Talk:Galileo (spacecraft)

Merge with Galileo Probe
Previously this page was too big, but now that it refers only to the spacecraft, not the mission, it would be appropriate to merge it with Galileo Probe, it would be bizarre to have two tiny articles, one referring to the orbiter part, and another to the atmospheric probe part. Tercer (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree I had a good bit of a read through, really well constructed article, two separate articles about the same thing isn't really needed. Should be merged. Govvy (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the Cassini-Huygens article is about both the orbiter and Titan lander. This article is essentially the same situation, so they should be merged again. Healpa12 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

navboxes
There are several navboxes which do not show the article title, are they relevant? If so, perhaps they should be combined, with collapsible sections. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * An artefact of the split of the article into project and spacecraft. Removed the unused navbars. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

High-gain antenna failure is not mentioned even once
I was reminded recently of the Galileo spacecraft's high-gain antenna failure to deploy, so looked at this article. Nowhere does it mention this failure. A Ctrl+F reveals nothing at all. I thought that I must've been thinking of a different spacecraft, but no, it was the Galileo spacecraft. As it turns out, all the information about this antenna failure is located on the Galileo project article. What a disgrace, an article which omits information so hard that it actually gas-lights people. BirdValiant (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I would have preferred to have a single article, but other editors judged that it was too large. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who recommended the split, and the later merge with Galileo Probe. Not only the article was too large, in my opinion, but the focus was different, on the technical details of the spacecraft itself, as opposed to the mission as a whole. Perhaps we could add a "main article" hatnote to clarify the situation? Tercer (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have fixed this particular problem so that hopefully people won't be gaslit into believing that the antenna actually deployed as designed. BirdValiant (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to find a different term to whip out when you don't like something in an article - "gaslit" - twice? Please.  Have a care, old boy, have a care.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.34 (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

GA subpage move proposal
See discussion here and comment there if interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

1802 on a par with the 8-bit 6502
1802 takes a minimum of 16 clock cycles to execute any instruction, 6502 takes 2-7 cycles to execute depending instructions. 1802 instructions are very limited, access to memory is by having the memory address pre-loaded into a register, no general purpose subroutine call/return instructions which need to be implemented via software making subroutine calls very costly.

So I do not agree that 1802 (much as I liked it) was on a par with 6502. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.147.20.2 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It is what the source says. I never worked with the 1802 but did program 6502 for a time. It did indeed have JSR/RTS instructions. Apart from access to the zero page you had to load via a register. I take your point, and have modified the text. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)