Talk:Chang'e 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Power source[edit]

The article currently states that the rover will be equipped with an RTG, which seems an overkill power source for just 3 months' use, never mind its high cost. Besides, why would it use a dual source (nuclear + solar?) Maybe they were alternatives of each other? Lost in translation? We should check for updates and/or corrections on this. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Rover: solar cells, duration: 3 lunar months. Lander: RTG, duration: 12 lunar months.
Note: 1 lunar month ≈ 27 terrestrial days, so the lander's duration is ≈ 28 terrestrial years, while the rover's is 7 terrestrial years. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Common sense would suggest that the mission duration is measured in Earth months/years. This is in many ways an experimental mission, the long game being a future sample return mission. Remember, Spirit and Opportunity were only designed to last ~90 days (although they vastly exceeded expectations), and the Voyager missions have been going for 36 years and are reaching the end of service. I think this is highly unlikely to be a ~28 year mission! That said, I'm implying that the rover, small as it is, is only expected to perform for (a minimal) ~3 lunar days. I have been known to be wrong. :-D nagualdesign (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There are contradictory reports on the rover's power source. I would not be surprised it is actually dual as 1 lunar night ~27 Earth days long. I'll wait and see another reference in English. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope. 1 lunar night ≈ 14 earth days. nagualdesign (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no RTG on this mission/rover. Its a radioisotope heater unit, derived from Russian space heritage units developed at VNIIEF — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Mission duration[edit]

All I have to say is WTF. Python eggs (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
All I have to say is: Lunar month ≠ Terran month. See the reference. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
What is the difference between a day on the moon ans a lunar month and a month on the moon.For me a day is the time between sunrise and the following sunrise. And a month on the moonis the time between a full earth and the next.--Stone (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a good source for the mission duration? --Stone (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese government does not have an "official" web site on this mission. The best you can use is this site: [1]. And this is a good quality forum thread on this mission: [2]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
There is only second hand sources for the mission duration and they are fore sure not precise in wording to extract words like lunar month against month. There is a good chance that like most space agencies the primary mission is made short to ensure that it is successful. 3 earth months for the rover looks good the MERs only had 90days. The RTG is there to make this happen without RTG you have max 14 days and than a freeze over for 14 days killing everything. The press release: We achieved all mission goals. A mission end after 5 years when 6 years are sheduled make it a failure.--Stone (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't see this, and just said almost the same thing above. Snap! nagualdesign (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


--Stone (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

--Stone (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

FROM A GROUND PENETRATING RADAR] --Stone (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Launch date[edit]

Hello - just wondering what the protocol is about dates. In China it was 2 December (just) when Chang'E 3 launched. Do you use GMT or local? I only ask because everyone here (in China) including the local media would describe the launch as being December 2. Apologies for formatting or whatever I might have done incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That is an excellent point. It looks to me like articles on US and Russian space missions consistently give times in UTC (GMT), so this article will probably use that convention, although the time needs to be stated as such to avoid confusion. A reference for it being 1:30 AM Xichang time is , this is 8 hours ahead of UTC, putting the launch at 17:30 December 1 (UTC). Geogene (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


User:CombatWombat42 has made several reverts citing Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Is that justified in the case of the landing date, especially since it's cited (Forbes) and the landing date of a space mission is (barring a disaster) quite predictable, and not mere speculation as the text in Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTALBALL suggests. Any opinions, please? cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 20:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"(barring a disaster)", no disaster is required. Any number of factors could cause that date to change, or not happen. The date I could agree dosn't nessicarily fall afowl of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, the fact that it will make the first soft landing in 37 years absolutly does. I would guess that the sucess ratio or making soft landings on extra-terrestrial bodies is close to %50. Something that is anywhere close to %50 is absolutly crystal ball style prediciton. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. How about keeping the expected landing date (widely reported in many sources) and just noting that it has been X years since the last soft landing, without implying that this soft landing will succeed? cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 22:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The lander is designed and intended to do a soft landing on the planned date. "Crystal ball" cannot be invoked to delete that entry as it is. I have no preference on the 37-year gap datum. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I would be happy to say what you said, "Chang'e 3 is designed and intended to make a soft landing, if sucessful it will be ..." I just don't like to imply certanty in something that hasn't happened yet. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Why not Planned landing date: xxxxx? But here's the thing: we don't know what the planned landing date is. We have speculation that's probably good for +/- 48 hours. Note that the article cites both 14 December and 16 as planned landing dates. But we'll have a confirmed landing when the CNSA issues a press release. So if we're to be worried about predictions...predictions are all we have, and not just because of the technical difficulty of it. Geogene (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Helpful Remarks on the use of the word "Data"[edit]

