Talk:Mars Science Laboratory/Archive 2

Maybe someone should add the green diamond to the landing picture
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia15981.html 60.241.171.231 (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Mission duration
In this edit, an editor deleted the current anticipated mission duration, using the justification of "Believes, spculation and hopes = WP:CRYSTAL". This deletion and justification is incorrect for three critical reasons:

A) The statement by a primary NASA mission manager in the NASA press conference after landing about the expected length of rover life being four years is no more WP:CRYSTAL than the earlier statement that it would last for two years. Particularly because that "two years" was actually a statement about funding, not about Curiosity lifetime.

B) NASA intentionally announces short equipment lifespan, so that if there is an early project failure, they will not be criticized. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It not a party to an organization's "spin control" -- no matter how well-intended that organization's goals are.

C) There is a confusion caused by NASA -- which is also an encyclopedia's responsiblity to be specific about -- between the likely, expected duration of a mission, and NASA's public statement about it. The public statement is "officialese". That is, a NASA employee is barred from commiting public resources that have not been officially allocated. Imagine what heat the Voyager 2 spacecraft management would have taken by announcing "We plan this project to run for 35 years and that's the way we designed it". Again, it is not an encyclopedia's primary job to describe the amount of funding that has already been committed. It IS our job to note that the NASA engineers designed Voyager 2 to last as long as possible, within budget, and that they knew very well the equipment lifespan would go far beyond the committed funding.

So when a NASA manager makes a public statement that Curiosity was tested to last four years, and that is his expectation for how long Curiosity operations will last at a minimum, that's exactly what we should report. (I was hoping that someone would add the manager's name, I couldn't get it in the replays.)

Notice the official, words on JPL's page that Curiosity's "prime mission" is one Martian year. Wikipedia should use the words "prime mission", and explain that it's a funding concept. It might be helpful in a separate article to explain what "prime mission" means. Specifically, that NASA may have no intention of changing anything in operations if the mission is successful and is still producing good science.

There's also a fourth more trivial group of problems, which is that the mission duration is not directly related to "Martian years". Curiosity is powered independently of solar radiation, and has lights. So unlike previous rovers, it does not need to completely stop in the Martian winter. For article purposes, it would be preferable to use Earth years, which will be familiar to most readers. Also, not to belabor this, the URL given is to a generic page, the actual page is http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/overview/. Wikipedia needs to be more precise than just repeating inexact soundbites on Web pages. It may be difficult to track down the exact details of project funding, and of actual expected equipment lifespan, but that's what we should be writing. Leptus Froggi (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Another mission manager has an "anticipated mission duration" of 10 years. Should we begin a table about mission managers' speculations? Even if invoked by a NASA employee, it is a speculation and a WP:CRYSTAL ball.  If what you want to write is that the hardware was tested for a minimum of 4 years service, then please write that. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was trying to avoid the impression of attacking NASA in a significant way. But in this presentation of the "mission duration", NASA has never been completely honest with the public. To be fair, that's because some parts of the public are willing to criticize NASA for things that the public doesn't understand, and that are "non-issues". Among researchers and scientists, there can be a strong disinterest or even a distaste for "public relations". Scientists, more than, say marketing managers, like to imagine the importance of their work is unbiased science, and stands on its own merit, without embellishment.


 * That said, in the early days of US spaceflight they were pushing the edge with materials and processes that had only been around for a few years. In situations such as that, a simple solution is to "overbuild". That is, if you aren't sure a tube will withstand 10 psi in use, then replace it with one that withstands 100 psi. And that makes very good sense. But as a welcome side effect, it also means that most of the time the tube will last far longer than needed for the "prime mission". NASA then took these overbuilt missions and presented them to the public as evidence of how well they'd built. (As opposed to the more negative spin, which is that they'd wasted money buying quality that ultimately wouldn't be needed. This is not a hypothetical situation, even now. Notice that one of the leads in the first Curiosity news conference after landing apologized to a friend that he'd forced the redesign that left so much remaining fuel in the final descent.)


