Jump to content

Talk:List of crewed Mars mission plans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture of a corridor

[edit]
Close discussion caused by time-wasting blocked WP:SOCK of User:ChrisfromHouston
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

IMHO this picture conveys nothing, which is why I removed it. Because of the depth of the perspective all sense of scale is lost. Just how far away is the end of the corridor? This would make perfect sense if you were there and could walk down the corridor, but the picture doesn't convey scale. BTW I was in hospital a lot last year and I used to walk regularly down a corridor exactly like this, only better decorated. :) andy (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the photo being offered as providing a qualitative sense of scale regarding the magnitude of a Mars mission compared to an Apollo Moon mission:
File:Mars and Apollo in Perspective.JPG
The inset shows the Moon circling the Earth. This radius is the farthest human beings have ever traveled. The image was never intended to quantify the exact distance. But I think it does a great job of communicating the fact that going to Mars is MUCH farther than going to the Moon.
If there is to be an unbiased evaluation of this photo and its potential to improve the article, then we could start by re-evaluating the title that's been selected for this Talk section. Because once a person understands what is being displayed in the photo, they will see much more than a corridor. I would go so far as to assert that this photo speaks more than a thousand words, because you can read an entire book about a Mars mission and still never grasp this sense of it being an astoundingly distant voyage, when compared to Apollo.--Invent2HelpAll (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(This section has also been given as an invitation for consolidating the bifurcated discussion from here.)--Invent2HelpAll (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for having some kind of image to communicate the magnitude of the distance involved in this type of mission has been thoroughly presented. No one has posted a rebuttal to this argument. In that absence, and seeing as how the rationale for removal has been negated, I plan to re-add the image. I do agree with the criticism that adding to all of the articles is tedious, so the re-add will only be to a couple.
A more comprehensive fix to this last issue would be to consolidate the various articles on the topic of human missions to Mars. That is going to take a lot of work, and would best be accomplished as a group effort.--Invent2HelpAll (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't read anything into "No one has posted a rebuttal", especially given the usually slow pace of conversations on article talk pages. But your argument about consolidating the Mars articles is worth further consideration. Why not suggest a merge? Instructions on how to do this are here. andy (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afterthought: if there's a lot of material covering sub-topics it's common for lengthy wikipedia articles to be split into separate, more tightly focussed articles. I suggest you weigh up whether a combined Mars article might be so large that it would collapse under its own weight. Not that I'm against the principle of merging - far from it. andy (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some Talk discussions go lightning quick, with several back'n'forth posts in a day. I guess it has a lot to do with how passionate people are regarding certain topics. For this photo, I've had it since 2005, and only after eight years did I get around to requesting the photographer's permission to use it. I was as slow as frozen molasses.
As for combining articles, someone else may find that important enough to pursue. My only reason for bringing that up here is in being criticized for "bombing", when the real issue I see there is the articles being fractured. Anyone who wants to make any comprehensive improvement to the subject of human Mars missions will need to do the same as I did. And if you don't like that change, you will see them as "bombing" also, when all they're trying to do is improve one topic.
One of the biggest objections I've raised to your action is that none of these reverted articles, as they stand now, make any effort to communicate the sense of scale involved in such a mission. To delete the photo on the basis that it doesn't communicate a perfect sense of scale ...and then leave these articles with NONE is to damage the articles. This image is better than nothing. And I've stated my position that I'd be perfectly fine with the photo being removed from all of Wikipedia ...the moment any better image or diagram comes to light.
As for your objection regarding the image being distorted by perspective, you might want to consider that this can actually be a very good way to communicate accurately. Notice that logarithmic scales are used very often. This is very much akin to what the photo is showing. It is a comparison of Earth-Moon vs Earth-Mars distance, with the perspective working like a logarithmic scale.
When all other methods for communicating the scale of the distance to Mars, it may very well be that this photo will be deemed to be using the best way to make that kind of comparison.
As stated in my previous post above, I intend to re-add the photo. Not to all, but to maybe a couple of articles. And if you want to maintain that there's a better way to communicate this info, I will support you 100%, as soon as that better way is provided.--Invent2HelpAll (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO the photo is uninformative and confusing. I think you're over-fond of it because you edited it (did you in fact take it in the first place?). Whatever, I'm not happy that you're insisting on putting it back in to articles, especially multiple articles, so I've asked for a third opinion at WP:3. Please do not take any action until someone has a look at this dispute. andy (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, neither you nor anyone else has rebutted my main point that it is communicating very important info that is not otherwise being presented. I intend to get this copyright issue taken care of to have the image made available for posting once again.
I find it to be quite strange that you see me to be "over-fond" of this particular photo when I've repeatedly emphasized that I would be perfectly fine with any other image that does as good a job or better of communicating this info.--Invent2HelpAll (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Invent2HelpAll is a blocked WP:SOCK of User:ChrisfromHouston JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]
Close discussion caused by time-wasting blocked WP:SOCK of User:ChrisfromHouston
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I saw this listed at the Third Opinion project and was considering taking it, but the question may be moot as the photo in its current state is a violation of Wikipedia Commons' copyright policy and I've nominated it for deletion there. (Wikipedia Commons must receive permission directly from the copyright owner, i.e. the photographer, in the form of a license satisfactory to WC before the photo can be used at WC or at Wikipedia.) If those issues can be worked out, then this dispute may be cogent. I've left it listed at 3O just in case some other volunteer would like to give a opinion on the matter notwithstanding the pending deletion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:
Looks like the photo has been deleted, so no third opinion is needed. BTW, Andy, you're not supposed to sign your name on the WP:3 board (you are supposed to sign your request there with five tildes, not four). Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 20:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True. I can't count. andy (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image (or one very similar to it) will be re-uploaded, and that can happen before the year is out. A third opinion will not hurt here.--Invent2HelpAll (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the image isn't there yet, there's no need for the opinion. You're not even sure what the image will look like. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone want to figure out the mass for Boeing's 2014 proposal

