Talk:OSIRIS-REx

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

First US craft, or first craft?[edit]

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)[reply]

Ah -- I've just found the sample return mission article, which explains all. -- 80.168.238.56 (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
ucraftsas 216.161.170.169 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading wording "threatening asteroid"[edit]

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)[reply]

There is a one-in-2,700 chance of impact appx 150 years from now - so, no current readers will be 'alarmed' and technically the information IS correct. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity slingshot due 22 Sept 2017[edit]

Details (eg map with altitudes )[1] - Rod57 (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/skygazers-prepare-for-osiris-rex-to-swoop-past-earth

Did NASA consider leaving radar reflectors on the asteroid[edit]

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)[reply]

Probably for the same reasons they tracked it without any reflector there to start with. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capsule return[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
you are right 146.255.180.184 (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Sand Island" is the area at the intersection of roads the NW fork of which leads to this location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.69.136 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should have said NE fork. Do you guys know how hard it is getting the sequence correct turning off VPN...then deleting cookies...sometimes having to actually quite browser and return...oh..wikipedia puts cookies on my machine???? How privacy orientated! 75.161.69.136 (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No source for the LZ ellipse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CactusFlower (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"presence of hydroxyl (oxygen-hydrogen) bonds, likely part of hydrates in the clay material"[edit]

"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)[reply]
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." [1] 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-newly-arrived-osiris-rex-spacecraft-already-discovers-water-on-asteroid

OSIRIS-APEX[edit]

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)[reply]

@GeesenGoosen @Mfb and @Ergzay should we rename the page to a common name "OSIRIS (spacecraft)"?? Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
this is what the page only says Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind just notice it got edited already, y'all are fast

References

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ Perison, R.; Dworkin, J. (2016). Supply Chain (PDF) (Report). Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.

new discussion about renaming page to osiris apex[edit]

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)[reply]

