dialect, one of 26 recognized national languages in that country, and as such it is not a spelling problem but a completely made-up word. I advise the IP to be bold and fix the spelling, as "chovvaayaanam" means something completely different, I'm sure. Wer900talk 22:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
So now you want to include all 26 translations? The article was heading that way. Translation of Mangalyaan is enough. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not required to have the name in Indian languages in the article.--PremKudvaTalk 11:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Colour or Color[edit]

This is an odd case of WP:ENGVAR. In the variety of English used in India, the correct spelling is colour, however ISRO documentation for the mission has used the US spelling color for the name of one instrument - the Mars Color Camera. Other instrument names use the "correct" Indian spellings (analyser not analyzer, etc). Which should we use in a) the article and b) when referring specifically to that instrument? --W. D. Graham 20:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think England English will do. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
For a more helpful reply: I would say use Indian English spelling for the article, but 'Color' for the instrument. If its name is the 'Mars Color Camera', then that's what it should be called. Robofish (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. An article about an Indian subject should be written in Indian English, but we don't alter proper names for such a reason.
In the area of spaceflight, Space Shuttle Endeavour is a noteworthy example. It's a NASA craft (so American English is the appropriate variety for the article), but we don't impose the spelling "Endeavor", which would be contextually inaccurate (as would "Mars Colour Camera" in this instance, apparently). —David Levy 04:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Their is a correction of the word Color to Colour in ISRO website. Refer Pdf version (Old) & Check table format in Website Version (New). We, in India, are more familiar with the British English version & use the word COLOUR more often, & are taught the same spelling in Schools. Assuming it was wrongly printed in the PDF version, I had hence updated the article. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can modify. Thanks! - Ninney (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I've removed the note advising editors to use the American spelling. —David Levy 12:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Periareon, perigee, periapsis...[edit]

In the information box it gives the periareon/apoareon of the Mars orbit. In the "Launch, transfer and orbit" section, these are called apogee/perigee when orbiting Earth, and periapsis/apo-apsis when orbiting Mars. Would it be possible to settle on a single terminology? Boardhead (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  • The term used relates to the body being orbited - -gee relates to Earth, -areon to Mars and -apsis is a generic term. Best practise is to use the correct specific terms, thereby making the orbit's reference body immediately recognisable - so in this case -gee should be used for Earth orbit, -aereon for in orbit of Mars, and -helion for the phase betweeen the two. --W. D. Graham 16:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

End of mission disposal[edit]

Has anybody come across information on the mode of disposal at the end of the mission? If performing an uncontrolled crash on Mars, the probe must have been sterilized according to international treaty (see Planetary protection). Any information on that subject would be valuable to this article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I have posed this question to them on their FB page. Hopefully they will point us to the answer, as they have been very responsive to people's questions. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 05:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded, I had to ask them thrice, and they finally have answered our question, out of the thousands they seem to get every day :) Check out the answer here. Now since that is a facebook page, so we can't use it here. But since we now know the answer, we can probably find a reference to that effect somewhere else :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
So it looks like it has been sterilized according to international treaty, good. But ISRO is still not talking on its disposal mode. I am sure they will post something after the science phase is finished and propellant gets to critical level. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
yeah, that seems more probable. :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 18:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I am pleased that both of you (BatteryIncluded and Anir1uph)have been pushing this important question forward and attempting to get an answer to it for the MOM satellite/space probe.
It is a rather odd state of affairs, to my mind, where we are constantly adding to the derelict satellites in the solar system each month (payload satellites as well as the derelict upper stages that disgorge them on their final upper stage orbital trajectory) here in 2013, a totally unpriced negative externality, and the international political regime that supposedly monitors such things leaves the data on each derelict, and each satellite that will soon become a derelict (like India's MOM), so opaque to scrutiny.
If either of you, or others who may read this, are interested in the problem more generally, I'd be happy to have others join me to help to improve Wikipedia by making this encyclopedia of human knowledge more complete in this area of knowledge: human-left derelicts in space. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I asked the same question to ISRO three times in their Facebook page. No answer. I guess they are focusing PR on their efforts and will do their outmost to highlight their successes. I think that a "crashing disposal" is not an appealing PR conversation they are willing to engage in at this time. Eventually they will. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Inadvertant removal[edit]