[edit]

On December 2, 2014, NASA's Advanced Human Exploration Systems and Operations Mission Director Jason Crusan and Deputy Associate Administrator for Programs James Reuthner announced tentative support for the Boeing "Affordable Mars Mission Design" including radiation shielding, centrifugal artificial gravity, in-transit consumable resupply, and a lander which can return.[1][2] Reuthner suggested that if adequate funding was forthcoming, the proposed mission would be expected in the early 2030s.[3]

References

  1. ^ K.Klaus, M. L. Raftery and K. E. Post (2014) "An Affordable Mars Mission Design" (Houston, Texas: Boeing Co.)
  2. ^ M. L. Raftery (May 14, 2014) "Mission to Mars in Six (not so easy) Pieces" (Houston, Texas: Boeing Co.)
  3. ^ NASA (December 2, 2014) "NASA’s Journey to Mars News Briefing" NASA TV

Can someone go through those refs and figure out the mass and crew numbers, please? I'm not exactly a rocket scientist. 97.122.124.15 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of manned Mars mission plans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of manned Mars mission plans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of manned Mars mission plans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Human Mars Mission Plans

[edit]

HI, I oppose the recent name change back to "Manned Mars Mission". NASA terminology in the recent years have clearly stated that "manned" is outdated and gender neutral language should be used. see Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors to quote: "in general, all references to the space program should be non-gender-specific (e.g., human, piloted, unpiloted, robotic, as opposed to manned or unmanned)". Golan's mom (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a WP:RM process for handling move proposals. That was not done here, so the move from 2 days ago was reverted. I suggest waiting for the result of the move request at Talk:Manned mission to Mars as we'll just use that result to gauge consensus. -- Netoholic @ 20:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does NASA dictate proper English usage? Besides, "manned" is an adjective, and like "widowed", it can refer to people of either sex. Only nouns and pronouns are assigned gender in English. There is nothing wrong with the word "manned". Kelisi (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP Spaceflight project topic at [1], Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stuhlinger Mars 1954–1957

[edit]

If this is as presented on the Disney show in 1957 , is it 20 men per ship? Astronautix says 10 ships with 20 each for 200 , but give no reference. On that show , in 1957 , it was 6 ships but no crew size is cited. Published papers of Stuhlinger mention no crew size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 10:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Mars One be on here?

[edit]

I don't know squat about editing Wikipedia articles so I'm not going to try to add it in myself, but... Shouldn't Mars One be on here?

Arctucrus (",) 14:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctucrus (talk • contribs)

Why it isnt listed the current NASA plan for going to Mars in 2033?

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_crewed_Mars_mission_plans&oldid=1216384605"