|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Renaming to Fobos programme
The Soviet Union launched two space probes to Mars and Phobos in 1988. The Russian name is Фобос, which according to Wikipedia:Romanization_of_Russianis transliterated to: Fobos.
Other Soviet space vehicles have been transliterated instead of being translated:
March 12th I'll rename the article, if nobody objects seriously. Necessary Evil 12:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Object All the latin letters using literature calls it Phobos 1 and 2 or the Phobos mission and as Wikipedia is not about truth but about sourced facts the name is the only one which has to be used. The Venera missions are caled Venera and therfor this name is used. This inconsistency is part of the international literature and not business of wikipedia.--Stone
- I also object the change. I don't question that Fobos is the right transliteration, but the official English name for the mission is Phobos (in Nasa documents, for example), given by the Russians themselves (see the sources and links on the article). Perhaps this should be discussed in the main article itself. It is an interesting point, not only with Russian names, but also with Chinese vessels for example. But the main point should be consistency with sources, not linguistics.Ricnun 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Long after the fact, but of note for future space exploration pages, if ever similar: if the spacecraft is named after the world to which it is sent, the name of the world in whatever given language should be used. --Chr.K. 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
"Controversial Images" section.
The whole section strikes me as very conspiracy-theory-like. The whole thing contains only one citation that doesn't help anything.
I'm not sure what notability this whole "conspiracy" has, it surely tries to hint at some very outlandish (to say the least) things ("this image also appears to be actually moving along Mars' surface.", "white line is an image of an actual object floating in space, then it has no scientific explanation.").
If the notability and credibility of this section is what I think it is, the best solution would seemingly be to erase it. KimiNewt (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I found this  site, which I think clarifies most doubt (though the site itself does not claim anything). This page  convinced me that this has no room here, the moon conspiracy only have a mention because enough people unfortunately believe in them. I apologize for not having enough nerve to delete something as ridiculous as this. KimiNewt (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Someone (anonymous) reverted my edit, not responding here however. There are a few more specific reasons to remove the section (one of them being simply that there is no respectable source to most of the statements), for example one line says "If this is picture is actually from Phobos 2, and the white line is an image of an actual object floating in space, then it has no scientific explanation." - There are of course scientific "reasons" such as simple picture artifacts or smearing. "Apparent heat grid on infrared and optical photographs of Martian surface", I think that because of a lack of valid source, a statement as ridiculous as an "apparent heat grid" cannot be accepted. At any rate, if anyone objects, please respond on the talk page or at least add some citations or change the section. I also think this section conflicts with Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words, Wikipedia:Verifiability and most importantly Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KimiSan (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I like the heat grid sections since it dis-favors conspiracy theories and explains why. First you have the heat grid, resulting in conspiracies. Then you have similar results from other Mars probes (reproducability), then similar results from the Moon (it's not unique) and the (scientific) explanation - lava cooling in cracks results in differences in heat storage, and hence in visible temperature differences. LouScheffer (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've added reference to one of those controversial images, with a reference to official explanation. I hope it is within WP:FRINGE, but if not - please feel free to remove (though explanation here would be appreciated). Ipsign (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Loss of Phobos 2
In 1988, I was told that the loss of Phobos 2 was due to an error in sending commands. The offending commands were "turn off receiver A; turn on receiver B." For some reason, the second command was never received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Van.snyder (talk • contribs) 00:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)