![]() | Galileo project is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 21, 2004, December 7, 2005, December 7, 2006, and December 7, 2007. | ||||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there anyone who can explain why GalileO and not GalileI is the name? I would say that the surname is Galilei, so it is named for his first name? Why?
hi There is a nice picture of the atmospheric entry probe in "atmospheric reentry" page on wikipedia. Maybe nice to add?
The instruments aboard Galileo should be described in more detail. Information is available at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/instruments/index.html
According to "Journey Beyond Selene" by Jeffrey Kluger (1999), the low-gain bandwidth was initially 8 bits per second. A recent Slashdot 'legacy' article claimed that the bandwidth was raised to 120bps using compression methods. Also, Kluger stated that the high-gain deployment wasn't attempted until Galileo had passed Mars ... was that after the *first* flyby?
The article says "The PLS will measure particles in the energy range from 9 volts to 52 kilovolts." Energy is in joules, not volts. I presume that the author is referring to the 'electronvolt'. What do you think? Bobblewik (talk) 17:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is it worth a section on the impact of Galileo on later deep space missions by NASA? The planning of the project began in the mid-1970s but the design was frozen before the Voyager results could be fully interpreted. As a result the Jupiter atmosphere probe had less scientific interest than a probe of Europa. Arguably a consequence of Galileo was the 'faster, quicker, cheaper' NASA ethos of the 1990s.
"All the probe's electronics were powered by lithium sulfur dioxide (LiSO2) batteries which provided a nominal power output of about 580 watts with an estimated capacity of about 21 ampere-hours on arrival at Jupiter."
This is missing important information - knowing what the total power output and the amp-hour capacity was is totally useless without knowing what voltage the battery was providing.
Pictures of Jupiter! That was the major mission of Galileo... (just my opinion)
Whoa! Way too much information! Try to speak of the details in a little less complicated manner.
There is a nice picture of the atmospheric entry probe on the "atmospheric reentry" page on Wikipedia. Maybe nice to add?
I was watching a documentary last night and I think it said that Galileo has Mozart's The Magic Flute, a song by Chuck Berry, and greetings in 60 languages on board. Is this true or did I mishear it? If so, does anyone know what the Chuck Berry song is. Lastly, is it worth including in the article? Dgen 23:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This spacecraft spent 8 years in orbit of Jupiter and took no pictures of the planet ? What a waste. 65.92.244.134 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this spacecraft sent to Jupiter? It didn't even take any pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.188.210 (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back when the probe dropped into the atmosphere, a group of engineers at JPL adapted the lyrics of Tom Petty's song Free Fallin' as a sort of theme song. They used to be posted to the web, but I can't find them now. Anyone remember the site, or the lyrics? If they can be ref'ed, I'd like to add this bit to the song's article. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, there are two full sections until you encounter the first reference. THis is inadmissible. Secondly, please reformat titles such as the table of contents won't take this much space. Thirdly it has a tag placed for expanding a section. Lastly, pelase add al least the titles to each of the references. Nergaal (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"maximum of 160 bits per second" ... "total amount of data transmitted throughout the mission to about 30 gigabytes"
I tagged the above with dubious because (160 * 3600 * 24 * 365) / 8 = 630720000 bytes per year, or 630 megabytes; 30 gigabytes implies Galileo operated for over 45 years, did it? Instead, 30 gigabits is plausible, but these numbers need citations in any case. -84user (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the calculation is correct but there is one flaw in the argument; the physical data rate was about 160 bits/second but as data compression was also included in several software updates an effective data rate of ~1000 bits/second could be archieved.