OSIRIS (spacecraft) seems appropriate as encompassing the now multiple-target mission. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of the REx part of the name has been lost in this renaming... Waveny42 (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Requested move 24 September 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Though the OSIRIS-REx mission has been completed, participants reached a consensus that it's currently too soon to determine whether the WP:COMMONNAME of the spacecraft has changed enough to justify a move under WP:NAMECHANGES. Because this result is built on a consensus that the post-REx COMMONNAME cannot yet be determined, it may be fruitful to revisit this topic later, once enough time has passed to see how sources change (or don't change) the ways they refer to this spacecraft. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @Mdewman6 i support @Rainclaw7 due to missions like International Cometary Explorer 122.187.144.98 (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But Deep Impact (spacecraft) Stardust (spacecraft) exists that favor you @Mdewman6 122.187.144.98 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Hastag has special meaning termed as Sharp @Rainclaw7 122.187.144.98 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I agree with that, I'd support either OSIRIS (spacecraft) or OSIRIS-APEX. Rainclaw7 (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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
  • 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)[reply]
    I don't like that reasoning due to the fact the REx mission just ended a while ago and APEX is still not super well covered. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Wait, most news sources discussing the landing refer to it as OSIRIS-REx. Also, OSIRIS-APEX still does not have much coverage where I would be concerned about confusion. Also, to an extent, I almost feel like REx and APEX need to have their own articles. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They would because the landing was part of the REx mission. All RS that I've seen that discuss the extended mission say APEX. Rainclaw7 (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I might have underestimated how ofter APEX is mentioned though I still feel like we should wait to change it or spin APEX into its own thing in a bit. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This should have been done as soon as the secondary misson was approved, if not sooner. The redirects OSIRIS-REx and OSIRIS-APEX will remain, allowing users searching on those article names to find this article. WP:RS (referenced above) does not speak to how articles are titled, just the content in articles. (Rainclaw7: WP:RS is not a policy, but a guideline, which are not as binding on editing here on WP.) — Lentower (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Roger that. Apologies for inaccurately describing it. Rainclaw7 (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with the previous comments as it seems like there is more coming in the future and would be better organized to have it in one place. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The name will better cover both missions and better reflects the new topic of the article as a result, and redirects will handle the rest. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking my vote under the weight of additional commentary. I am not convinced by the COMMONNAME arguments since my understanding is that, arguably, REx and APEX are separate things. But exactly what the difference is does not seem clear. I do believe that there is a problem here in terms of what the article's actual subject is (is it about the spacecraft? the mission?), and what title would best fit that subject and scope, and it isn't super clear either whether the craft itself has been renamed or if it's the name of the mission. I do oppose a move to OSIRIS-APEX at this time for these reasons as well. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:NAMECHANGES. It is too soon to rename the craft. Once its WP:COMMONNAME is OSIRIS-APEX it should be renamed that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it is too soon to rename. — Reinyday, 00:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a compromise name that essentially no one uses. OSIRIS-REx was a long and very successful mission that will continue to generate news as the samples are analyzed. The APEX mission won't generate much news until 2029. The new name is mentioned in the lede and covered by a redirect. OSIRIS-REx is still the common name.--agr (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as an aside, why is it "APEX" and not "APEx"? The latter follows from "REx". Perhaps to avoid anyone thinking it's called "APE"? Maybe NASA hasn't even figured out the name yet either. Mdewman6 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you lowercased the X, you should probably lowercase the P too, making ApEx. ✶Mitch199811✶ 16:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the primary reason that 'OSIRIS' doesn't appear to be used at all and constructing a new name would probably constitute something along the lines of original research / work [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 19:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better move proposal? I agree that the title, "Osiris (spacecraft)" does not fit well with NASA terminology, and does not seem to be used by anyone else. Why not move the article to "Osiris-REx/APEX" ? This matches NASA's new official name for the mission perfectly! Please see this Space.com article covering the namechange.
{This vote struck in favor of my last vote for "Wait."}
Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is the first time I have seen it refered like that. While it might be a bit of a stretch, it kinda sounds like Space.com is saying the OSIRIS-REx is the main name and APEX is more minor or secondary. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mich 19..
I just did a Google look-up throughout the NASA website and I found 49 instances of NASA calling the program the "Osiris-REx/APEX" program, for whatever that may be worth. I couldn't find any other nomenclature there to refer to the full use of the Osiris spacecraft. (Apparently due to search engine limitations, only after reading more in the NASA website was I able to see that NASA uses a slash between their names "REx" and "APEX," and no other symbols, which I have since fixed.)
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look common. Looking up "OSIRIS-REx/APEX" I get two Space.com articles ([1][2]), a NASA article ([3]), some weird promotional coffee store(?), and a few French articles. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try first going to the: Google Advanced Search Page. Then in the second field titled "This exact word or phrase," fill in, "Osiris-REx/APEX". In the field titled "Site or Domain," type in "nasa.gov." You should now be seeing 49 results, no?
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, that's one source (plus the Space.com article). Though when it is used by NASA it looks to be in regard to a lack of specific time period, which this article could fall under. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if say Ford announced that they were calling a new line of SUV's the "Thunder" line of SUV's, then even though there might only be a few sources, since Ford is the only source entitled to name their own car lines, then if properly cited, we would report something like "Ford has announced that their new line of SUV's is called the 'Thunder' line of SUV's." Since clearly NASA has named their mission the "Osiris-REx/APEX" mission, as far as I can see, that is what we should call the mission too, no?
Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A more appropriate comparison to make would be Twitter and X. Both Osiris-APEX and X are old projects "rebranded", they have previous names that people use. Meanwhile, Ford making something new would be its only name. And I wouldn't even say NASA clearly rebranded it as REx/APEX, as OSIRIS-REx's NASA summary page only says REx or APEX. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article needs to be renamed or to be seriously rewritten One thing is for certain: The name "Osiris-REx" is no longer the name that NASA uses to refer to this spacecraft, and somehow this article title or content needs to change to better harmonize with NASA's spacecraft nomenclature.
As far as I know, this is the first time that NASA has ever renamed a spaceship in mid-flight, which presents WP with a sort of naming challenge. I don't think it would be right to "invent" our own name for the spacecraft which NASA has not used at all, namely "Osiris (spacecraft)." To simply accept NASA's decision to call the entire mission as "Osiris-REx/APEX" seems to make the most sense to me, without having to rewrite the article very much. Apparently, the Osiris-Rex spacecraft had more life in it than they had expected and so they gave it a second mission, along with a second mission name, so that it looks like they’re doing two missions for the price of one (which they are.) Still, it is only one spacecraft, and I think that we should treat it as the Osiris-Rex/APEX Mission, which is really what it is, and this is what NASA seems to prefer to call it. (It is not two separate space ships, and I could find no instance of where NASA referred to it as the “Osiris spacecraft“.)
{This vote struck in favor of my last vote for "Wait."}
Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NASA held a livestream yesterday about "OSIRIS-REx" [4]. It is clearly still the common name of the mission, even according to the public-facing part of NASA. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe what the uncertainty here is pointing to is that the APEX mission likely eventually warrants its own article. But regardless of what the spacecraft going to the next asteroid is called, there will always be the OSIRIS-REx mission as an encyclopedic topic, and that is the bulk of what this article covers, and the title should reflect that. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this video was basically over an hour of discussion of the Osiris-REx mission, but there was no mention whatsoever that I heard about the Osiris-APEX mission. Still, in this article: "OSIRIS-REx Spacecraft Departs for New Mission," NASA makes it abundantly clear that the spacecraft's name has now been changed to Osiris-APEX. It seems to me that NASA may not yet be anticipating how confusing this renaming of a spacecraft in mid-flight may prove to be in 2029 when Osiris-APEX will probably be taking center-stage as it finally reaches the Apophis asteroid.
Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A title like "OSIRIS-REx Spacecraft Departs for New Mission" would seem to indicate that the new mission is called APEX, but that the spacecraft and its original mission, and what this article is almost completely about, is still called OSIRIS-REx. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize but I've just had to change my mind after reading the following article from the university of Arizona, which says that the UofA is the "leader of the Osiris-REx mission." The article is at: "Bennu sample delivery marks the start of extended OSIRIS-APEX mission." The phraseology of the article explains that the "Osiris-REx spacecraft" will be going on the "Osiris-APEX" mission. In order to match this article's terminology, perhaps the article title should be: Osiris-REx spacecraft?
Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, as I see from the news it is still a fluid topic. Let us wait until the consensus agrees on the name.
Cactus Ronin (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, I agree with Cactus Ronin. Too soon to know for sure if the University of Arizona terminology (or any other type of terminology for that matter) is going to be settled upon as the "official terminology" to describe all of this. Meanwhile, Wikipedia's job is to wait until NASA, the U of A, and possibly others come to some kind of agreement about which "official terminology" Wikipedia articles, and any other reporting about Osiris-REx for that matter, should reflect, no?
Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lighthumormonger I would suggest crossing out your previous votes to avoid confusion. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion Mitch,
Done,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as others have commented, WP:NAMECHANGES mitigates against removing "OSIRIS-REx" while it's still the most commonly used name, and more concerningly, there is no evidence that "OSIRIS" is the name of the spacecraft, so "OSIRIS (spacecraft)" would be introducing new terminology. I think OSIRIS-REx / OSIRIS-APEX would be clearer than "OSIRIS REx/APEX" which others have suggested. This would be crystal clear. And OSIRIS-APEX is being presented as a new full name, not as if the mission is changing its last name. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why couldn't we do OSIRIS-REx and OSIRIS-APEX to put it more in line with other articles. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In articles like Mariner 6 and 7 and GRACE and GRACE-FO, the "and" separates two different spacecraft. Here, we have one spacecraft which changed its name, and I liked using the slash to make this distinction. But it's not a big deal.
Dan Bloch (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that possibly even some of the folks at NASA are not yet fully harmonious with their own terminology here. In an article from NASA, it clearly makes it sound like the spaceship has been renamed (but this same NASA article does not specifically state that the spacecraft name was changed). Yet in "an article by the lead University for the program," namely the University of Arizona, they say specifically that the "Osiris-REx spacecraft" is now assigned to carry out the "Osiris-APEX mission." If the University of Arizona article is correct in the way it uses the terminology, then it might be a mistake to try to report in Wikipedia that the spacecraft was renamed when it wasn't. Let's just wait until NASA makes it clear on such things as whether it has fully renamed both the spacecraft and its mission, or if it has only renamed the mission that the Osiris-REx spacecraft is on.
Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing to keep in mind: Even if a primary source (NASA or U of Ariz, eg,) self-describes in a particular way, that is not necessarily the last word. Somewhere in policy/guidelines can be found advice (and an example or two) to keep using a CommonName if secondary sources overwhelmingly use it. Or words to that effect. So I think waiting is advisable for now to see if a new clear usage in secondary as well as primary sources develops. In the meantime (indefinitely, actually), Redirects can handle the various permutations. DonFB (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Right off the top, I can't think of any NASA missions whose "common names" were not the same as NASA's official names, but you are right, as far as I know WP policy is: If ever there is such a discrepancy, WP policy would be to try to prefer the most popularly used name, especially if that helps to make the article more easily understood by a typical reader.
Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Early touch down of sample capsule[edit]