In the Orbit raising maneuvers section, it appears that the description of the 7th maneuver on 16 Nov (the one that was planned to be the sixth prior to the necessity of an extra one after planned manuever no. 4) may have been inadvertantly deleted from the article. The edit commment says that a repeated statement was taken out, but I didn't see where it was repeated, at least not in that section of the article. Could someone else check my eye on this? Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I just replaced it back. Thank you. Please feel free to just revert blatant mistakes I do in the future; I know you are good editor. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Cruising velocity[edit]

Since V = d/t

d= 780 million km

t= 300 days = 25,920,000 seconds

then, V=30 km/sec

Is this correct? Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Perfectly calculated.
30 km/sec, 1,800 km/min, 108,000 km/Hour, 2,592,000 km/Day & 777,600,000 km/300 Days.
But needs confirmation, Velocity seems too high to me. - Ninney (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
ISRO has provided distance and time; so velocity is deducted. But I am not eager to place it in the article without confirmation. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - V=30 km/sec is perfctly O.K., since NASA Website says MAVEN’s current sun-centered speed is 73,497 mi (118,282 km) i.e. V=32.85 km/sec. The speed can be updated , if required, in MAVEN article with NASA citation, but I am not sure whether to update it in MOM without proper citation (for MOM). Your call. Thanks for the knowledge ! - Ninney (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, it is not completely accurate, as the path on which the craft is moving is not a straight line, but a elliptical transfer orbit. At the beginning, the craft will have a speed of ~32km/s and by the time the craft reaches Mars for orbital insertion, the velocity would have slowed to ~22km/s. (Things moving on an ellipse slow as they move away from the focus, which in this case is the sun.) See this question along with the reply by ISRO. Hope it helps! Cheers :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 07:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes it helps. Thank you. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Information[edit]

@ BatteryIncluded, and others: Is some of the info included here relevant enough to be included in the article? Mars Orbiter has spent 55 per cent fuel on 60 lakh km of travel so far Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 02:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Fuel consumption seems nominal and within the expected parameters. The editor did one typo though: it is not bio-propellant but bi-propellant (oxidizer + hydrazine). CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh haha! I totally missed that! :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Late ship postponed Mars mission launch, says official[edit]

The info here may be useful on this article, and other related articles. Cheers! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • The delay due to the ships is mentioned in the article, the reason for the ships delay is not. But I feel that is not notable. If the delay had caused a cancelled launch then perhaps it could have been added. --PremKudvaTalk 04:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, but if we ever take the article for a GA/FA review, the reviewer would ask that what was the reason for the delay, as it affects the completeness of info in the article. So i just posted this link here, in case the info is needed. Cheers! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the delayed response. Well if you say do go and add that information.--PremKudvaTalk 05:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Need of more pictures (Demanded by many readers)[edit]

As per the demands by Wiki readers and Users, We need some more pictures of the spacecraft, especially a picture of its layout/design. Amitrc7th (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Most people would agree. Unfortunately, all images used in Wikipedia must comply with the required copyright laws. ISRO owns the copyrights of all the images it produces, which make them uneligible to be uploaded to Wikipedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Public reception?[edit]

Quite a bit of sources highlighting the public reception and the reasons for its low cost are available. Here are a few:

Maybe a separate section "Public reception" or just "Reception" (couldn't think of a better name) can be added? It would consist of the "space race in Asia" and its general reception—the positive and negative opinions on it. Also, the reasons for it costing less needs to be added elsewhere. I'm keeping this here for the rest of you more familiar with the subject to decide. I'm not sure what's relevant here and what's not, and if anyone agrees and feels up for it...please go ahead and add it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this craft, along with Chang'e 3 has also received quite a bit of attention for reasons other than the scientific mission. If reliable/prominent sources are discussing the MOM for socio-economic reasons also, then that must be added here too. The new section can be "Public reception". But I too would leave this up to the more experienced editors on this topic, because they would know if/how such issues are dealt with for similar missions of other nations. Cheers :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 01:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. But since they are [published] editorial opinions, I would name such section "Public perceptions". Cheers. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

