Talk:Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katherinejarmstrong, Andreweaman, Ayden S, Bgivhan75.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hypen in name

I'm curious about why the hyphen between Observatory and 2 keeps being removed. The spacecraft's proper name, according to every piece of NASA literature I've seen, is "Orbital Carbon Observatory-2", with the abbreviation of "OCO-2". — Huntster (t @ c) 22:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

NASA use both interchangably. I removed the hyphens to keep it consistent with the page title, which used the format NASA use in the title of their mission page. --W. D. Graham 06:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd, because JPL, JPL PR, ULA, Associated Press, AFP, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and even National Geographic use the hyphenated version. A brief search showed the hyphenated form vastly outnumbered the unhyphenated form, both within the NASA website and amongst the various news agencies reporting on the satellite. I would suggest that we follow suit. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't introduce the dash if it weren't already there, but yep, it's used by NASA et al., so should Wikipedia (including the title -- moving/renaming the article). Fgnievinski (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

merger

There were two OCO launches but there is a single OCO mission. The mission goals are the same, the technology is the same, etc. The only thing new is the launch. There is no need to duplicate material. In fact, the original article is already written in the future tense, rather than past. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There are/were two satellites conducting two notable missions. The first mission was a failure so another satellite was built to conduct a new mission that was essentially a reflight of the first. The other article is only written like that because this one was not created until recently but what needs to happen now is that Orbiting Carbon Observatory needs to focus on the failed mission, and this one needs to foucs on the successful mission. --W. D. Graham 06:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Two satellites, two missions, two articles, regardless of similarities. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Be ready to copy the the first two sections of the article almost verbatim. I guess NASA is leveraging the name "OCO-2" as a mnemonic for CO₂. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hah, excellent observation, I hadn't put that together. It would be an interesting tidbit if something were published about such a mnemonic, if true. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Similarly related, the mission images for OCO and OCO-2 show the molecular structure of CO₂: O-C-O. Pretty slick. R0uge (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

One mission - one article. Failure of first launch should be covered, but priority of article should be on the mission, not the launch. --Aflafla1 (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The missions are usually covered well, but spacecraft articles are typically about the physical objects, in my experience. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is not supposed to be about the spacecraft itself, rather how it is used in the larger context of a mission; the former is replaceable -- as it was, in fact -- the latter is unique. It's as if we'd have Hubble and Hubble-2 articles, after the mirror fix. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That last bit makes no sense. Hubble is still the same spacecraft with the same mirror, just with instruments changed out over time. I still don't see where you get that articles are supposed to be about missions, rather than the spacecraft. The two go hand in hand for articles, but the vast majority of spacecraft articles are primarily about the individual spacecraft. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Existing articles demonstrate a lack of consensus on what it ought to be. For example, Landsat is about the mission/program, with separate articles about each spacecraft; so is CBERS and RADARSAT. In contrast, Spot, MetOp, Meteosat, ERS, and Meteor are each about their respective mission/program, with no separate articles about each satellite in the series. Finally, ICESat and ICESat-2 are separate articles with no shared mission/program article. Perhaps the most relevant case is the CryoSat/CryoSat-1/CryoSat-2 triad, as it involved a similar satellite launch failure. We have to decide what it ought to be for OCO/OCO-2. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