"Data" can be either singular or plural, but the singular is now accepted if not preferred.

See: (plural of "datum" is "datums")

Therefore, I don't object to "data...were" in the present wording of the article, but I do note that it doesn't sound right to me. Geogene (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The introduction of the actual Data article states: "[...] The word data is the plural of datum". The disambiguation page also states: Datum is a singular form of "data".
I know that is so in science, and since this is a science article, no need to worry about geodetic datum or lingo used in economics.
Cheers, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Eh, nevermind. Not worth the debate. Changed another instance of singular data's verb modifier to plural verb modifier so that the usage of plural data is standardized in the article. Geogene (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Contamination" of the exosphere[edit]

The article states that Chang'e 3 is expected to "contaminate" the lunar exosphere with exhaust gas and dust. The understatement is that past Western lander mission are hailed as great achievements for humanity, but this Chinese mission is a pollutant. With regards to this spacecraft interaction (LADEE vs. Chang'e 3) and in this context, I'd use the word 'interfere' rather than 'contaminate'. What do you think? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This has occurred to me as well. I favor the use a of a less pejorative, more neutral word than "contaminate" if one can be found. Aside from negative imagery associated with the word, "contaminate" works well because what we have here is a natural environment temporarily altered by introduction of artificial substances by human activity, in a way that, because of NASA's poor timing, might negatively impact another science mission. This would correctly be called "contamination" or "pollution" in any other conceivable context, although it seems rather trivial except perhaps for LADEE mission principals and researchers that are particularly interested in the lunar atmosphere.
"Increase the lunar atmosphere" sounds a little like weasel wording. Rocket launches everywhere "increase" Earth's atmosphere as well, but even enthusiasts would hesitate to refer to it as such. I think we should keep your changes there but also keep an eye out for a more precise, but less loaded word. I think any LADEE/Chang'e interference will prove to be a minor element of this story in the long run. Geogene (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done. I now changed that sentence to: [...] expected to increase the content of lunar dust in the tenuous lunar exosphere, as well as introduce gases from engine firings during landing. Please feel free to review/edit. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I took the use of the word 'contaminate' in the scientific sense. Data can be contaminated (as indeed it will be in the case of some the current lunar orbiter missions), but that doesn't imply that the data (digital information) will be laced with toxins! This is a scientific article. Don't be afraid of using scientific parlance. That said, I have no qualms with finding ways to make the article more accessible. (Accessible to the layperson, that is, not the visually impaired. Words, eh?) Also, Chang'e 3 is literally going to contaminate the Moon's thin atmosphere (albeit by a miniscule amount). It isn't derogatory to relay that information. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
measurably impacted? it still sounds damning yet it is pretty much all of it. (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm pleased with the wording in its current state. Perhaps we could have been more succinct but not without the strong possibility of being misunderstood as POV. Geogene (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sinus Iridum vs Mare Imbrium[edit]


Despite much identification of Sinus Iridum as the landing site prior to the actual landing, it seems Mare Imbrium might be a better characterization of the site where the landing took place. (sdsds - talk) 23:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

References? BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
This image:, as referenced here: Lakdawalla's commentary: 'They landed [...] in the far easternmost edge of the previously identified landing box.' That appears to be outside the Bay of Rainbows! (sdsds - talk) 07:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
You are right. The actual landing took place outside (east of) Sinus Iridum. Feel free to correct the text in both articles. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I see someone already took action. Great! For those needing a better source, is by Dr Paul Spudis, and he explicitly notes the location change. (sdsds - talk) 00:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to apply a little common sense while editing[edit]

Disclaimer: Common sense is often wrong!