This means that the annual amount of data was about 3.9 GBytes/year. Compared to the lifetime of the program (from the arrival at Jupiter till 2003) this sounds absolutely probable An detailed information can be found here: http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/95_20/gll_case_study.html
"The CDH was actively redundant, with two parallel strings running at all times" could we say the CDH module or the CDH unit? I don't think CDH by itself makes sense
"two parallel strings" -- huh? two communication channels? two processors? not getting it Feldercarb (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the atmospheric probe describes its makeup and mechanical performance well, but says nothing about (and does not point to references about) the data it returned, how the data has been interpreted, how it forced revisions of models of Jupiter. Twang (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that the RCA 1802 CPU was also used on Viking and Voyager...however, if you read the Wikipedia article about the 1802, it specifically states that this microprocessor was not used on Viking or Voyager. Either this article is mistaken, or the RCA 1802 article is flawed. Any takers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvinlusk (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text says the mission was terminated by destroying the probe purposefully, but it is not clear if there was a choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.54.206 (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was always possible to leave Galileo on orbit. But, the Jupiter system is crowded with moons and an intense magnetic field. With all those things perturbing Galileo, its very long-term future orbital behavior couldn't be reliably forecast. Leaving it dead and uncontrollable meant a risk of it eventually colliding with one of the nearby moons, which then would contaminate that moon with whatever microorganisms had gone along for the ride in a state of hibernation. Scientists would like, in the future, to explore those moons. They don't want to discover any Earth bacteria or viruses in the process, because it would introduce "noise" into a search for indigenous organisms. There's also some potential that Earth organisms could be hostile to the natives. There has been speculation about native organisms living amongst Jupiter's upper clouds; but, priorities must be set and choices made. It's presumed that the moons are more promising than Jupiter itself as far as the prospects of biology are concerned. So, into Jupiter's clouds it was to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Galileo (spacecraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Orbital parameters - reference system" infobox heading, it says Geocentric orbit. That's clearly incorrect for a probe orbiting Jupiter. Since orbiters of other planets use a Greek-rooted adjectival form (e.g. "Areocentric" for Mars, "Hermiocentric" for Mercury, "Cytherocentric" for Venus), Jovian orbiters should be "Zenocentric" and I'm changing the infobox to reflect this. Dziban303⁓talk 03:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Galileo (spacecraft). 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:
{{dead link}}
tag to http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22009/1/97-0449.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Galileo (spacecraft). 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Galileo (spacecraft). 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "human" in this sentence seems silly.
"...Galileo performed the first asteroid encounter by a human spacecraft..."
First, it's not a human-crewed spacecraft.
Second... is this seriously accounting for some known non-human spacecraft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This paper is probably worth a sentence or two in the Other science conducted by Galileo section.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/253/5027/1531
©Geni (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the article, in relation to the Gaspra imaging data, says: "The last two images were relayed back to Earth in November 1991 and June 1992". This isn't supported by the references and, frankly, seems to be untrue. Comments?Ordinary Person (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article was supposed to be the splitting of the section on the spacecraft itself, with the main article being moved to Galileo program. The move was done incorrectly, with the talk page and the history remaining here rather than on the main article. It's very easy to fix, but one needs admin rights to do it, which I don't. Tercer (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When speaking of the entire project versus the actual Galileo spacecraft, NASA refers to it as the 'Galileo mission'[2] rather than a program. In NASA terminology, 'programs' are usually something that involves multiple separate spacecrafts, such as DiscoveryorNew Frontiers. (See also: Template:NASA planetary exploration programs) Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GA toolbox |
---|
|
Reviewing |
|