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)[reply]

I suspect (no source) that the answer is that the drogue chute malfunctioned in some way thus the main chute deployed earlier. Faster fall due to the drogue chute malfunction. CactusFlower (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery and no sound[edit]

At the Gallery the video 2 have no sound. Video 2 is named as: Effects of OSIRIS-REx sampling attempt on Bennu 3dcboz (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that isn't a mistake as:
  1. Space doesn't have a medium to allow for sound to reach an ear or microphone.
  2. OSIRIS-REx doesn't have a microphone to record any sound.
✶Mitch199811✶ 00:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

credit Michael Julian Drake as the original PI[edit]

In the post-landing press conference, Dr. Lauretta was kind enough to begin his remarks by acknowledging the late Michael Drake, who was the original Principal Investigator on this mission, and who got it accepted by NASA. I was going to edit this into this article after the mention of the PI -- something like "... having taken over after the original PI Michael Julian Drake passed away only four months after the mission won approval from NASA". However this article seems to be locked down against edits, at least for me. Can someone with appropriate rights make that edit? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.215.62.245 (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@107.215.62.245 s 75.169.43.198 (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can edit now so I took care of it. 107.215.62.245 (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing at the beginning of the lede where you have to hover the mouse over to see doesn't even show up on mobile.[edit]

just verified that by switching to m.wiki briefly. doesn't even show up, so if you're on mobile you can't use it and don't know what it's supposed to stand for. should definitely be changed to a note. in fact I've never seen it done like this, i've always seen it as a note. JM2023 (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i've taken the initiative and changed it to a note. JM2023 (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OSIRIS-REx&oldid=1209222877"