I just removed some material claiming that the 120kg rover stands 1.5m high. If that were the case it would be one of the least dense spacecraft ever built! Also, simply looking at the pictures (available online) of the men working on the lander would tell you that a 1.5m rover would barely fit inside the lander!

There seems to be a dearth of suitable sources of information available, and a glut of contradictory reports providing confusion. Please try to take these with a pinch of salt and apply a little common sense before parroting dubious sources verbatim.

For one thing, there is no such thing as a lunar month as far as I'm aware. Earth months are loosely based on lunar cycles, but they are like weeks; a purely human convention. Astronomically, time is measured in solar days, sidereal days or years. So if one source says 3 months (rover mission duration), another says 90 days and yet another says 90 lunar days, you can almost be certain that something has been lost in translation, right? nagualdesign (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That conversation took place one year ago when there was a single source. Get over it. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I meant no offense. And although 'that converstaion' (the one about mission duration?) took place a year ago, the article had not been corrected until last night, by me. I wasn't poking fun at anyone, just trying to help. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Rover size[edit]

I've removed material from this article and Yutu (lunar rover) which stated that the rover stands 1.5m tall. IMO that's pushing it a bit, even if it had a tall mast like the MER rovers (which it doesn't). This image would suggest that the lander (minus the rover) is slightly shorter than a man, so perhaps 1.5m? This is of course guesswork, so shouldn't be included in the article, but it does seem to rule out a 1.5m rover. nagualdesign (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Having pondered upon a number of sources I'm beginning to believe the 1.5m. There was a 'virtual reality' demonstration of the rover on CCTV that showed the top of the mast being about 1.5m above the ground. The body of the rover is much smaller than this though. So rather than saying that the rover is 1.5m tall, perhaps the subsection on the rover's cameras could mention that the camera array stands 1.5m above the ground. I'd still take the CCTV video with a modicum of salt though; The demonstration does not show the actual rover next to the presenter. Also, if you skip to 19:45 there's a demonstration as to why the rover has six wheels, rather than four, that's laugh-out-loud ridiculous. nagualdesign (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
According to this report from CCTV, the Yutu rover is "1.5 meters long with its two wings folded (sic), 1 m in width and 1.1 m in height". It's a bit odd that the 'length' is measured transversely, like a rectangle (the longest side being the length, the shorter side being the width) but that's just a convention. And by 'its two wings folded' I assume they mean 'its two solar panels unfolded'. (?) It also says that the rover is 140 kg. nagualdesign (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
That is the disadvantage of the Chinese not posting official information. We could probably mention in this article the ranges of size and mass, as reported by the media. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Nighttime activities.[edit]

Re. "During the 14-day lunar nights, the lander and the rover will go into 'sleep mode'," surely the lander will continue to work during the night? It's equipped with a power source as well as astronomical instruments. Darkness is good for making observations, I thought. (Lack of an atmosphere notwithstanding.) And how else to observe objects in the opposite direction from the Sun if not at night? nagualdesign (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Note the solar panels at the top of the lander. The RTG is intended to run heater units to allow the lander to survive the lunar nights, not power the whole thing. (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that its solar panels will provide power during the day. That does not imply that the RTG won't power the lander at night. Basically, I'm questioning the source, and you're just repeating the source. Are you (we) saying that the mission will have to wait 6~12 months before its in a position to observe objects that are currently in the opposite direction from the Sun? nagualdesign (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry the source disappoints you by stating they will go into sleep mode. If you have a source stating the contrary please share that, not your feelings. Thank you.BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
These are my thoughts, not my feelings. And I'm not disappointed with any sources, just dubious. Sources can be wrong. nagualdesign (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that the lander's RTG has been replaced with an RHU within this article. I'm not going to argue without any source to back it up, but bear in mind that the rover requires several RHUs (they are apparently very small devices) and yet the much larger lander now appears to manage with just one. Again, just thinking out loud. We'll get there eventually. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Mass vs. weight[edit]