Reviewer: Tercer (talk · contribs) 21:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My initial impression is rather positive. The article covers everything about the mission, is gorgeously illustrated with photos taken by Galileo, and is sourced heavily from serious books. It does seem too large, though. At 98,294 characters of readable prose, it is clearly in conflict with WP:LENGTH. Perhaps using Template:Rp would get rid of many superfluous characters, and also make the references more manageable? Or maybe it simply has too much detail? Tercer (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the meanwhile, I've reviewed the pictures. Good stuff, copyright clear. I'm just bothered by the mission patch. It's right at the top, and it's hideous. I wonder if a photo of the original patch would qualify as free? It seems so, since the original patch is NASA work. There are plenty of photos of it online, e.g. [4] [5] [6]. Tercer (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking a look at the references now. Very solid, actual published books, specialized press, and NASA itself. A problem is that several link to old websites, and are at risk of link rot. I've checked several and fixed three myself, but I'm not going to check all of them, there are literally hundreds of citations, somebody should go through with a bot. Tercer (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've also ran a search for copyvios, it's clean. Tercer (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the speed gained by the gravitational assists mentioned in section Galileo_(spacecraft)#Flybys in the sources. I find it weird because the introduction states that no speed should be gained in the second Earth encounter, by this section states that it gained 13,320 km/h. Also, it claims that the Venus encounter gave it 8,030 km/h, which is almost, but not exactly the same as the 2.2 km/s claimed in the section Galileo_(spacecraft)#Venus_encounter (which is in fact supported by the source). Tercer (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished reading the whole article. The prose is quite good, in the whole gigantic article there was a single unparseable sentence. It's direct, clear, no-nonsense. I couldn't find any WP:OR, neutrality is almost automatic given the subject, and the article is very comprehensive. It has everything one might want to know about Galileo and more. That's a problem, though. Not only the article becomes too large, but it's also full of unnecessary detail. Previously I had suggested splitting the "Spacecraft" section into its own article, as it has the most technical detail of narrow interest, but that's not enough; the whole article needs some careful pruning. Tercer (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consideration was given to using the USAF's Titan IV launch system with its Centaur G Prime upper stage.[61] This was retained as a backup for a time, but in November 1988 the USAF informed NASA that it could not provide a Titan IV in time for the May 1991 launch opportunity, owing to the backlog of high priority Department of Defense missions.[62]Again, who cares? It didn't happen!
Unfortunately, three hours into the flyby, the tracking station at Goldstone had to be shut down due to high winds.. Who cares?
A final discovery occurred during the last two orbits of the mission. When the spacecraft passed the orbit of Amalthea, the star scanner detected unexpected flashes of light that were reflections from seven to nine moonlets. None of the individual moonlets were reliably sighted twice, so no orbits were determined. It is believed that they were most likely debris ejected from Amalthea and form a tenuous, and perhaps temporary, ring.and the following section Star Scanner.
Good Article review progress box
|
So, the top of the article contains multiple links to different related pages, and now I think it's likely that a second page named "Galileo Project" should be created, for the Galileo Project started by Avi Loeb to look for evidence of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Perhaps this article should be renamed something like "Galileo Project (Jupiter Mission)", and the other can be called "Galileo Project (UAP investigation)"?
Link to the new Galileo Project: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo
--118.208.65.116 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the launch says that
> Galileo would later also study this.
The previous sentence gives no context as to what "this" is referring to. Perhaps sentences got re-ordered in the history and need to be put back in the right order? Or should this sentence be removed entirely?
The first paragraph of the the section on Io states several facts about Io. It is unclear which fact about Io were discovered by Galileo and which were known prior. If these facts about Io (e.g. Io's size, the orbital resonance, the frictional forces which create lava flows) were discovered by Galileo, then perhaps it should be stated explicitly.
If not (i.e. if these facts were known prior to the Galileo mission), then maybe they don't have their place in this article? If these facts were known prior to the Galileo mission but are relevant for the rest of the paragraph, it should definitively be made explicit that they were not discovered by Galileo.
Why does this use the term "unmanned" instead of "robotic"? NASA's style guide has recommended against using "manned"/"unmanned" since 2004. 24.59.58.64 (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to do some clean up of the GA subpages associated with this article and with Galileo (spacecraft). I understand that the pages came from a content split, but I think the names are out of sync with the pages they are considered to be reviews of. The subpages are:
The first one was before the content split. I think it's up to the editors of this page to decide whether that review is more suitably associated with this page or the other one, but if it's here I think it should have the right name. Assuming it should be here, I propose to do the following moves:
I would then make sure article_history on each talk page reflects the correct links in each case. Any comments before I make the moves? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
During the GA review process, the article was split into two. The pages were later improperly swapped around by cutting and pasting instead of moving, thus trashing the article histories. So sure, go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]