Talk:OSIRIS-REx
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the OSIRIS-REx article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
A news item involving OSIRIS-REx was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 September 2016. |
A news item involving OSIRIS-REx was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 December 2018. |
A news item involving OSIRIS-REx was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 October 2020. |
An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events. Notice date: 24 September 2023. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
First US craft, or first craft?
The article states that "If successful, OSIRIS-REx will be the first US spacecraft to return samples from an asteroid." Have there been any successful non-US asteroid sample return missions? If so, what were they? -- 80.168.238.56 (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ah -- I've just found the sample return mission article, which explains all. -- 80.168.238.56 (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- To me it reads a bit like a PR statement - it should really read something like "It would be the second spacecraft to return samples from an asteroid but the first from the U.S." (or something more readable). Loweredtone (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Misleading wording "threatening asteroid"
From the article: "His name was chosen for this mission as asteroid Bennu is a threatening Earth impactor capable of causing vast destruction and death."
This is needlessly alarming to the lay reader. There is no serious threat from Bennu. The two references cited are fringe media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.240.94 (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Gravity slingshot due 22 Sept 2017
Details (eg map with altitudes ) here [1] - Rod57 (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Did NASA consider leaving radar reflectors on the asteroid
It would be nice to know why they decided against leaving passive radar reflectors on the surface (for future tracking) - Rod57 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Capsule return
It would be useful to include the manner in which the sample return capsule (SRC) will be returned to Earth. I assume they will fly the spacecraft to flyby Earth and release it as it goes by, but could not find info on that. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Possible touchdown location based on visual examination
- https://goo.gl/maps/EzfgFopt2J9AcaYz7 2001:1530:1017:B419:B991:9A98:19AB:8BCE (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I believe the touchdown location to be here:
- https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B022'20.2%22N+113%C2%B014'24.1%22W/@40.3722766,-113.240464,140m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d40.372272!4d-113.240037?entry=ttu
- using aircraft flight tracking information and the visual from the live video feed from NASA. (I used the 2021 images available on google earth rather than the 2013 images from google maps) TDaveM (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- you are right 146.255.180.184 (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
"presence of hydroxyl (oxygen-hydrogen) bonds, likely part of hydrates in the clay material"
"By 10 December 2018, spectroscopic surveys of the asteroid's surface detected the presence of hydroxyl (oxygen-hydrogen) bonds, likely part of hydrates in the clay material of the asteroid. While researchers suspect that Bennu was too small to host water, these hydroxyl groups and hydrates may have come from water present in Bennu's parent body."
NASA home page: "detected water" {{www.nasa.gov/news/press-release/nasa-s-new-...}} Mission page {{asteroidmission.org}} (objectives): "water" Mission page (latest news): "water locked inside the clays" Official announcement at Fall 2018 AGU: "water-bearing", "water-rich" Principal investigator Dante Lauretta: "water found" {{twitter.com/dslauretta/status/10139082993664}}
So what's this hydroxyl redirect? A redirect. Water and hydroxyl are geologically, thermodynamically, and meteoritically equivalent.
- OH- (hydroxyl) exists there bound, and is not water (H2O). The same conversation took place at Talk:101955 Bennu#"The presence of hydroxyl..." and it settled for "hydrated minerals". Be mindful it does not mean wet minerals, but they have a hydroxyl group bonded. The observed clay was formed in the presence of water, but once dry, it has no water, only traces of the reactions caused by water. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Re. thermodynamic equivalency: it applies to liquid water at 24°C under one atmosphere of pressure. Hardly the physical parameters in the deep freeze and vacuum of outer space. As NASA summarized their own technical lingo: "[…] meaning that at some point, Bennu’s rocky material interacted with water." [2] Right, no longer interacting with water. Bound OH- is not water. Although this is a preliminary observation, water is ubiquitous, so there may be water ice below the subsurface, I just don't think its spectrometers can penetrate as a radar would, and it does not have a neutron detector. Lets remember this is a NASA preliminary report and it may change when data is cross-referenced. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
OSIRIS-APEX
Apparently OSIRIS-REx is being renamed OSIRIS-APEX due to it's extension mission to Apophis in 2029, do we update now or wait? Goose (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- @GeesenGoosen @Mfb and @Ergzay should we rename the page to a common name "OSIRIS (spacecraft)"?? Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- When its heritage concept was proposed in the Discovery Program in 2004, it was called only OSIRIS, with REx for "Regolith Explorer" used descriptively rather than as part of the name.[1] This mission is also sometimes called New Frontiers 3, for it being the third of the New Frontiers program missions.[1][2] Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- this is what the page only says Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- When its heritage concept was proposed in the Discovery Program in 2004, it was called only OSIRIS, with REx for "Regolith Explorer" used descriptively rather than as part of the name.[1] This mission is also sometimes called New Frontiers 3, for it being the third of the New Frontiers program missions.[1][2] Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
nevermind just notice it got edited already, y'all are fast
References
- ^ a b Lauretta, Dante. "Asteroid sample-return mission OSIRIS – OSIRIS regolith explorer (REx)" (PDF). European Space Agency. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-11-23. Retrieved 2020-07-24.