I don't have any strong feelings on this, but there are a number of entries giving masses (in kg), followed by weights (in lbs). As, all of these items are currently on the Moon, shouldn't we adjust the weight of these objects to 1/6 of what is listed while leaving the mass the same. Autkm (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In a word, no. Mass does not change when it is measured on the Moon, or if we use metric or imperial units (kg/lb). Weight, as measured in a gravitational field, is always measured in newtons (N). That's why we use the phrase has a mass of.. rather than weighs.. in order to try and avoid exactly this confusion. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Pound (lb) is generally used as a unit of weight (and not mass) so it would decrease to 1/6 of its "Earth value". We could change the "weights" to Newtons, but probably confuse a lot of the general users who are less familiar with this distinction. We could also link the lb to Pound (mass). And, of course, as this debate is largely academic, we could always just ignore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autkm (talkcontribs) 02:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you've encountered pounds (lb) as a unit of weight (in the scientific sense). And there are no weights mentioned in this article, only masses, so yes, it really is academic. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, for not getting back sooner, 1 month vs 38 minutes. The mass/weight issue actually has to deal with the numbers in the spacecraft sidebar, specifically BOL "mass" and landing "mass". So, weights are not measured, but the masses in lbs are calculated using earth gravity and not the lunar gravity where the Chang'e 3 is. Autkm (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Masses are not "calculated using earth gravity". The mass of an object is in no way affected by gravity acting upon it; assuming no physical loss of mass (such as burning fuel) and no relativistic effects (which are negligible); the spacecraft had the same mass on Earth as it did en route to the Moon and on the surface. Obviously it did burn fuel, which reduced its mass, which is why the infobox is specific about when the values were correct (BOL, landing, etc).
The key point here, though, is that mass is completely unrelated to gravity. Weight is the force acting upon an object due to gravity; given as the mass of an object multiplied by the acceleration imparted upon it by gravity. It is weight, not mass, which is different on the Earth compared to on the Moon. --W. D. Graham 22:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Service module[edit]

According to (which, admittedly, is at odds with other sources in several details) the spacecraft consisted of 3 parts; service module, lander and rover. The source implies that the Chang'e 3 service module is still in a circular lunar orbit. Could somebody please help to find another source for this information. Thanks. nagualdesign (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

..I'm beginning to think this is absolute rubbish, so I'm going to remove reference to the service module for the time being. Sorry about that. nagualdesign (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it is only spent hardware. If it was an actual orbiter, the Chinese would be celebrating double. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. It probably didn't separate from anything. isn't a very good source (IMO). And both the lander and the rover are capable of transmitting their data directly to the Earth, so no 'service module' is required apart from the launch vehicle, which separated from the probe in Earth (sub)orbit. Perhaps attaining a circular orbit before an elliptical orbit was just a technical exercise. After all, this is a technology demonstrator. Practice makes perfect. nagualdesign (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw a hint somewhere (weeks ago on Aljazeera) it would still make some rounds and observe the moon. so if it is still going round I would think that is what it is doing. (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The infobox currently shows a section titled Lunar orbiter, which is misleading. Orbiters remain in orbit for much of their mission. All spacecraft orbit at some stage, but that does not make them orbiters. nagualdesign (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Update related articles[edit]

Several other articles on Wikipedia mention this mission but are still written in the future tense and need updating. Please have a look at Chinese space program#Proposed lunar exploration and Chinese Lunar Exploration Program#Phase II : Soft lander (Chang'e 3 & 4). Currently someone has just tagged an extra sentence on the end of the existing text when really the whole section need to be rewritten to encompass the new information.Rincewind42 (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Did this actually happen?[edit]

Is there any reliable source outside China that confirms this actually happened? Most Chinese megaprojects turn out to be a complete fake, after all... (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