 * It's easy to imagine what a difficult (and unwelcome) dilemma this puts NASA scientists, engineers and managers into. They don't want to lie to the public, but nor do they want their careers to end when some highly anticipated project fails due to skimping. (Imagine what would have happened if Curiosity had crash-landed!) But there's a tempatation for managers, knowing that equipment will be overbuilt, to hide the true lifetime project cost by labeling in the initial operative phase as the "prime mission". It's a game, because the advocates know it's very unlikely a successful, operational mission will be halted. To the public, NASA says Curiosity costs some $2.5 billion. But in a sense, that's an outright lie. NASA built Curiosity, and tested Curiosity, to last four years. How much an "extended mission" costs varies. In many cases, it's a great deal, compared to the original mission! In others, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, knowing what we know now of the limited life of the Space Shuttles, it could be argued that fixing it was a grave mistake (perhaps a fatal mistake, in a literal sense). But none of this, either, escapes NASA managers, who toward the end of a "prime mission" are well-prepared to defend (and to attack) the extended mission budget. So it's something of an insider's game, but presenting "prime mission" cost now, after landing, simply does not represent the true cost of the project. Sometimes, as with Voyager 2's extended mission --the cost is trivial. It's mostly a few people in small rooms someplace, with assigned duties in addition to keeping in touch with Voyager. Even if California started sliding into the ocean, it's hard to imagine that many people would argue closing down that project. Curiosity isn't as expensive as Hubble Space Telescope repairs, but neither is it insignificant. Just look at the number of people in the front room of the control center. Then consider there are many others who are behind-the-scenes, off-shift, etc. Extending Curiosity from 2 to 4 years operations probably means dozens of man-years of quite-well-paid civil servant salary. Given overheads, etc., that might mean $100,000,000. And indeed, that's trivial compared to the existing investment (a fact NASA and JPL managers will not have missed.) Hence the confident statement at the first news conference after landing. They've got their funding for the extended mission "in the bag", now, and they know it.


 * But Wikipedia needs to tell the truth as best we know it. The truth is that if it landed successfully, NASA never expected Curiosity to stop after 2 years. Maybe here economically that makes sense. But that doesn't mean it made sense for the Hubble Space Telescope. Or for other NASA projects. Wikipedia needs to report actual expected lifespan, and not a funding concept "prime mission", which is nebulous and misleading to many readers, and which does not have its own Wiki article. (Though it jolly well should!) Unless Wikipedia articles now are going to have detailed analysis of cost phases of programs, "prime mission" should be always be qualified by indicating the additional expected costs, as they are known. In this case, 2 additional years of operation and analysis. Leptus Froggi (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just created article "Prime mission". Leptus Froggi (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

NASA press conference on Aug 14
MEDIA ADVISORY : M12-151 NASA Hosts Teleconference About Curiosity Rover Progress WASHINGTON -- NASA will host a media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT (10 a.m. PDT), Aug. 14, to provide a status update on the Curiosity rover's mission to Mars' Gale Crater.
 * Seems this Teleconference News Briefing/Status Update may be Live Streaming "AUDIO-Only" => Click Here For TBA-Link To Site - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Brief Followup - and if interested - Audio Link is now noted and "ON" (so-to-speak) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You are doing such a great job with keeping everything current! You rock!  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  04:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Terminology
The article currently has as part of a caption on a diagram "3- Descent stage (Sky crane)". I don't think that is quite right, as that would imply that the "descent stage" = "sky crane" The descent stage is clearly 100% (all) of the stage that is still descending after it is released from the backshell and parachute. However, the sky crane system is only one part of the descent stage, other parts being rocket engines; propellant tanks; guidance navigation and control (GNC) system; uplink communications system, structural frame, etc. But maybe I'm missing something here. What do others think? N2e (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Info on people
Need information about who the key/senior people are, some of already have Wikipedia articles. I've created a paragraph about the news conference with the 6 senior members but it's not enough, if anyone has further information on the people. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Mars vs. Mars' vs. Mars's: the use of possessives
There are multiple forms of the word Mars in the possessive form being used within the article. Here is a quick refresher from the Wikipedia Manual of Style: MOS:POSS.

