Contents

Template talk:Mars spacecraft

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Mars / Solar System This template is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles This template is supported by Mars task force. This template is supported by Solar System task force. Spaceflight This template is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles

Failures and cancelled missions[edit]

I've removed these from this template, since i don't think it is the place for them. This was intended to group together spacecraft that have actually reached Mars.. a listing of failed attempts and some cancelled missions is in Exploration of Mars. Mlm42 12:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tuvas 17:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've created a new template for these; {{Failed Mars Missions}}: -GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 22:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beagle 2[edit]

Rillian added the Beagle 2 back... I just removed it because

• The template isn't used in the Beagle 2 article
• The "Failed Mars Missions" template is
• It's still included in that template as well.

It did reach the planet, but did not complete any of its objectives. There is no conclusive evidence of a controlled landing, placing it in the same ballpark as Mars Polar Lander–is my opinion. Potatoswatter 10:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i would either remove NASA from the first line or Mars Express from the list. i think the first option is better since it would allow to include even ExoMarsorPhobos-Grunt into the table ... --PowerCS 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a better quality image (in my opinion) of Viking2-PIA00573.jpg. I stored the new version at Mars_Viking_22e169.png. I used the original 22e169.blu, 22e169.grn and 22e169.red images from the NASA Viking image archive, converted them to .png, manually removed the noise (and black stripes at the bottom), merged the three files and finally increased the brightness and contrast by 20. All this was done in Adobe Photoshop CS2. The colors look a bit different than the old one, but the colors in this picture are not adjusted in any way (unlike the NASA image). The new file is like the orginal three files also in the public domain. Please tell me what you think. Van der Hoorn 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Due to a mistake I uploaded the file without adjusted brighness and contrast at Image:22e169.png (removed). Compare it with Mars_Viking_22e169.png to notice the difference in brightness/contrast.

For a calibrated version of that image, you can see [1]. Ricnun 12:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to list probes which have not been sent to explore Mars, but simply to fly past for a gravity assist, or because it is there (examples include Dawn and Rosetta). Can these either be removed, or listed seperately. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can proposed and planned missions be considered "Goal-achieving"? Should they be removed from the template, or does its scope need to be adjusted? --W. D. Graham 21:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never understood that. Name one space mission that has no goal. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, "goal achieving" is being used in the context of "not failing completely before getting to Mars", which is confusing. Having slept on it, my preferred solution would be to reorganise the existing two templates into three new ones; this template would list only missions which have actually flown, regardless of outcome, with future missions being moved to their own template, and cancelled missions to theirs. No other spaceflight navboxes (that I am aware of) use mission outcome as an inclusion criteria, so it seems logical that this one should be brought into line. This would also eliminate the need to use strange inclusion criteria such as "goal achieving" to try and maximise the number of "real" missions that can be included, while success and failure could still be distinguished on the template itself. --W. D. Graham 07:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems useful. How about using a single template presenting the three sections you mention? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think with cancelled and proposed it would get a bit long. Perhaps we could keep cancelled separate, but include future missions in the main template. --W. D. Graham 12:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So you could start by removing the header "Goal-achieving spacecraft missions to Mars". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --W. D. Graham 19:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The failed missions are not sufficiently distinguished in this template. Italics is not enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not? --W. D. Graham 05:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• When I read an article (Curiosity rover), on a decent screen even, I did not initially notice that some entries were in italics, and some not, until I read the footer information. Even now, it takes some effort to distinguish. I'd have thought that the subject of successful missions would be separate from failed missions. I see at the top of this talk page that someone once removed the failed missions from the template, and it seems that they have returned with explanation. I think successful and failed missions should be better distinguished. Perhaps they should be in separate columns. Perhaps they should be colour coded.

  At present, I guess that entries are sorted chronologically. If chronological is important, why aren't they dated? If chonology is not important, perhaps the successful missions should be listed first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The primary purpose of the navbox is to present links for navigation, not to put each mission in full context. That is the job of an article, or a list. --W. D. Graham 17:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You don’t think there is a significant difference between a failed mission and a successful mission? Of course I am not asking for “full context”. I know about articles and lists. Why are the links either italics or regular text? If this is important, why not make it clear? If it is not important, why do it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The italics format is used in other space-related templates. But how about bold italics? Or placing the legend on top instead of the bottom? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which other templates? At Template:Saturn spacecraft, italics is used for active missions. Template:Apollo program lists failed as a separate row. I've just wandered in here lately and am expression thoughts, not thoroughly considered, but I'm thinking that if a mission is failed, then it should be denoted with "(failed)", except for cases like Mars where there are so many failures (two-thirds?) where they could be put in a separate column. Criticising Template:Apollo program, Appolos 1 & 13 were very different missions, low earth orbit and lunar landing respectively, and so I'd have put them in the associated rows, with "(failed)" appended. For this template, I'd keep the rows, and divide into columns for success/failure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this trend towards including too much information in navboxes, and just because it has been done elsewhere doesn't mean it is the best thing to do here. Defining missions as failures can be somewhat subjective; some of the missions which failed to land or enter orbit did still return useful data, and some missions did not fulfil all objectives, but still met some. It is one thing to indicate subtly which missions were not successful, it is another to use it to divide them completely. --W. D. Graham 07:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree. However, if the failures are distingusihed even subtly, then there is presumably an unambiguous criteria of failure. I would assume that it means that no data on Mars was ever returned from the mission. Do you think that this template should include utter failures (didn't even get to Mars)? If so, should they be distinguished? What is an example of a borderline failure in this template? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This template is for spacecraft; the Tesla Roadster is not a spacecraft, it is not a mission (the rocket is a demo only) it is placed in heliocentric orbit and it is going to do nothing at Mars. May find a miscellaneous template, maybe for space junk. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly agree that it's not a dedicated spacecraft for Mars observation; however humanity has launched very few things towards Mars, certainly not "space junk", so it would be odd to exclude this item. Besides, it may well be equipped with some sensors or cameras, we don't know yet. — JFG ^talk 14:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the car will flyby Mars. Although it does absolutely nothing, it will be there physically. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, should we restore the navbox entry? There's been a bit of an edit war over this today. Input from other editors would be welcome. — JFG ^talk 03:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to acknowledge that although it will certainly cross Mars' orbit, the car is an inert mass without a purpose or function. You've been around for a long time to acknowledge it is not a spacecraft (no source calls it so), and it has no "mission" (other than dead weight during launch, and a Media Stunt) so no, I'd not add it to any spacecraft template. Maybe to an artificial objects/space junk template? -BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the Roadster is neither a spacecraft nor a "mission". IMHO it does not belong to the template. Showmebeef (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]