NASA is monitoring the mission with LADEE and LRO lunar satellites. By the way, Elvis shot JFK.  ;-)
BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
PMSL! You mean fake megaprojects like the Great Wall of China, the Grand Canal (the longest in the world), Jiaozhou Bay Bridge (the world's longest bridge over water), the Three Gorges Dam (the world's largest power station), the Jinping-1 dam, the South–North Water Transfer Project, the Three-North Shelter Forest Program, Hong Kong International Airport and MTR, Taiwan High Speed Rail, Beijing Subway, Guangzhou Metro, Shanghai Metro, Qingzang railway, the Expressway network, the Compass navigation system... None of which have ever been seen by an American (the ultimate arbiters of what's real and what ain't). I'm with ya, buddy. U.S.A! ..U.S.A! ..U.S.A!
The real questions you should be asking are did man ever really land on the Moon, and what happened to all the aliens and flying saucers they used to keep in Area 51? Face-wink.svg nagualdesign (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources claiming that it didn't? Geogene (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Not reliable ones, but Colin Craig is apparently a 'non-believer'. This article makes for amusing reading. nagualdesign (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Launch site[edit]

I have twice removed information from the infobox regarding the launch site. First of all, Xichang Satellite Launch Center should not be shortened to Xichang as it lies ~40 miles away from the city. XSLC, maybe, but that still pointlessly necessitates a click. Second, there is no article, as yet, about the individual launch complexes. And the redlinks in the launch center subsection (also unnecessary, IMO), labeled 'Launch Area 1' (..2 and 3), currently link to Xichang Launch Area 1, not Xichang Launch Complex 1. There is also no mention of the abbreviation 'LC-1' that I can see. I realize that adding the redlinks to the infobox would bring this article in line with other CLEP articles, but it would be more sensible to take this article's standard and apply that to the others. The reason I haven't done this myself, as yet, is because I'm not well practiced at spinning plates, and wanted to bring the standard of this article up to an optimum before holding it up as a standard for other articles. Perhaps if the launch center article itself was properly edited in order to describe the different launch pads, with each one having its own subtitle (and no redlink), we could link to it from the infobox with something like this: Xichang Satellite Launch Center (LC-1)? Until then, let's not provide a link to nowhere using an unclear abbreviation, especially when the page we do have seems to suggest that pad 3 is the one used for the CLEP missions. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Okay, lets follow WP:BRD - since it was here to begin with I've put it back until we can reach a consensus on changing it. Xichang LC-2 (or LA-2) is the format used in all other articles on this topic. The reason for this is twofold; firstly the lack of an aritcle on a subject does not justify the suppression of valid information, or even the presence of a redlink. Secondly, the infobox is geared towards presenting the information in a short and succinct manner and putting the full name of the launch site would more than triple the field length. "Xichang" is still fully understandable, is expanded upon in the artilce, and is linked. Now I agree there is some confusion over whether the pads have LA or LC designations, but that is a wider issue than this one article and it doesn't stop us making our best effort to provide that information in the meantime - it can always be corrected later if we find out the complex uses the other designation, or vice versa. --W. D. Graham 08:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry W.D., but you didn't really address the issues I raised. If you wish to shorten the name of the launch site, why not use the acronym given within that article, XSLC, rather that the name of a city that's 40 miles away? Also, Launch site: Xichang Satellite Launch Center is succinct (as opposed to "Chang'e 3 was launched from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center"), and it's arguably more succinct (ie, clearly expressed and to the point) to show the full name, rather than necessitating click-through, and less succinct to append a confusing acronym. The fact that it's expanded upon in the article is moot, and contrary to the purpose of an infobox (quick reference). I take your point about redlinks serving a purpose (to encourage article creation), but if you insist on adding a redlink then at least link to the same would-be article that the XSLC article links to (or change the redlinks in that article). Also, I don't understand how you can agree that there is confusion regarding the launch pads, but play it down as being 'a wider issue than this one article' that 'can always be corrected later', while at the same time resisting changes that would improve the readability of this article on the basis that it 'is the format used in all other articles on this topic'. Of course I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should make our best effort to provide information. That is the very reason why I'm trying to address these issues, by making suggestions, being bold and affecting changes. Like I said above, I'm trying to set a high standard to be applied across all the CLEP articles at some point rather than attempting to spin plates. Give me a little room to maneuver and we'll achieve a consistent quality across these articles, giving the best form of the presentation that doesn't leave the reader scratching their head. It's all-too-easy to hit the revert button, leading to a heap of broken crockery. By the way, what did you think of my idea for editing the launch center article? nagualdesign (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