Traditionally, one might use Mars' when denoting a possessive form of a noun which ends with an "s". However, the verbal pronunciation of "Mars" can seem to end with a "z" sound, which then places it in the category of an exception to the possessives rules. If a possessive noun ends with an "s" which, when pronounced, makes a "z" sound, the form, Mars's might be used, even though some people might find that word awkward. The best solution for consistency within the article, as various editors continue to contribute, would seem to be to skip the use of inanimate possessive nouns altogether, by rephrasing the sentence to include, of Mars.


 * Mars' equator = commonly viewed as correct


 * Mars's equator = technically correct for verbal pronunciation, but less desirable in written form


 * The equator of Mars (the avoidance of inanimate possessive nouns) = most desirable in both verbal and written form

While this isn't quite as important as other aspects of the article, it is distracting to see multiple variations used, so anyway, there it is for future reference.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The correct form would be "Mars's", since the lonely apostrophe only applies to plurals. Singular nouns ending in "s" get an apostrophe s. The balls belonging to the dogs of Mr Jones are "Mr Jones's dogs' balls". Unless of course Mr Jones is a butcher, in which case they are Mr Jones's dog's' ball's.82.71.30.178 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds suspiciously like something an English teacher of mine might have said to help students remember. However, this is the standard, copied from WP:POSS, and no I didn't add the Mars example, it was already there. ;0)  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  07:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For the possessive of singular nouns ending with just one s (sounded as /s/ or /z/), there are three practices:
 * Add 's: James's house, Sam Hodges's son, Jan Hus's life, Vilnius's location, Brahms's music, Dickens's novels, Morris's works, the bus's old route.
 * Add just an apostrophe: James' house, Sam Hodges' son, Jan Hus' life, Vilnius' location, Brahms' music, Dickens' novels, Morris' works, the bus' old route.
 * Add either 's or just an apostrophe, according to how the possessive is pronounced:
 * Add only an apostrophe if the possessive is pronounced the same way as the non-possessive name: Sam Hodges' son, Moses' leadership;
 * Add 's if the possessive has an additional /ɪz/ at the end: Jan Hus's life, Morris's works.
 * Some possessives have two possible pronunciations: James's house or James' house, Brahms's music or Brahms' music, Vilnius's location or Vilnius' location, Dickens's novels or Dickens' novels.


 * Apply just one of these three practices consistently within an article. If the third practice is used and there is disagreement over the pronunciation of a possessive, the choice should be discussed and then that possessive adopted consistently in an article. (Possessives of certain classical and biblical names have traditional pronunciations that may be deemed to take precedence: Jesus' answer and Xerxes' expeditions, but Zeus's anger; and in some cases—particularly possessives of inanimate objects—rewording may be an option: the location of Vilnius, the old bus route, the moons of Mars.)
 * According to Eats, Shoots & Leaves, the case of the possessive of a singular noun ending in s is not completely settled, with -s' and -s's both having adherents. In accordance with the third option above, I'd go with Mars's.  FWIW, google gets 980,000 hits on "Mars's"; owing to its inability to search for punctuation I don't have a count for "Mars'". 71.41.210.146 (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I can find both forms on the NASA web site.
 * Mars's: ASK magazine, Spring 2009
 * Mars': MSL objectives, MSL overview
 * Apparently, the U.S. GPO style guide used to recommend Mars's, but now recommends Mars'. Here's a UK discussion of the subject.  This recommends Mars's.
 * 71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All of that is great information, and I will freely admit that there seems to be some discussion still to be had among the general populace, and personal preference. On Wikipedia it is best to use the Wikipedia style guide, which is referenced above. The "best practice" is to avoid the use of possessive forms of inanimate objects. That way, there is no chance for using multiple forms in the same article, based on preference. Also, luckily for everyone, the punctuation is irrelevant to search results on Wikipedia. Cheers.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  01:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User Feedback for MSL and Curiosity Rover articles
As a normal practice, I view the feedback left by users on the articles on Wikipedia. I thought I would copy some of the more recent comments, for discussion. I did not copy the user's IP addresses, for privacy reasons.