With respect, you are completely wrong - the reason for the disparity is not lack of consensus but simply the fact that we have finite resources. We can't be everywhere and write articles for everything instantly; rest assured that articles on the individual SPOT, Meteosat, ERS and Meteor satellites are very much in the pipeline. Until those articles are created the programme articles are a logical place to put anything which will one day go into them. Needlessly merging articles would only set the project back further by neccessitating complex splits further down the line. --W. D. Graham 07:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I demonstrated that articles can reasonably be about spacecraft, their missions/programs, or both. You forgot to mention what you think it ought to be for OCO. I suggested we follow the CryoSat's triad: OCO/OCO-1/OCO-2 respectively for mission & program and spacecraft; failed launch; and successful launch. Currently we have OCO/OCO-2 for respectively mission & program, spacecraft, failed launch; and successful launch. I'm afraid OCO-2 will evolve to incorporate its own mission & program, which I predict is going to lead to duplicated material. (The abbreviation "OCO-1" is mentioned here: [1],[2],[3].) Fgnievinski (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually this is an argument for merging the articles into one. You've now only one artcle to update instead of two. By finely dividing subject matter, the spaceflight editing communmity has managed to create so many articles in the spaceflight realm, they can't hope to keep them all consistent and updated. One article will be saying one thing while a different aspect of the same subject will be contradicting it. There's a principle in software engineering called DRY - Don't repeat yourself. By grouping together and abstracting functionality, you make the programs more reliable since when changes occur they the code change only has to be made ONCE and in ONE spot, instead of all over the place.--Aflafla1 (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was my original proposal; above I was trying to compromise as a sign of good will to reach consensus. So rephrasing: either a single OCO or three OCO/OCO-1/OCO-2 with minimal overlap. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Three articles is just as absurd, in my opinion, as only one article. I still maintain that the articles are primarily about the vehicles, with the mission the vehicle is serving included to expand understanding. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I give up.Fgnievinski (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no logic behind having two articles as compared to the 3-article and 1-article option. Either mix in the mission with both spacecraft, or completely separate all of them. That the mission and one of the spacecraft share a page while the other spacecraft has its own is just a result of the history of the pages and in no way dictates what to do moving forward. Personally I prefer the 3-article option because I feel it serves better for a reader's understanding, but I would be fine with either 3 or 1. Just not the current arrangement. R0uge (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I feel the reader is best served by one article. The mission was originally just supposed to be one spacecraft, right? So why split the articles, and make a reader read two articles about the same mission? I do believe that both spacecraft need to be mentioned....the development and fate of OCO-1 is certainly notable in the history of the OCO program. But it doesn't really stand on its own. My vote is to merge, and perhaps re-write to condense as necessary. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, that completely marginalises the first mission. I'm deeply concerned that this seems to highlight a growing trend towards sensationalism in Wikipedia's coverage of spaceflight, considering pseudoscience and paper spacecraft which will never be anything more than a brief announcement to be notable while claiming that very real missions are not. The original OCO mission was a separate spacecraft and its failure was a significantly notable event - WP:ITNR worthy, no less. That failure was very different from the so-far successful second mission and separate articles are required to cover these distinct concepts. They may have had the same mission objectives but they were distinct missions with distinct start and finish times, and it would be impossible to provide adequate coverage of both concepts in a single article. So far virtually all the arguments in favour of merging have been WP:ILIKEIT. --W. D. Graham 22:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, my main concern is for the reader, and how they might best understand the whole story behind the OCO program. One article describing mission origins/development, the launch, failure, and investigation of the first mission, and then the launch and ongoing operation of the second mission is a logical flow for one article. Discussion of the first OCO spacecraft isn't very long in the current article...about 4 short paragraphs. I don't know that that would make a very substantial stand-alone article. I will note that most of the other criteria in WP:PAGEDECIDE is met for two standalone articles...I think the sticking point here is "how to best help readers understand" the notable topic(s). Which can admittedly be subjective, but is different from WP:ILIKEIT. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll weigh in having worked on a dozen or so spacecraft, including Hubble. There will never be new information on OCO-1, since it failed. And the real deciding factor behind merge/no merge is if there will be any other OCO missions. The driving force behind the science tells me no. If there were 10 more OCO missions, then sure, it would make sense to have one page for the program and one for each mission (similar to what we have for {{TDRS}}). So I believe it would be best to merge the two articles. Otherwise they will essentially contain 70% duplication of content by necessity. Nasa-verve (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find a third mission is planned - as an instrument aboard the ISS rather than a free-flying satellite. The existence of that mission would be a very good reason to create a programme-level article rather than sacrificing detail on individual missions. With regards to Skyraider's comments regarding the amount of content, that is something which can and should be fixed by expanding, not contracting, the article. There may never be any new information on that mission but it is not to say that it cannot be expanded as there is plenty which is already known but not included in the article. I would be more than happy to expand both articles myself, but will not do so until this discussion concludes (assuming the pages still exist) since otherwise it would be a complete waste of my time. --W. D. Graham 23:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@WDGraham: Thanks for the heads up on OCO-3, but it looks like it was eliminated in the FY15 budget (link). Funds for OCO-3 were eliminated in the President's FY15 budget. Held in formulation. Nasa-verve (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that anyone looking for information on the current OCO mission will end up on the page for the failed flight. That page should be dedicated to the current mission with a note that the satellite is officially OCO-2, and the failed mission either merged into that or be moved to a different location, like "Orbiting Carbon Observatory (2009)". Alternatively, just make "Orbiting Carbon Observatory" a redirect to OCO-2 and move the current OCO article to another location. It makes more sense for OCO-2 to be the primary result for searching for OCO Anythingcouldhappen (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That page would be OCO-1 as referenced to above. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's call a vote -- there's enough quorum (eight people), this has been open for debate for ten days now, and it doesn't look like we're going to reach unanimous consensus. Please state your preference among single (OCO), dual (OCO/OCO-2 or OCO-1/OCO-2 -- ignoring redirects), or triple (OCO/OCO-1/OCO-2) article pages. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• single Fgnievinski (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• As long as searching for "orbiting carbon observatory" brings up information on the currently operating satellite instead of the failed mission, I have no preference on the total number of pages. I'd support merging both into one or spinning off the current OCO page to "OCO (2009)" or similar. Even three is fine as long as OCO just redirects to OCO-2. Anythingcouldhappen (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Single Skyraider1 (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Three or four depending on whether it is too soon to create OCO-3. I'm also deeply concerned by Fgnievinski's attempt to railroad a decision before discussion has been completed. Polling is not a substitute for discussion and his unilateral action is harmful to the project. --W. D. Graham 18:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Valid point W.D. Whatever the results are here, our path forward needs to be in line with straw poll guidance per the policy you linked to, as well as WP:consensus. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

OCO-3, are you joking? I'm unfollowing this talk page. Good luck. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

