Talk:Mars 3

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

Launch vehicle[edit]

NSSDC describes the launch vehicles as "Proton Booster Plus Upper Stage and Escape Stages". The current wikipedia text says, "launched by Tyazheliy Sputniks." Could someone knowledgable about this please connect the dots, i.e. how are these two phrases descriptive of the same vehicles? Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 03:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


This is the same as the one on the article of the Mars 2 orbiter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Mars 2 and Mars 3 missions consisted of identical spacecraft, each with an orbiter and an attached lander." Wingman4l7 (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Four "gunpowder" engines ?[edit]

Article notes "Four "gunpowder" engines". Could the article describe what a "gunpowder" engine is? Not a term used by the general public, the declared audience of wikipedia. By indicating the term in speech marks I am assuming the author knows it is not a common term. Please link to an article that describes what this term means. -- (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I know of rocketry, that's probably a badly translated description. I or someone else will have to do some research to figure out what the proper fuel/engine type was. Wingman4l7 (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to come from the official NASA description. Someone who reads Russian can tell us what the ru Wikipedia article calls it. My wild guess is, maybe it's Russian rocketeer slang for solid fuel rockets in general. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it really from offical NASA description? Link? The only "device" with the "gunpowder" was the one pulling out the pilot chute. (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't know, but considering mission was a total failure - they might as well have tried using gunpowder motors. Have visions that someone strapped on some bottle rockets and had a go. Solids are called motors, not engines by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
You have a problem with visions if you consider the first soft landing on Mars a total failure. (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the article in Russian says the lander used solid-fuel motors. "Gunpowder engine" is a literal translation of an unofficial Russian term. I fixed the article. Furthermore, the Russian article's much more detailed description of the lander and landing sequence doesn't agree with the statement that those motors were used "to control pitch and yaw". It says two of them were used to spin up the lander to gyro-stabilize it prior to atmospheric entry, and two others to stop the spin. Which makes more sense, really, because how can you use single-burn uncontrollable solid fuel motors to control pitch and yaw? It also makes no mention of "gas micro-engines". But reconciling these would require more research. ScalarField (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

First Picture?[edit]

In a photo caption, this article states: "The first image ever transmitted from the martian surface. It was taken with the Soviet Mars 3 probe." This isn't an image - it's static. Caption should read: "The first garbage supposedly transmitted from the martian surface. It was 'taken' with the Soviet Mars 3 probe that failed during the attempt." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Complete Copy of Russian Source[edit]

This article is a complete copy of this Russian source:

FYI the thing you call source is not even written in proper Russian. It looks like it was translated with GoogleTranslate or a similar tool. (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any more time to fix this thanks to school just starting (see my sandbox for efforts in fixing this), but if someone else is willing to, that would be great. Thanks, 3er40 (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. This article isn't completely copy-and-pasted as I said due to me adding a couple of revisions, but it is significantly copy-and-pasted nonetheless. 3er40 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI -- the Mars 2 and Mars 3 articles are most definitely not copies. Another user said it best -- "The Russian article has the exact same Wikipedia internal links, as well as (wikisource) and is almost certainly a mirror." Unfortunately, there are a lot of poor copies of Wikipedia articles floating around on the web. The edit histories of the Wikipedia articles prove that they were constructed over time, instead of being copy-pasted from another source. Wingman4l7 (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhh... wow, thanks for clarifying that (I had misunderstood the edit summary earlier). Thanks for the FYI. 3er40 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible picture from the MRO[edit]

I uploaded a picture of the possible Mars 3 landing site, Won't add to the article yet until it's proven what this is. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done - FWIW - NASA image(File:PIA16920-MarsSoviet3Lander1971-PossibleDebrisField.jpg)/caption/ref were posted at the following => Mars 3#Possible Images of Mars 3 Debris on Mars - should be ok - but *entirely* ok to rv/mv/ce of course - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Article suffers from too many " "[edit]

Removed (see 1st "clear" Mars image, Viking 1, July 20, 1976). This supposed to be an article about Mars-3, not about having "clear"(???) images. (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - added the following note to the File:Mars 3 Image.png image-file "description" =>

NOTE: See File:Mars Viking 12a001.png for the first "clear" image transmitted from Mars - Viking 1 lander (United States), July 20, 1976.

hope it's *entirely* ok of course - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Debris field"?[edit]

Referring to the lander components on the surface as "debris" and "debris field" disagrees with the definition of these terms. "Debris (n): the remains of anything broken down or destroyed; ruins; rubble." A debris field is made by such remains scattered as the result of a crash. The landing sequence of Mars 3 completed as planned, the lander was intact, and made a radio transmission. The lander module separated during landing into distinct component by design, therefore these cannot be referred to as "debris". ScalarField (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)