 * 2 days ago: A lot of info on how Curiosity communicates with Earth. No info on how Earth communicates with Curiosity. Does it do so directly to rover or through various Mars orbiters?
 * ✅ It really is in there: Curiosity is equipped with significant telecommunication redundancy by several means – an X band transmitter and receiver that can communicate directly with Earth, and a UHFElectra-Lite software-defined radio for communicating with Mars orbiters. I'm going to mark this as resolved, but will clarify for user.


 * 4 days ago: I was looking for scientific data regarding the skycrane hover tests. Surely the rockets themselves were tested at some point, surely hovering was acheived with supreme accuracy here on earth. And yet, I can find no information on the hover test whatsoever. I have been using internet search engines since well before google existed and I can find no evidence that skycrane testing was carried out at all, let alone simple static rocket tests for the vehicle.

I'm not expert enough to address the second issue, although I will research information on the first, but no promises as to timeframe. If you have this information readily available, you are welcome to beat me to the punch. Cheers.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I did some online searches some time ago. All I could gather is that NASA is re-using what they KNOW worked in the past, so they perfected the landing rockets used on the Viking landers & Phoenix. Plus they are throatable now. I believe that the lack of online information on their tests may mean that it is kept confidential from "competing" nations. Adding: I just remembered that during one of the recent press conferences, one of the mission managers mentioned that "parts of the landing" were tested only with computer models, as it is impossible to duplicate a Mars landing on Earth. I think that may include the hovering tests. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Every piece completes the puzzle. I looked at the communication section, and I'm not sure I entirely agree with the feedback, at least as the section exists now. I think it may be a question of previous phrasing. Perhaps the wording can just be adjusted. I'm still digging though...  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  05:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Do we have the information on the speed of the spacecraft? The question was posted on the Curiosity rover article, but would seem to apply more to the MSL spacecraft itself. I did re-skim the article to make sure it wasn't added, but I don't see it on either article. The potential speed of the rover itself is mentioned.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  07:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Landing site selection
There is a substantive section in the MSL article entitled Landing site selection. I'm thinking that, with the emphasis on the planetary science and surface geology, that this section might better fit in the Curiosity rover article than here, in the spaceflight/spacecraft article. However, of course one key reason that the Gale Crater landing location on the small Aeolis Palus plain could be achieved this time, whereas it could not on prior missions, was better the much more advanced EDL technology on the MSL spacecraft than on previous Mars rover missions. (Gale Crater was a candidate location for the earlier Spirit and Opportunity rovers, but the requisite technology for the small landing ellipse was not possible with that former generation of EDL technology, so they might very well have missed the plain inside the crater.)

So, what do others think? Leave it here? Or better in the rover/planetary science article? Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Stay. Since the MSL/rover article split, the agreed and intended strategy is to place the science results/observations in the Curiosity article. The site selection must stay here because it had to do with the strategic delivery by the MSL spacecraft for the rover to begin its scientific operations in an optimum site. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it here The basic split is pre-landing/post-landing, or getting-rover-to-Mars/roving-on-Mars. The site selection was done pre-landing, as part of the getting-the-rover-to-Mars phase, so it belongs here.  The post-landing article will obviously start out smaller, but will grow tremendously, so it's important to minimize clutter to start. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and condense - The selection process would seem to have been completed before the flight, as part of the general mission planning. But again, I'm not sure the same level of detail needs to be presented. We wouldn't need identical content in both the MSL and Curiosity articles?  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Scope of article?
Following the split on 6 Aug 2012, following consensus archived in the discussion above, this article is clearly about the MSL spacecraft and the MSL spaceflight mission, while the new article, Curiosity rover is about the robotic Mars rover and the planetary science mission. That much appears pretty clear.