OCO-3 was nixed, as brought up in the discussion. Not relevant. R0uge (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Dual - as it is right now, I oppose any changes. Perhaps we should just rename Orbiting Carbon Observatory to Orbiting Carbon Observatory (program) Nasa-verve (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Triple: 'Orbital Carbon Oberservatory (program)', 'Orbital Carbon Observatory 1 (spacecraft)', and 'Orbital Carbon Observatory 2 (spacecraft)'. I would be ok with a single page, however. R0uge (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Since it doesn't look like this is going anywhere fast, would an acceptable compromise for now be to move OCO to OCO-1 and have OCO redirect to this page? This would not preclude any future actions, be that expanding OCO into a general page or eventually merging both, while at least directing people to the current mission, since googling "orbiting carbon observatory" currently brings you to the 2009 mission, and it is doubtful most people would be looking for that one. AnythingCouldHappen (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No, because the first mission was not known as the "Orbiting Carbon Observatory-1", and even now very few sources call it that. If, in the future, a project article is created, it can be at "Orbiting Carbon Observatory", and the spacecraft page can be moved to "Orbiting Carbon Observatory (spacecraft)". We don't just make up names, and the hatnote you placed atop the OCO page is precisely the best option for directing reads to this article. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Huntster: Many sources still refer to it as OCO-1, including NASA. Examples: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (text on sidebar: › OCO-1 AGU Briefing - Dec. 16, 2008 (PowerPoint) and › OCO-1 Science Writers' Guide (7.9Mb - PDF)) Nasa-verve (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

NV, interesting catch, but I'm not sure this is a good measure, since in these cases "OCO-1" seems to simply be used as a disambiguator. The better measure (in my opinion) would be usage of "Orbiting Carbon Observatory-1", which is almost nil. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it doesn't matter what the page name is, OCO (2009) would work just as well without any implication it was named OCO-1. Is that your only objection? Because the best way for directing reads to this article would be to actually direct them to this article, and place a hatnote here on OCO-2 directing people interested in the failed mission to OCO (2009) or whatever name is acceptable. JPL's own OCO page directs to the OCO-2 mission, why should it refer to the failed mission here? Again, OCO could still be expanded into its own page eventually and a redirect leaves all options open while solving a problem and not creating a new one. AnythingCouldHappen (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

My naming suggestion is based on the standards of disambiguation on Wikipedia, simple as that. Spacecraft usually have "(spacecraft)" appended to them, not dates, if disambiguation is needed. At the moment, it isn't, though. And what JPL does with their redirects has no bearing on what we do. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I argue that a disambiguation is needed, since the phrase "Orbiting Carbon Observatory" almost exclusively refers to the current mission rather than the failed one. WP:COMMONNAME WP:COMMONSENSE AnythingCouldHappen (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The current mission is almost universally referred to as "Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2" or "OCO-2". — Huntster (t @ c) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can definitively prove either standpoint. Spaceflightnow.com calls them "OCO 1" and "OCO 2". JPL calls them "OCO" and "OCO-2", but searching for OCO brings one to JPL's OCO-2 page. Small sample, but illustrates the problem. A single article would help mitigate this problem- we wouldn't have to worry about disambiguation pages or what redirects where. If we end up with two articles though, I recommend Spaceflight Now's naming convention, as they write for a fairly general audience, and that the phrase "OCO" would redirect to the current mission. Happy Saturday! Skyraider1 (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Not merged. Different satellites. No consensus for merging. NickSt (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Details on data products

As an undergraduate student in a remote sensing course, I think the article could use some more detail on the data products available from OCO-2. These details could be drawn from the Osterman et al. reference in the bibliography. Katherinejarmstrong (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Katherinejarmstrong, go for it! If you'd be more comfortable writing a paragraph or paragraphs on this talk page and having me or another editor copyedit and review, that would be be fine as well. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Measurement approach

it seems that this article could use more detail on approaches to measurements. This could include information and figures about the specific wavelengths for each of the gasses that are being detected as well as additional information on the orbit track. Ayden S (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Additions

Here are some additions I think might be useful for people who visit this page:

1) Data access and usage. There isn't a clear website or link for those who wish to download data. I think this should work: https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/. If this is included, a section for the file structure and naming conventions could be very useful so users will know the where, what, and when of the data they are downloading. Along with data availability, It should be mentioned the difference between their processed products (L1 vs L2) and why it matters for different applications. The level 2 products do not undergo their own validation process so caution must be taken before scientific analysis is performed.

2) Calibration and validation techniques should also be mentioned. The users guide has several figures that might help understand how this sensor works. Along with that, it should mention that the OCO-2 is not a conventional "pushbroom" sensor because always requires the spectrometers to be pointing at certain angles that do not stay consistent with its flight path so they must move the 0.8° FOV accordingly. See Figures 2-1 and 2-2 in the users guide.

3) In the sidebar to the right of the page I think the temporal, spatial and mostly the radiometric resolutions should be explicit.

Refernces: OCO-2 Data Product User’s Guide @ https://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCO-2/documentation/oco-2-v6/OCO2_DUG.V6.pdf

Andreweaman (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)