MOM and "cheapest mission"/"first nation to get a S/C to Mars on first shot" claims[edit]

Uh oh - it looks like the Indian Prime Minister got some of the facts wrong in the post-MOI speech of MOM:

  • First nation to get a spacecraft to Mars on first shot - where does ESA's Mars Express fit? It was Europe's first shot at Mars... (although given that the mission is multi-national, and someone would claim that Beagle 2 is also part of the mission too, maybe he's correct...but dubious enough that I don't think it should be stated here anyway)
  • Cheapest mission to Mars - I know it's cheap, but do we actually know the figures? Hint: Can someone try to find out how much do the Soviet missions cost? ;)

At least I think he got the "4th space agency to get a spacecraft around/at Mars successfully" correct...

Unfortunately there's no reliable source that I know of that explicitly list the arguments above, while sources quoting the speech are of plenty. What to do then? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

For sure it is the 4th space agency to do this (good quality refs. support it) But on the first shot? You would have to specify that flybys and multinationals (ESA) are not included, which dilutes the claim. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
We must hold our "reliable sources" to the same NPOV policy to which we hold ourselves. Since it obviously comes from a biased source, I've switched the "first nation" claim with the less dubious one from the Washington Post headline, and moved the PMO-India's claim and citation in here until we decide what to do with it.
The Prime Minister's Office claimed this makes India "the first country in the world to successfully send a spacecraft to Mars on its very first attempt."[1] JustinTime55 (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Lets find out different claimed budget figures:
INR 4.5 billion (Four fifty hundred crore) i.e. USD: 74 million Source: BBC[1]
INR 450 crore nearly USD 67 million Source: Rediff[2]
USD 75 million Source: Forbes[3]
USD 74 million Source: Reuters[4]
USD 74 million Source: Business-Standard[5]
I suppose the USD 74-75 million is the range, given the conversion changes. (Rediff seems to have goofed up badly in conversion). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
No doubt ISRO scored a magnificent goal. But calling it the cheapest Mars mission is both correct and misleading. Its cost was minimal, yes, but the payload is minimal too. Keep in mind that the primary objective of this mission is "technology demonstration", with science being secondary. I have no problem quoting the range cost of this project, but comparing it with any of the other 4 orbiters currently at Mars is POV/propaganda. Regular missions have a ratio of cost vs. science return. I would give MOM a few years in orbit before we dare include a comparison of the scientific return:cost ratio. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ "India becomes first country to enter Mars’ orbit on their first attempt". News.com.au. 24 September 2014. Retrieved 2014-09-24. "INDIA has become the first nation to reach Mars on a maiden attempt, a historic feat that has showcased the country’s homegrown and low-cost space technology." 
  • I would like to highlight 1.No single nation had previously succeeded at its first go, although the European Space Agency, which represents a consortium of countries, did also pull it off at its first attempt. It is better to be stated "No single nation had previously succeeded at its first go, although the European Space Agency, which represents a consortium of countries, did also pull it off at its first attempt." Mars Orbiter Mission is INDIVIDUAL NATION effort. 2. Cheapest mission to Mars - I know it's cheap, but do we actually know the figures? Hint: Can someone try to find out how much do the Soviet missions cost? The former Soviet Union reached the mars in 1971(Mars 2). While writing this user should had gather right figures from web. From my findings Soviet mars mission was estimated around USD 337 millions (in low price mission). Editinf (talk) 5:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it is an issue, and am glad you brought the issue to the Talk page, Galactic Penguin SST. My take, we editors should not do the research, as editors, on which is the "cheapest", nor the "best cost per kg placed into Mars orbit", nor the "cheapest per unit of science achieved" (which we would not know, anyway). Why? Because all of those would be original research. Instead, we should just go with what reliable secondary sources say, sources that have done such research, if such sources should surface, and especially if several of them all agree on the main idea or result of that sort of "cheapest" analysis. If the source is just quoting the PM, then the PM's claim is a primary source, and we should handle it the way suggested by JustinTime55, above, and just indicate that it is a claim of the PMO of India. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Language origin[edit]