But based on references to this article, both here in the MSL article and in other articles, and also on how this article is referred to in countless other Wikipedia articles, it MAY be the case that THIS article (Mars Science Laboratory) COULD be about three or four things, rather than the two mentioned in the previous paragraph. Thus, the scope could include any or all of:
 * 1. the MSL spacecraft: which would include all aspects of the craft, from the launch vehicle to the cruise stage, to the descent stage (including the backshell, supersonic parachute, heat shield, and skycrane system)
 * 2. the MSL spaceflight mission: the launch, the transit to Mars, and the entry, descent and landing (EDL) events
 * 3. the overall Mars Science Laboratory mission, including the spaceflight, all components (spacecraft and rover), and all science results
 * 4. the scientific results of the Martian planetary surface mission.

I think it is worth a discussion of article scope, which—once it is finished—may lead to some ideas about how to better organize this article. I'll put my opinion in below, but am hopeful that others will discuss ways to clarify and clean up the content (and then, only later, the organization) of the article. First, what is the scope of this article? Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Limit the article scope to topics 1, 2, and 3 — I believe the article, today, is necessarily about the first three of those subjects. I think no. 4 is adequately handled, for now, in the Curiosity rover article, although I believe that one day, there may be sufficient scientific results to warrant a separate article for no. 4.  Someday, if the MSL overall mission is sufficiently noteworthy, it may be that a separate article for the overall MSL mission is also indicated.  But I don't believe that day is today.  N2e (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Limit the article scope to topics 1, and 2 - The MSL article is and should remain mostly about the MSL spacecraft and its flight. One of the main reasons for the split was to include the generalities of the (future) planetary science findings by the rover in the rover page. As time passes, a rover mission timeline of notable events may be useful in the rover page. That is my perception at the moment.  BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do agree we need at least a Scientific information from the Mars Science Laboratory (+mission?), to parallel the Scientific information from the Mars Exploration Rover mission. I think creating this article now would allow for the placement of more of the images, which are of course scientific information. I would go ahead and create it, but i dont want to just create a single sentence stub with images, just to be the creator. I think it would require a bit of group effort, which on this subject im not that versed in editing. I am open to the other splits as well, but i think we need a place right now to put results in.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, such article would be void of data. I'd say we wait at least one month so we actually have relevant information to speak of. My 2 cents. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm agnostic on "split now" or "split later" for the Science Data article. I'll just make the observation that:  In the emergent spontaneous order of the Wikiverse, a failure to do a bit of planning—with perhaps a draft effort that several editors work on in a sandbox area—virtually ensures that the article WILL be created as a stub in a much rougher form, and once that (even very poor quality) stub is created, the article will withstand any attempts at deletion because the science data is, in fact, coming in daily.
 * So my take, if editors are interested in the topic, best to set up a sandbox and start the early draft effort. (probably should move this discussion to a new Section on the MSL Talk page to get more visibility.)  Cheers.  17:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Limit the article scope to topics 1, and 2 - Yes, at the moment, this seems best for the MSL article - we may have to wait for further developments to have a clearer idea about the Curiosity Rover article - and any future directions and/or articles I would think - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Focus on topics 1 and 2, and summarize topics 3 and 4. The "mission" includes the rover: it is the Mars Science Laboratory mission. The Mars Science Laboratory is aboard the rover. If that's the case, the findings of the rover, including the scientific results should be documented as well, but most likely not in the same detail as the rover. Just my two cents.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  03:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It would appear we have a consensus that the scope of the article is item nos. 1 and 2, with possibly some license to describe topic no. 3 until some other mission overview article is created. So the scope is:
 * 1. the MSL spacecraft: which includes all aspects of the craft, from the launch vehicle to the cruise stage, to the descent stage (including the backshell, supersonic parachute, heat shield, and skycrane system)
 * 2. the MSL spaceflight mission: the launch, the transit to Mars, and the entry, descent and landing (EDL) events