- ^ Perison, R.; Dworkin, J. (2016). Supply Chain (PDF) (Report). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
new discussion about renaming page to osiris apex
now that osiris rex's return capsule has returned to earth (!!!!), there is now no spacecraft called osiris rex in space, as the existing spacecraft is now designated osiris apex
should this page be renamed to OSIRIS-APex, or perhaps as a previous topic suggested, ORISIS (spacecraft)? Clayel (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- OSIRIS (spacecraft) seems appropriate as encompassing the now multiple-target mission. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- The definition of the REx part of the name has been lost in this renaming... Waveny42 (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then we can say "formerly known as OSIRIS-REx" and define the REx in the lead. I support renaming to OSIRIS (spacecraft). Rainclaw7 (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- The definition of the REx part of the name has been lost in this renaming... Waveny42 (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 24 September 2023
It has been proposed in this section that OSIRIS-REx be renamed and moved to OSIRIS (spacecraft). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
OSIRIS-REx → OSIRIS (spacecraft) – As shown by the article's current sources, the Sample Return Capsule has returned to Earth, ending the OSIRIS-REx mission. The main spacecraft is continuing to asteroid Apophis on its extended mission, referred to as OSIRIS-APEX. As a result, this article should be renamed to OSIRIS (spacecraft) to allow it to cover both missions without confusing the reader. The lead has already been updated to refer to APEX, which is confusing due to the rest of the page focusing on REx. Rainclaw7 (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Alternatively, the article can be renamed to OSIRIS-APEX due to NASA and the media using that name. Rainclaw7 (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for now per WP:NAMECHANGES. The sample return just happened today, and all news stories from today are still referring to it as OSIRIS-REx. The mission name may have changed, but the common name certainly has not (yet), and OSIRIS-REx doesn't cease being an encyclopedic topic just because the OSIRIS part has moved on to something else...we still have Cassini-Huygens even though Cassini went on for years by itself. If moved, though, the disambiguator should not be capitalized, i.e. OSIRIS (spacecraft). Mdewman6 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mdewman6 i support @Rainclaw7 due to missions like International Cometary Explorer 122.187.144.98 (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- But Deep Impact (spacecraft) Stardust (spacecraft) exists that favor you @Mdewman6 122.187.144.98 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- worth to note is that Hayabusa2 page isn't renamed as Hayabusa2♯ and all 3cor these are asteroid probes so looks like we should carry forward the original name @Mdewman6, isn't it right @Rainclaw7?? 122.187.144.98 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- But the mission name there is 99% the same, and I don't think reputable sources were including the #. Multiple sources *are* using APEX when taking about the extended mission. See https://themessenger.com/tech/where-is-osiris-now-nasa-targets-next-asteroid-rendezvous-for-2029, https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/24/world/osiris-rex-asteroid-sample-return-scn/index.html, etc. They say that the spacecraft's new name is OSIRIS-APEX and use APEX when talking about the extended mission. Rainclaw7 (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- They said next for deep impact that time, media is current affairs forgets oast and focuses on present so happens. Treat this just as Hayabusa2♯ case.@Rainclaw7 bro 122.187.144.98 (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hastag has special meaning termed as Sharp @Rainclaw7 122.187.144.98 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Our policies (WP:RS) include using the media to determine what to put in our articles. If reliable sources, which includes reputable media outlets, are using a specific term it gives weight to us using that term. Rainclaw7 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Suggest renaming to OSIRIS-APEX to reflect the current name and have a clear “previously named” row in the summary table, together with a disambiguation/redirect page for OSIRIS (spacecraft) and OSIRIS-REx. The name change is admittedly a bit confusing. Maltalinks (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with that, I'd support either OSIRIS (spacecraft) or OSIRIS-APEX. Rainclaw7 (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Suggest renaming to OSIRIS-APEX to reflect the current name and have a clear “previously named” row in the summary table, together with a disambiguation/redirect page for OSIRIS (spacecraft) and OSIRIS-REx. The name change is admittedly a bit confusing. Maltalinks (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Our policies (WP:RS) include using the media to determine what to put in our articles. If reliable sources, which includes reputable media outlets, are using a specific term it gives weight to us using that term. Rainclaw7 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hastag has special meaning termed as Sharp @Rainclaw7 122.187.144.98 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- They said next for deep impact that time, media is current affairs forgets oast and focuses on present so happens. Treat this just as Hayabusa2♯ case.@Rainclaw7 bro 122.187.144.98 (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- But the mission name there is 99% the same, and I don't think reputable sources were including the #. Multiple sources *are* using APEX when taking about the extended mission. See https://themessenger.com/tech/where-is-osiris-now-nasa-targets-next-asteroid-rendezvous-for-2029, https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/24/world/osiris-rex-asteroid-sample-return-scn/index.html, etc. They say that the spacecraft's new name is OSIRIS-APEX and use APEX when talking about the extended mission. Rainclaw7 (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- And Deep Impact is somewhat of a special case because a separate article exists for the extended mission (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPOXI). It is also unclear whether the name of the spacecraft itself changed, the RS I can find say the Deep Impact spacecraft is on the EPOXI mission as opposed to the OSIRIS-APEX spacecraft on a new mission. Similarly, Stardust was sent on the Stardust-Next mission but RS never said the spacecraft is called Stardust-Next. RS (see above) are saying that the main OSIRIS spacecraft is now called OSIRIS-APEX. Rainclaw7 (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2023
- worth to note is that Hayabusa2 page isn't renamed as Hayabusa2♯ and all 3cor these are asteroid probes so looks like we should carry forward the original name @Mdewman6, isn't it right @Rainclaw7?? 122.187.144.98 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- But Deep Impact (spacecraft) Stardust (spacecraft) exists that favor you @Mdewman6 122.187.144.98 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mdewman6 i support @Rainclaw7 due to missions like International Cometary Explorer 122.187.144.98 (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- OSIRIS (spacecraft) seems appropriate as encompassing the now multiple-target mission. Please lowercase the nomination, thanks. I've created a redirect for the proposed title because this may be what many readers search for today. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support. It's what I looked for on WP as I wasn't sure whether '-Rex' or '-Apex' would be used. Redirects for the previous and current (and any future) missions can easily be created and the first sentence of the lede should clear things up for lay readers. 220.235.82.123 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Early touch down of sample capsule
I've seen several news and some more technical articles that say that the reason for the sample capsule touching down 3 minutes earlier than expected was because the main parachute opened at 6 km / 20,000 ft above the earth instead of 1.6 km / 5,000 ft as intended.
I wanted to add this to the article (with WP:RS) - and may still do so - but I also wanted to include a brief explanation as to why this would cause the capsule to touch down earlier rather than later. This seems counter-intuitive to me since the purpose of the parachute is to slow its descent, therefore deploying it earlier should mean that it takes even longer to reach the ground.
Anyone know of a source that explains this? Thanks. 220.235.82.123 (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- C-Class Astronomy articles
- Mid-importance Astronomy articles
- C-Class Astronomy articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class Solar System articles
- Mid-importance Solar System articles
- Solar System task force
- C-Class spaceflight articles
- Mid-importance spaceflight articles
- WikiProject Spaceflight articles
- Requested moves