|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mars rover article.|
|WikiProject Robotics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Solar System / Mars||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Smithsonian Institution-related||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Fixing rover article
This article has the potential of being a valuable Internet resource, since NASA has a tendency to document isolated missions, rather than compile histories of groups of vehicles.
Much good work has been been done on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover. However, as noted by an editor, the current page needs needs expert editorial attention. (This related page has similar problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sojourner_%28rover%29)
There are many people at NASA who would be glad to write these articles. Simply contact Public Relations at JPL (and possibly NASA Ames, possibly Christopher McKay).
Some statements on this page are misleading or simply incorrect, but perhaps rather than attacking them piecemeal, a comprehensive rewrite and expansion would be simpler. (I.e., it is not true that the vehicles were all intended to travel a few hundred meters. It's misleading to explain the utility of the rovers as being cheaper than manned missions -- engineers on those projects will immediately explain that mechanical rovers are the best solution for some missions.) Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 09:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- This article is sad. Frankly, I don't think we need to wait for an expert to shape this up. There are references galore, the subject doesn't need to be killer technical. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've made some preliminary changes, as suggested, including a few citations. There are a number of other interesting things to write about, so give me some time to put this into shape. (I'll probably wind up contacting people at NASA to make sure the facts are correct and cogent.)Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strikes my comment. I was going to add two sections called "Costs" and "Mission results", but the costs are unusually tricky to nail down in a meaningful way. Results are even worse, because often the most important results are not what was in the official "mission goals". Not only that, but results that are important to some esoteric field that isn't widely known are well nigh impossible to be comprehensive about. Something needs to be said, but I never quite decided what that was. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
NASA photoshopped image
Does anyone know where to find the image NASA released of an MER on the edge of a crater, created by superimposing a "life size" rover image onto a panorama taken by an actual rover? The image was quite striking, essentially showing what a rover would look like from the perspective of another nearby rover.... It would make a great image for this article! (sdsds - talk) 01:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Game engine for Portal
From the article:
"There have been three successful Mars rovers, all of which were robotically operated and utilized the game engine from Portal."
If this means what I think it does then it's very interesting indeed. It is however unsourced and I haven't been able to google a reference. So I'd say it either needs clarifying and sourcing, or zapping. Anyone know more? Davini994 (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- The idea that they used the Source engine (the "game engine from Portal") is laughable. It is a decent engine, but not one that you would use for a space simulation. No source either, so it is most likely fake. Probably a Space Core related bit of vandalism. Kookas (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Image evaluation system
What would be nice with relation to the mars images, would be say a 6 sided room where images would be on all sides such that a person could immerse himself in a vision (maybe even stereoscopic) of the terrain surrounding a particular area. Has such an imaging viewing system been made or even proposed for consideration?WFPM (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- You wouldn't be able to trick someone into thinking it were actually 3d, even if they want to believe that. Even using stereoscopic technology, it would feel just as 2D as it is. Kookas (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Landing time consistency among Mars rover articles
With the Curiosity rover article being split way from the Mars Science Laboratory article, there should probably be some effort to make sure the landing times are consistent among the Mars rovers: Curiosity rover, Spirit rover and Opportunity rover. It would appear as if a debate is still under way as to the exact time of landing for the Curiosity. Once that is complete, I hope editors will check the other articles to make sure that data is consistent, or to forge a compromise. If you edit data here, check the other articles as well. Cheers. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)