Item 3, which did not receive a strong consensus but may legitimately be a part of the scope as the article is linked across many Wikipedia articles today (19 Aug 2012). Since it did not receive a strong consensus, perhaps someone will want to clean up the article prose on this point.
 * 3. the overall Mars Science Laboratory mission, including the spaceflight, all components (spacecraft and rover), and all science results.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I did a bit of reorganization of the article to better clarify the encyclopedic description of the spacecraft as a distinct topic from the spaceflight (launch; transit to Mars; and entry, descent and landing (EDL)). There is probably a bit more to do in thinking about which MSL events fit in the History section vs. which might better fit in the several descriptive sections for the spaceflight lower down in the article.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Info on cruise stage desired
I am interested in the cruise stage configuration, and what happened to those components. But that merely leads to questions about the earth escape stages. Love you guys for finding all the scattered bits of detail and organizing it.... Mulp (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A diagram of the cruise stage is already in the article, taken from and . The cruise stage surely burned upon entry in the Martian atmosphere. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Stay tuned, Mulp. Once the discussion is complete in the section (above) entitled "Scope of article?", I'll probably start a discussion on article organization.  Since the consensus seems to be that spaceflight mission and spacecraft are definitely in-scope, it may eventually make sense to have a subsection in a Spacecraft section that might describe the cruise stage in whatever detail is appropriate.  N2e (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is now some level of detail on the cruise stage, and the upper stage of the launch vehicle that accelerated and pointed the cruise stage on its transit to Mars. N2e (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the MSL cruise stage?
What was the final outcome/destination of the MSL cruise stage after it released the atmospheric entry stage (the ballistic backshell/heatshield/descent stage/rover) for EDL.

If I read the sources correctly, the despin and release occurred approximately 1 minute before entry interface into the Martian atmosphere. Did it enter the atmosphere and crash on Mars? Did it use its RCS system to change trajectory and avoid atmospheric entry? If so is it in orbit around Mars? Or did it glance off the atmosphere using RCS thrusters and continue in a Heliocentric orbit similar to what it was on for the Mars transit part of the mission? Would like to find a source to improve the article on this important piece of the spacecraft. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Like I said above, it burned in the atmosphere:
 * "Racing toward Mars, 10 minutes before reaching the atmosphere, the cruise stage ejects and then burns up in the atmosphere." (click play).


 * ''The primary function of the Cruise stage is to interface to the Launch Vehicle, and provide the structural load path to the Entry Vehicle, during the launch phase of the mission and then to provide power, telecommunications, navigation and propulsion for the 9 month journey from Earth to Mars, and lastly to orient the Entry Vehicle for Mars Atmospheric entry before burning up in the Mars atmosphere.
 * The cruise stage would deliver the EDL system to Mars, release the system prior to entry, and then divert into a trajectory for burn-up in the atmosphere.


 * Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That is very helpful info. Thanks for the good summaries/quotations, and especially for the sources.  N2e (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Bradbury Landing
Short question. Is it good idea to create new article about Bradbury Landing? As a geographic location on Mars. Nightfall87 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is already mentioned in Gale (crater) and Aeolis Palus. An individual article would be a one-liner. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Split article
Few things about this article:

1. Is very likely that there will be many more images to come that can be added to Wikipedia because of the

public domain nature of the images created by NASA

2. This article will very likely grow to have hundreds if not thousands of images. Is there a way to split this article so it can have different sections that will make it easier to navigate and also much light on users with browsers and computers with sub average performance?