It's not an actual Sanskrit word. It's a modern coinage used in Hindi and other modern Indian languages. So labeling it Sanskrit is misleading.ShahDuniya (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Valid point for which I found a possible solution. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Your changes are acceptable to me. Thank you. ShahDuniya (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Scientific payload?[edit]

Are there any instruments on the orbiter or is it 'dumb' orbiter? Abductive (reasoning) 17:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the Payload section. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's overlookable and forgettable. Why doesn't the WP:LEAD say anything about the payload? Why is there no secondary analysis of the value of each of the instruments? Abductive (reasoning) 23:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
When a cowboy vomits an assinine edit like "not expected to advance the knowledge of Mars" it has to be reverted. No gentleness needed. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
When an article WP:OWNER makes up his own interpretation of the source, I say, "WP:OR". The source only mentions one instrument, the methane detector. The main quote from the source is, "Of course, that reduced complexity suggests it won't be as scientifically capable..." Abductive (reasoning) 06:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Will measure methane as well as the other gases in the atmosphere: Quote from the reference: "Its measurements of other atmospheric components will dovetail very nicely with Maven and the observations being made by Europe's Mars Express. "It means we'll be getting three-point measurements, which is tremendous."
The issue is not sensitivity or complexity. You are obsessed on dismissing its payload but deleting the quote does not make it a "dumb orbiter". The MAVEN PI is delighted with the additional data MOM can provide on all "other gases". Live with it. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

First country/space agency on maiden voyage[edit]

There seems to be a disagreement on whether MOM is the "first successful maiden voyage to Mars". The press repeats India's claim, but is it accurate? A key issue is the semantics of using country vs. space agency. The Soviet Space Program and NASA had a few failures before a successful Mars flyby and/or orbit. However, the European Space Agency placed Mars Express on its first attempt.

ISRO's achievement is enormous, and more so since the launcher, bus and payload were all developed in India. There must be a way to convey this great achievement in an encyclopedic way and without bias. Is their claim valid if we specify no international cooperation? Interesting editorial at: [6]

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

We must differentiate between a cooperative effort and individual effort. There are subtle differences. rtandon (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Another catch is that ESA was a significant participant in the Russian Mars 96 mission, which failed and Mars Express reused many of the European instruments from that failed mission (search for "Mars 96" in this UK Parliamentary report for details). That seems to be the reason that ESA advertises Mars Express as the "first fully European mission" or the "first ESA-led mission" to Mars (emphasis added). So technically one could argue, as Indian and media sources seem to be doing, that MOM is the first maiden mission to Mars that succeeded. Deciding whether that statement is true or not is then more a matter of semantics than some Platonic ideal of Truth. <sigh> My suggestion is instead of trying to explain the possible nuances of the claim in the article (which would perhaps fall afoul of WP:OR anyway), we include it (if at all) as an attributed claim (eg, ISRO said that...), or phrased more passively (eg, The mission was lauded for its low costs and as the first...). Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It just noticed that it was the Russians that launched ESA's Mars Express. It looks like India's feat and claim is valid. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
And just as you were convinced of India's broadest claim, we have some sources giving ESA credit as the first agency to do so, eg, the Extremetech article you linked above; or this Economic Times article, which says:

No single nation had previously succeeded at its first go, although the European Space Agency, which represents a consortium of countries, did also pull it off at its first attempt.

Will leave it to regular editors of the page to resolve these (semi-)discrepancies appropriately in the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Simply add a footnote about ESA. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, it is about the semantics of agency vs. country: ESA was the first agency (a multinational that used a Russian rocket), while ISRO was the first country. Maybe that can be noted in a foot note? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's difficult to accurately cost many space missions, even NASA's. There are various reasons, including, just for example, that people are allowed to donate their time in some circumstances. (I know of a NASA project where paying one of the lead engineers would have been prohibitively expensive. So he worked for free.) Another example is forthcoming with NASA's next Mars Rover, where "spare" parts from the MSL are used. In one sense -- if there is no new spacecraft -- the spares are worthless. In another sense they cost millions.
There's related observation about the Mangalyaan satellite -- it's cheaper than the earlier US and Russian satellites partly because those earlier programs included a huge amount of basic R&D costs. The Indians have the benefit of being able to use decades of NASA material in the Public Domain. Whether they did, and to what extent, and to what financial advantage can't be definitively assessed. It might be interesting to speculate how cheaply NASA or SpaceX could now produce a copy of the Mangalyaan ... but then, Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. Leptus Froggi (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Keeping article non-promotional[edit]

I made two main kinds of changes to the article. This is good and interesting science, but let's stick with Wiki's Manual of Style and the conventions of other articles on similar spacecraft, please.

