Template talk:Mars spacecraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Solar System / Mars (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Mars.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 


Failures and cancelled missions[edit]

I've removed these from this template, since i don't think it is the place for them. This was intended to group together spacecraft that have actually reached Mars.. a listing of failed attempts and some cancelled missions is in Exploration of Mars. Mlm42 12:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Tuvas 17:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Beagle 2[edit]

Rillian added the Beagle 2 back... I just removed it because

  • The template isn't used in the Beagle 2 article
  • The "Failed Mars Missions" template is
  • It's still included in that template as well.

It did reach the planet, but did not complete any of its objectives. There is no conclusive evidence of a controlled landing, placing it in the same ballpark as Mars Polar Lander–is my opinion. Potatoswatter 10:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Mars Express <> NASA probe[edit]

i would either remove NASA from the first line or Mars Express from the list. i think the first option is better since it would allow to include even ExoMars or Phobos-Grunt into the table ... --PowerCS 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Better quality image[edit]

I created a better quality image (in my opinion) of Viking2-PIA00573.jpg. I stored the new version at Mars_Viking_22e169.png. I used the original 22e169.blu, 22e169.grn and 22e169.red images from the NASA Viking image archive, converted them to .png, manually removed the noise (and black stripes at the bottom), merged the three files and finally increased the brightness and contrast by 20. All this was done in Adobe Photoshop CS2. The colors look a bit different than the old one, but the colors in this picture are not adjusted in any way (unlike the NASA image). The new file is like the orginal three files also in the public domain. Please tell me what you think. Van der Hoorn 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Due to a mistake I uploaded the file without adjusted brighness and contrast at Image:22e169.png (removed). Compare it with Mars_Viking_22e169.png to notice the difference in brightness/contrast.

For a calibrated version of that image, you can see [1]. Ricnun 12:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Gravity assist flybys[edit]

Do we really need to list probes which have not been sent to explore Mars, but simply to fly past for a gravity assist, or because it is there (examples include Dawn and Rosetta). Can these either be removed, or listed seperately. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed/Planned missions[edit]

How can proposed and planned missions be considered "Goal-achieving"? Should they be removed from the template, or does its scope need to be adjusted? --W. D. Graham 21:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I never understood that. Name one space mission that has no goal. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, "goal achieving" is being used in the context of "not failing completely before getting to Mars", which is confusing. Having slept on it, my preferred solution would be to reorganise the existing two templates into three new ones; this template would list only missions which have actually flown, regardless of outcome, with future missions being moved to their own template, and cancelled missions to theirs. No other spaceflight navboxes (that I am aware of) use mission outcome as an inclusion criteria, so it seems logical that this one should be brought into line. This would also eliminate the need to use strange inclusion criteria such as "goal achieving" to try and maximise the number of "real" missions that can be included, while success and failure could still be distinguished on the template itself. --W. D. Graham 07:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems useful. How about using a single template presenting the three sections you mention? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I think with cancelled and proposed it would get a bit long. Perhaps we could keep cancelled separate, but include future missions in the main template. --W. D. Graham 12:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
OK. So you could start by removing the header "Goal-achieving spacecraft missions to Mars". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --W. D. Graham 19:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Failed missions[edit]

The failed missions are not sufficiently distinguished in this template. Italics is not enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Why not? --W. D. Graham 05:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • When I read an article (Curiosity rover), on a decent screen even, I did not initially notice that some entries were in italics, and some not, until I read the footer information. Even now, it takes some effort to distinguish. I'd have thought that the subject of successful missions would be separate from failed missions. I see at the top of this talk page that someone once removed the failed missions from the template, and it seems that they have returned with explanation. I think successful and failed missions should be better distinguished. Perhaps they should be in separate columns. Perhaps they should be colour coded.

    At present, I guess that entries are sorted chronologically. If chronological is important, why aren't they dated? If chonology is not important, perhaps the successful missions should be listed first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  • The primary purpose of the navbox is to present links for navigation, not to put each mission in full context. That is the job of an article, or a list. --W. D. Graham 17:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You don’t think there is a significant difference between a failed mission and a successful mission? Of course I am not asking for “full context”. I know about articles and lists. Why are the links either italics or regular text? If this is important, why not make it clear? If it is not important, why do it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. The italics format is used in other space-related templates. But how about bold italics? Or placing the legend on top instead of the bottom? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Which other templates? At Template:Saturn spacecraft, italics is used for active missions. Template:Apollo program lists failed as a separate row. I've just wandered in here lately and am expression thoughts, not thoroughly considered, but I'm thinking that if a mission is failed, then it should be denoted with "(failed)", except for cases like Mars where there are so many failures (two-thirds?) where they could be put in a separate column. Criticising Template:Apollo program, Appolos 1 & 13 were very different missions, low earth orbit and lunar landing respectively, and so I'd have put them in the associated rows, with "(failed)" appended. For this template, I'd keep the rows, and divide into columns for success/failure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't like this trend towards including too much information in navboxes, and just because it has been done elsewhere doesn't mean it is the best thing to do here. Defining missions as failures can be somewhat subjective; some of the missions which failed to land or enter orbit did still return useful data, and some missions did not fulfil all objectives, but still met some. It is one thing to indicate subtly which missions were not successful, it is another to use it to divide them completely. --W. D. Graham 07:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I largely agree. However, if the failures are distingusihed even subtly, then there is presumably an unambiguous criteria of failure. I would assume that it means that no data on Mars was ever returned from the mission. Do you think that this template should include utter failures (didn't even get to Mars)? If so, should they be distinguished? What is an example of a borderline failure in this template? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)