Thanks -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 06:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The potential exists, but I am mostly certain that none of the editors who are engaged in maintaining the article will allow more images than are generally advised, based upon the Wikipedia guidelines for image use and page size. You can achieve the results you are looking for by using the entry for the mobile Wikipedia site, which you may navigate by sections, without all images loading upon entry. You may also disable the display of images. For this article, you can try it out here: Mars Science Laboratory Mobile view. For other articles on Wikipedia, you can scroll down to the very bottom of the page quickly, bypassing the loading of images, and click on the link "mobile view" in the footer. Cheers.  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  07:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As the mission progresses, most RELEVANT images may be incorporated into the Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission....after its issues are resolved. Having said that, Wikipedia is not an image repository and I seriously doubt you will be able to incorporate "hundreds if not thousands" of images into it. Besides, the most important information will be of chemical/environmental nature. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Last night when I checked this article out it was a mess, it turned out a user was editing it with TW, then user BatteryIncluded says that this article was split into 3 other articles, one of them being the timeline, I checked that out too and that article holds a big number of images (which is expected, especially with probably inexperienced and excited users willing to put whatever picture JPL publishes), that article seems to me is disorganized and a hot mess. I suggest you guys to take a look at that article and maybe we can improve it by following the formatting and style of similar articles (namely timeline of Opportunity rover for instance). So the article can be 1. Not too heavy for browsers with difficulty dealing with many images at once, 2. Easy to read. 3. Better structured. Thanks -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 17:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Camilo: sounds like you should start that discussion on the Timeline ... Talk page, not this Talk page.


 * It will be best if we can keep the discussion on this page—Talk:Mars Science Laboratory—to be discussions related to this article. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You must have seen the articles just after being vandalized (once again) by user:Havebased123 and his multiple anonymous ISPs. Anyway, the Timeline of the Mars Science Laboratory mission was just reborn. Please check it out and feel free to discuss it there and do your magic, amigo. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mars transfer orbit — confusion about speed
The given number 36,210 km/h is less than the Earth escape speed ([]). The source says "the Centaur re-ignited as planned for a final eight-minute burn, accelerating the spacecraft to an Earth-escape velocity of 22,500 mph" without conversion to km/h, but the article Miles per hour says that "Nautical and aeronautical applications, however, favour the knot as a common unit of speed: one knot is one nautical mile per hour." 22,500 nautical miles per hour (41,670 km/h or 11.575 km/s) looks more suitable for Mars transfer orbit speed. Should this be corrected in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.7.81 (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Editors can provide a correction as long as they can cite a published reliable source to the specific point, as per the MOS; otherwise such changes would constitute original research. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Although the USA aeronautic industry favors the use of "nautical" miles and knots, the source and the general public relate to common units of measure, such as miles per hour and km/h. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The source cited in the article has no km/h, it has 'Earth-escape velocity of 22,500 mph', but 22,500 statute miles per hour is significantly less than the Earth-escape velocity. 22,500 nautical miles per hour (knots) is enough for the inter-planetary cruise speed. The calculation from [] suggests that the departure speed was 11.490km/s, or 22,335 knots, but 25,708 statute miles per hour. May be it would be better just to remove "36,210 km/h", which doesn't exist in the source and causes the confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.124.157.26 (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct: the source cited in that section of the article merely states "...accelerating the spacecraft to an Earth-escape velocity of 22,500 mph. ..."  There is nothing in that article on Spaceflight Now to indicate that the speed is not in miles, but is is "knots" or "nautical miles per hour."  Moreover, in spaceflight articles, which have left the terrestrial frame of reference for which knots and nautical miles were first use, we generally see only SI units (km/h, km/s, m/s, etc.) used, or we see the conventional English units of miles per hour, feet per second, etc.