The "Team" section was deleted. Wiki is not the place to make lists of people involved in a space project who want their name in print. There's no natural way of limiting the people named on the basis of their contributions. Instead, people who are quoted in the article may be identified. It might be reasonable to add a single person who is the project lead or Principal Scientist, for example.

There is a certain tendency in the press today, for example in CNN, not to emphasize the science, which is encyclopedic, but to treat the project as some sort of international contest. Where this is contrary to unbiased presentation is, for example, the gloating over mission cost. In CNN (http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/tech/2014/09/26/pkg-orig-nasa-isro-india-rocket-space-mars-crane.cnn.html) and previously in the article there is the implication that somehow India is doing this better than NASA and the ESA. In fact, as Jonathan Amos of BBC pointed out, in an article that had already been quoted, a significant part of the difference in cost is cheap labor and a simpler, smaller satellite.

Let's concentrate on adding the science results as they come in. Leptus Froggi (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Both the Indian and international press can only obtain information from ISRO, which is engaged in an Asian space race, so it produces certain amount of propaganda and self-congratulation. Regardless, I think the article has reached a good NPOV on the facts and feat. Regarding the scientific objective, it is already stated in the article that it is secondary to the mission, however cannot be unilaterally dismissed as worthless (right, user:Abductive?) It certainly does not have the life span and capabilities of MAVEN or Mars Express, but it has been recognized and documented clearly that its potential contributing analyses of methane and all other gases in the atmosphere has delighted the American and European PIs. Yes, lets keep an eye open for their future scientific publications. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

ISRO Image Copyright Issues[edit]

We seem to have an image of Mars taken by MOM on this page with the ISRO logo photoshopped out. Are we allowed to do this on Wikipedia? ISRO's terms of use clearly state that you have to ask their permission for the use of any material from ISRO and at the very least there needs to be an appropriate acknowledgement for the material used. There seems to be no mention of ISRO anywhere in the image or its copyright description. This does not look right. - Ashinpt (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:WATERMARK, no. However, does another image online exist without the watermark? If so, that image can be uploaded here and the local, altered copy (on Wikipedia) can be deleted. Otherwise, it could stay as a non-replaceable fair use image. Attribution must be provided on the local copy of the image, or else the image is a copyright violation.– Epicgenius (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it a copyvio? It's not even fair use, I doubt it will pass the non-free criteria (but I know little about image licensing so far). The image description shows that the uploader in the field entered "own work" and released it under CC by SA license. Does that make sense? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Ugog is right. Unless there is evidence that the image has been released under a compatible free license, (or someone can come up with a fair use rationale, which IMO is unlikely), the image will unfortunately need to be deleted from Wikimedia commons and cannot be included in this article (with or without the watermark). Does anyone know what license/conditions ISRO has released the image under (they may be different from the generic terms on ISRO website) ? Abecedare (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It's on Wikimedia? Definitely should be deleted there, then. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I just nominated it to be deleted from the commons. And per this page ISRO reserves all rights, and hasn't released it under any special license. Too bad, since it would be desirable to be able to use it in this article and disseminate it more widely. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Date on the Illustration is misleading[edit]

The illustration shows the dates in different formats at two places, ie, dd.mm.yy format (5.11.13 start MOM), and mm.dd.yy (9.22.14 MOM in orbit). This may be corrected. I wonder if there is an international standard format for scientific communications for date. 171.49.56.121 (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Sushil Gupta, 24 Oct 14.

Thank you for explaining your concern. Since it is SVG format, it should be a relatively easy fix...I'll try to do some work tomorrow. Huntster (t @ c) 07:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the dates unambiguous, and took some time to fix other elements and condense the code. Let me know if there are any more concerns. Huntster (t @ c) 02:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)