..Scratch that last question. It was quicker to just make changes to the XSLC facilities section myself than debate the pros and cons. If you don't like it, try to improve upon it. Hopefully, renaming things (Launch Area 1Launch Complex 1 (LC-1), etc.) will solve a few issues, and the subsections can now be linked to directly, like this: Xichang Satellite Launch Center (LC-1), or this: XSLC (LC-1). Better? nagualdesign (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is for us to judge whether a launch site is named "correctly" or not - and common sense would dictate that a launch site is not located in a city anyway. The site is called Xichang, and that is far more human-readable than an abstract abbreviation such as XSLC. The term "Satellite Launch Cent(re/er)" serves no purpose since readers will be expecting the name of a launch site - that is the name of the field after all. All it does is spread information over several lines which could easily be presented following the standard "[short site name] [pad]" format used in the vast majority of spaceflight articles. With regards the pad numbering, it is an insignificant issue - the problem is not the numerical designations - there is no doubt whatsoever that this went from pad 2 - but rather whether the "correct" prefix is LA- or LC-. While this is something which needs to be sorted out and standardised using the wrong terminology still conveys the key point - that pad 2 was used. Since the complex is in China anyway, the issue is probably moot as the original complex name is not in English anyway. --W. D. Graham 09:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, you haven't convinced me at all, but let's just leave it as Xichang (LC-2) if you feel so strongly about it. However, I made no mention about whether the launch site is named "correctly", only whether the Wikilinks (and would-be articles) are labeled appropriately (which is for us to judge). Apologies if I used 'centre' anywhere; I'm English, and have to remind myself at times that I'm editing an American English website. With regard to pad numbering, I made no mention of which pad this mission was launched from, and have no doubt that it was pad 2 (or LC-2, or LA-2, or whatever). If I slipped into talking about pad 1, it's only because I was using a kind of shorthand to refer to the way all 3 launch centers are linked to in these articles. Finally, although the complex is in China the issues raised certainly aren't moot. They may have Chinese language names for the sites, but they also use specific Latinized names whenever they make announcements in the English language, and they do indeed used LC-1 (..2 and 3), so we ought to follow suit. Thanks for the response. nagualdesign (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Could I ask what purpose the brackets serve? I don't understand why you put the pad number in brackets when it is as relevant as the name of the launch site. Also, for the record despite what some users would want you to believe, Wikipedia is not written in American English - pages just need to be consistent in which version of English they use, and if they are about something relating to a specific country they should use that country's variety of English. I'm British and I try to use British spelling as much as I possibly can. --W. D. Graham 10:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The parenthesis serve little purpose, I suppose. "Xichang (LC-2)", "Xichang LC-2", "Xichang, LC-2".. It's much of a muchness to me. (Though as a reader I'd still prefer "XSLC LC-2", with or without brackets or comma, if not the full name.) But if there's already an established guideline/consensus discussion I'll defer to that. The main thrust of what I was attempting to do was so as not to lead the reader on a merry dance to nowhere. nagualdesign (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Having pondered it some more I'd like to propose a compromise. Whilst I agree that red links may encourage page creation, and that abbreviations may be appropriate in certain circumstances, I think that combining the two (red and abbreviated) is at best unhelpful, and not at all obvious to the casual reader. So if we must abbreviate I suggest we drop the redlinks. Having made a recent edit to Xichang Satellite Launch Center each pad now has its own subsection, so I suggest we link to those like this: Xichang LC-2 or Xichang LC-2 (in whatever written form you choose, I'm just talking about the links now). I'd also like to link these pages, these pages and these pages in a similar fashion, wherever appropriate. Until the XSLC#Facilities get fleshed out a bit, rather than being single paragraphs, I don't think we're in any danger of creating 3 new pages at the moment. Alternatively, we could 'fix' all the redlinks by creating 3 new redirects, at Xichang Launch Complex 1, Xichang Launch Complex 2 and Xichang Launch Complex 3, pointing to each of the XSLC#Facilities subsections, and remove the redlinks from there (so they don't simply bounce back). It will look neater too. What say you? nagualdesign (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I think creating redirects for now would be a good compromise. If I'm honest I don't think LC-1 will ever have an article, but the other two will get created eventually so keeping the links in place would be useful - and having redirects at those locations will help readers find what they are looking for until those pages exist. --W. D. Graham 09:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done nagualdesign (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone care to comment? nagualdesign (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Consistency is needed in Wikipedia, but the spacecraft infoboxes have been object of colorful 'carnivals' in the past and lately they have been ponded into shape. Although they pissed me off sometimes in the beginning, I now appreciate the WP:WikiProject Spaceflight people working on the homology and consistency of these infoboxes. Even when they revert/edit my changes, I now rest assured that have already discussed the objectives, strategy and format to be used throughout the encyclopedia so I let them format that aspect of the page.
My 2 cents. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the link! Although I personally prefer boldness over departmentalism, it's nice to be pointed in the right direction. I think I'll just do what you do and leave it to the navbox police. editors. (I jest!) Peace and good will to one and all. Face-wink.svg nagualdesign (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's ever been a formal discussion of which format to use, it's just the way most articles had evolved - which was then used in the examples created when standardisation was first proposed and in the absence of objections it was rolled out in the pages not using that format already. There are now over 1,500 articles using that format. Its definately not an attempt by anyone to police how things are presented, just that the project determined there should be some consistency between articles in terms of infobox content. --W. D. Graham 09:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Unexpected temperature variation[edit]