 * At the end of the day, without a source that has a different number, it is exactly correct for this Wikipedia article, which is written for an international audience, to have both km/h (and mph, parenthetically) given, and to utilize the number from the cited source. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation link not working
I honestly don't know why the page act up on me. The citation link I added to Air&SpaceSmithosian http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/WORLDS-MSL.html Do not work, if any one want make the adjustment so it show and become working it would be nice. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.8.16 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Martian-Sunset-O-de-Goursac-Curiosity-2013.jpg image removed from article?
@Nikthestunned - seems you may have recently removed the File:Martian-Sunset-O-de-Goursac-Curiosity-2013.jpg image from the Mars Science Laboratory article as "against image policy" - if possible, what is the *specific* image policy at issue? - Thanks in advance for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and restored the image, after removing the credit line. The title in the image should not be removed, as it is a part of the image itself. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @Huntster - Thank you *very much* for your help with the image - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed it due to the aptly named WP:WATERMARK, which states "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use" - the current version, with just the title, is OK. I would say, however, that I don't recall seeing any other photographic image with an in-built title... Not to say it's against any policy (that I can find), but does look wrong to me .  Nik the  stunned  08:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Nik, but how does it look wrong? I take your word for it, of course, but I genuinely don't understand. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopaedic article about an in-depth scientific topic, and right at the end we appear to have the work of an unconnected artist who has modified the images released by NASA - where is the value in including it?
 * It "looks" wrong as I've never seen this elsewhere - at least not in a well developed article. The picture itself is 100% fine - why have the title and border? What encyclopaedic value do these add? There is no reason, other than that the artist who made it wanted them there - they add no value, only confusion to some (like me). (Incidentally, if I took one of my images and added a 500px border & title for no reason, I guarantee it would be reverted!)  Nik the  stunned  11:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments - for my part (fwiw & atm) I'm flexible with this - removing the title/border (or not) is *entirely* ok with me - in any case - thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nik, I appreciate the reply. I understand the sentiment, and frankly don't care all that much about the issue. I would like to see some additional opinions before removing it, though. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Requirement to avoid icy areas?
This article refers to a requirement that the rover avoid any landing site with ice near the surface. The story makes it sound like this is a contamination issue: we're scared to to touch the ice for fear of embedding Earth microbes into it. OK, maybe so. But if there's a ban on studying the ice, that seems important. I can't find anything else that specifically addresses this. Is there another reason (political, engineering) we avoided areas with ice? I've never heard anything about it. Can anyone find sources that detail why this decision was made? Are the coming rovers allowed to study Martian ice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.231.225 (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A couple of errors?
First, article says the parachute descent starts at 578 m/s, but its own reference [136] gives this figure as 470 m/s. Is it an error?

Second, article says parachute is 16 m in diameter, but the paper my NASA's team says it's 21.5 m. The paper says it was scaled up from the 16 m Viking parachute, so maybe someone misread. http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/41708/1/08-0255.pdf

I'm no expert so I wouldn't want to make these changes myself, but I'm sure someone else can clarify. RobertCWebb (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, if sourced. Read the entire text to avoid inconsistencies. Best regards.PauloMSimoes (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

NASA-TV/ustream (12/8/2014@12noon/et/usa) - Curiosity Rover - Observations.
NASA-TV/ustream (Monday, December 8, 2014@12noon/et/usa) - Panel of experts to discuss the latest observations of the Curiosity Rover - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * FOLLOWUP - Space Experts Discuss the Curiosity Rover and Latest Observations (a/o December 8, 2014) - Archived Discussion =>  Audio (62:03) and Visuals - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mars Science Laboratory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080918035844/http://www.baesystems.com///BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_pdf_eis_2008-08-1.pdf to http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_pdf_eis_2008-08-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

retropropulsion
All of the links to everything about "supersonic retro-propulsion" seem like confusing circular facades. We need an actual explanation of what "retropropulsion" is. A maze of redirects is not sufficient.-71.174.176.65 (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I added an intralink to retrorockets for you to read. Unlike the Moon, Mars has an atmosphere that makes use of retrorockets a complex event. As to why it is destabilizing: imagine descending at supersonic speed through the rocket exhaust plumes. I think the Red Dragon lander team will place their retrorockets on the sides of the lander, so the plumes will be in minimum contact with the heat shield. Also the Red Dragon will have an airfoil with a lot of drag. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that link to retrorockets! It should probably be added to a number of articles... Even tho I have a good tech background, when I first encountered the phrase "supersonic retro-propulsion" in the news today I was imagining this was some exotic futuristic "supersonic" propulsion engine technology. Now I am instead supposing we are just discussing generic retrorockets operating in a supersonic external atmosphere context? Any article that uses any form of these phrases needs to add a few words of very basic orientation-explanation, and link to an article that actually explicitly further explains the words and concepts etc.-71.174.176.65 (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)