Talk:Trace Gas Orbiter

Merger query - 2008 - Maven

I'm unclear if this is the same thing as MAVEN (spacecraft). I don't think NASA is planning on sending two orbiters to Mars in 2013, but I'm not sure about that. Can anybody confirm that this is a separate mission or should it be merged/deleted and redirected? Grant (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the best expert but I think they're different. The Mars Science Orbiter proposal descended from Mars Telecommunications Orbiter => Mars Science & Telecommunications Orbiter => MSO. So it's a big-budget mission along the lines of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. MAVEN on the other hand has more limited funding secured through the Mars Scout program which is supposed to send a science probe every five years. Assuming the Scout program goes as planned, and several general-purpose "big satellites" (like MRO, Mars Express, Mars Odyssey) remain in service, it would seem MSO is superfluous and unlikely to go ahead, however. Potatoswatter (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: ESA will build it

It seems like under the new Mars Joint Exploration Initiative between NASA-ESA, the 2016 Mars orbiter will be built by the ESA and launched by NASA, as part of the ExoMars mission. If so, this article needs to reflect this new change. Aditional info here. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is another reference (March 2009) about launching the MSO with the ExoMars mission:[1]: "One way to keep the mission joint would be to launch MSO and ExoMars on the same rocket in 2016. And on the trading table from NASA, it appears, is an Atlas V rocket." We know now that the weight is such that there will be 2 launches, and that the orbiter will be in the first and it will be built by ESA. I just requested an update on the MSO from NASA media office to verify its status, however, it is not even listed in the official 'NASA Missions' page, or in the JPL Mars Missions page --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The instrument payload is only existing as a model payload without any connection to what the people will propose in the anouncment of oportunity AO which is sheduled for early 2010. This will be another hard fight who is in the payload.--Stone (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Board meeting

Have you seen this. This makes clear what ESA and NASA what to have. [2] --Stone (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What to have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.147.201 (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Rename

Mars Trace Gas Mission was just the early NASA term for this spacecraft, the ESA name is the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) (see [3]). Since the mission was remodelled to be ESA-led and mostly built, it seems NASA have adopted it ([4]). (relatively) more recent media reports reflect this ([5]). ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I am in favor of a rename/page move. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we rename it "ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter" or just "Trace Gas Orbiter"? BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good question. ESA abbreviate it to TGO, not ETGO, on their website implying that the actual name is Trace Gas Orbiter and that "Exomars" is simply a qualifier that denotes that it is a part of that programme. This is repeated elsewhere in industry, in public technical papers for the instruments for example where it's often later just shortened to TGO (see [6] (PDF)). On the other hand lots of cases in media articles are using the full name for now. Perhaps a good solution until usage settles down would be to use "ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter" (abbreviated to TGO in the lead) and have "Trace Gas Orbiter" as a redirect, both are valid and we can always swap over if the other is clearly preferred.

One a related point, it may be an idea at some point to split the current "Exomars" article into one about the whole programme, "Exomars programme", and one about the 2018 "Exomars rover". At present it feels a bit schizophrenic since it was set up originally to discuss the rover before the programme got bigger and now it's trying both. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I did some editing followed by the move/renaming. Please check for accuracy and mistakes, as English is not my first language. Regarding the ExoMars page, yes, the information on each ExoMars spacecraft/module will be large. I agree to separate them into "ExoMars mission" and "Exomars rover". If you could please bring your proposal to that page so we could talk some more about it before splitting them. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, and yeah the edits look fine. I'll suggest the split now. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Troubled future?

• [7]
• [8]

The two links provide the possibilities which will materialize in the next months.--Stone (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

They have done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.147.201 (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Outdated tag

I placed the outdated tag as NASA formally withdrew from the ExoMars programme. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Propane

The project's lead scientist quoted in our cited February 2016 Guardian article appears to imply that the probe will be looking for propane (as a possible signature of biologically created methane), without explicitly saying so, but the September 2015 paper we also quote doesn't mention propane as one of the substances it can detect. Our article correctly reflects both sources, but is thus rather confusing to me as a reader. Can anybody please clear up this confusion here, and if possible also amend the article accordingly? Tlhslobus (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