The Yutu rover had been "napping" for a few days after landing on the Moon following unexpected temperature variations. Apparently, the difficulty isn't just with keeping the hardware warm at night. "Yutu has had to deal with direct solar radiation raising the temperature to over 100 degrees centigrade on his sunny side, while his shaded side simultaneously fell below zero."[1] I had another reference the other day about 'unexpected' temperature problems (which I now understand to be this) but I neglected to bookmark it. Also, I'm not sure whereabouts in the article that this information might be best placed. It's certainly worth putting in there though, IMO. Any help would be appreciated, as always. nagualdesign (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Found it: "Speaking at a news conference on Tuesday, scientists said that the equipment aboard the Yutu lunar rover and the Chang'e-3 lander had so far been functioning as hoped, despite the unexpectedly rigorous conditions of the lunar environment."[2] (emphasis mine) nagualdesign (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've added the information in as best I could here (3rd paragraph). Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Normally, we document the "current status" on the rover page of the mission, as the "parent" section. I think time has come to start such section in the Yutu article. In the [extremely unlikely] case that the Chinese government releases substantial info on the mission progress and scientific discoveries (as NASA, Roscosmos and ESA) an additional article would be created.... Timeline of the Yutu rover. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, Big Ears. Face-smile.svg nagualdesign (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Should article names use hyphens?[edit]

I'm sure this must have been discussed somewhere already but.. Shouldn't the names of the CLEP mission articles be hyphenated (Chang'e-1, Chang'e-2, Chang'e-3, etc.) like they are in most sources? nagualdesign (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Panoramic image?[edit]

Can someone add the panorama produced by the lander? -- (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

We probably can't. Readers seem to be asking for more images here, but the problem with putting images in this article is that the imagery is, for our purposes as Wikipedia editors, all copyrighted by China. WP copyright policy means we're very limited in what we can use. Geogene (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I left a message at the Graphics Lab requesting help with finding and uploading images, but if there aren't any available there's very little anyone can do. nagualdesign (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Would these from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter be useful? I think they're PD, and show a "bird's"-eye view of the lander and rover. Chris857 (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Very much so. *Pats Chris on back* nagualdesign (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Following mission[edit]

In the Infobox, Chang'e 4 is reported as the mission which will follow Chang'e 3. Anyway, Chang'e 5-T1 preceded Chang'e 4 last year and Chang'e 5 will do probably the same, as Chang'e 5 launch is programmed in 2017, while Chang'e 4 in 2020. [3] If there are no objections, I'm going to change the Article accordingly. --Harlock81 (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Harlock81 (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)