propane is one more of the trace gases to be monitored. If one source did not mention it, it does not matter; our article states it will be monitored. If you want more references, look here: [9]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, our article does NOT currently explicitly state it (unsurprizingly, as it currently has no source to explicitly support this). It implies it without stating it in one place, and implies the opposite in another place (backed by a seemingly more authoritative source - a scientific paper rather than a newspaper quote). Hence my confusion, and quite likely that of other readers. But thanks for the references list, even if I don't currently have the time (and perhaps not the competence either) to try to plough through them all, possibly looking for a needle in a haystack, and our other readers can't be expected to do this either. There are also complications which are not easily resolved by somebody like me - for instance I see at the start of your list a mention of propane being detectable in a 2012 article, but its omission from our cited 2015 article might be unimportant, or it might be because they subsequently discovered problems with detecting propane at Martian temperatures and pressures. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I've also left a question on the matter at our reference desk (see here).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Quote from this Wikipedia article: "Particularly, if methane is found in the presence of propane or ethane, that will be a strong indication that biological processes are involved." I don't see the urgency to elaborate further than that on propane. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia is not quoting a reliable source. But it is one of the core principles of Wikipedia that all its statements are supposed to be verifiable. To say 'if propane is detected' (as some sources do say) makes it sound as if propane can be detected without actually lying if it can't be (perhaps to avoid awkward questions about how the taxpayer's money is being spent on missions that are perhaps not up to the job, tho of course this is currently just speculation, and speculation that will easily be killed off if a reliable source explicitly says that propane is detectable, which is partly why it is important to find such a source, and why 'if propane is detected' is not adequate verification of a claim that propane can be detected). This 'mere implication' might normally be adequate were it not for the fact that the source currently being used to say what it can detect mentions everything except propane, even tho propane appears to be one of only two gases (the other being ethane, according to our latest cited source) that can show the methane is of biological origin. (Not that it matters all that much, but for additional background info), yesterday's BBC Breakfasttime announced that the mission was to find out whether methane on Mars was biological in origin, and told us to wait for a chat with a scientist later, yet to my surprise the scientist himself when interviewed merely said it could be biological or geological, but said nothing about whether, let alone how (which is what I was then hoping to learn), the mission could distinguish between the two, thus giving me a second reason for wanting proper verification, instead of being told here and elsewhere that it doesn't matter that we don't seem to have proper verification. So, since you added propane into the list of detectable chemicals, I have now added a Citation Needed beside propane, since it is not in the cited source. Cheers, Tlhslobus (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If methane (CH
₄) is found in the presence of propane (C
₃H
₈) or ethane (C
₂H
₆), that will be a strong indication that biological processes are involved. (Montmessin, F. "Atmospheric Chemistry Suite: Science Overview" (PDF). LATMOS CNRS, France. Retrieved 2016-03-14. Quote: Determining the origin of methane on Mars can only be addressed by looking at methane isotopologues and at higher alkanes (ethane, propane) - page 44.)

I provided you with several sources (none of which is Wikipedia). After looking at your user page, I decided to ignore your insinuation that the ExoMars mission is a coverup. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think I'll end now after repeating here my final reply at the reference desk (see here): Thank you both for your very useful links, which once again list lots of detectable chemicals, but not propane. I shall not bother responding to the questionably relevant unflattering comments regarding my country's contribution. Meanwhile thanks for in effect confirming that everything the media have been telling us about the purpose of the mission being to find life on Mars would seem to be hot air that is misleading the public. As for where the blame may or may not lie for this apparent misleading, that is probably not a question that can be usefully discussed here, so I'll leave it at that. Cheers, Tlhslobus (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

ENGVAR

I've adjusted the article to British English, rather than a mixture of spelling systems. The UK is a member of ESA so I think WP:MOSTIES applies. --John (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2019

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: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

---

ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter → Trace Gas Orbiter – Since ExoMars is the programme name and Trace Gas Orbiter is the name of the spacecraft itself, it stands to reason that since there isn't any other spacecraft named Trace Gas Orbiter, there is no need to disambiguate with the programme name. Even if it is occasionally referred to as the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter in ESA media, it would be concise per guidelines on Wikipedia to simply refer it to as the Trace Gas Orbiter, as the majority of the article's reference to the spacecraft name already does. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Trivially more concise and unambiguous; The resulting redirect will of course cover searches, links etc for the existing name. The target history (below) suggests several previous bold moves, hopefully this will finally bring some stability. Andrewa (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Target history

11:53, 4 June 2011‎ EmausBot talk contribs block‎ m  39 bytes +3‎  Bot: Fixing double redirect to ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter

10:50, 12 November 2009‎ Xqbot talk contribs block‎ m  36 bytes 0‎  Robot: Fixing double redirect to Mars Trace Gas Mission

  02:59, 10 November 2009‎ BatteryIncluded talk contribs block‎ redirect

which will be overwritten if this move goes ahead. Andrewa (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

 Note: The history was not overwritten, but rather moved; it is now available at ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)